Hold The Mayo: Study Says DME Cant Repay Loan

[fuzzybroken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Milwaukee made that descision a long time ago, and now they wonder why there is no industry left here. We got lots of hospitals, though. At least the legions of the unemployed can have great emergency room care.

And how well is that working for us, note that St. Michaels recently announced a closing of their emergency room and a number of other services that "aren't making money..." [banghead]

[Anonymous]

Well I fail to see what all the crying over spiltr milk is about.


This is what we are talking about correct? http://www.visi.com/~mfrahm/dme/plant/dmeprb0.jpg

With the $2.5 billion going to construct the orange segment and expand a few sidings along DM&E's exiting line?


For example, If I owned a house in Rochester, and wanted to convert it into a hotel, (expanding it's volume and capacity) I'd have zoning requirements I'd have to comply with, proving there was adequate parking, fire protection, etc, and that the day to day operations were not going to cause a nusianceto the existing neighbors. There would be a hearing in which surrounding neighbors would be entitled to pitch any objections,

And the same thing seems to be happening here, just on a larger scale.

The real "hard knocks" that I see here is that the City of Rochester has a party (the Mayo Clinic) on it's side whom cannot be taken lightly and just brushed aside. That is the real fly in the ointment here isn't it? That the railroad can't just do as it darn well pleases and get away with it?

The City found itself a formidable bodyguard. That's the breaks, I guess.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fuzzybroken

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Milwaukee made that descision a long time ago, and now they wonder why there is no industry left here. We got lots of hospitals, though. At least the legions of the unemployed can have great emergency room care.

And how well is that working for us, note that St. Michaels recently announced a closing of their emergency room and a number of other services that "aren't making money..." [banghead]

perhaps even the healthcare market is saturated. Or, hospitals can't make it off of medicare patients alone. They need 'private insurance' paitents - paitents that actually pay for the full price of the services they receive.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

Well I fail to see what all the crying over spiltr milk is about.


This is what we are talking about correct? http://www.visi.com/~mfrahm/dme/plant/dmeprb0.jpg

With the $2.5 billion going to construct the orange segment and expand a few sidings along DM&E's exiting line?


For example, If I owned a house in Rochester, and wanted to convert it into a hotel, (expanding it's volume and capacity) I'd have zoning requirements I'd have to comply with, proving there was adequate parking, fire protection, etc, and that the day to day operations were not going to cause a nusianceto the existing neighbors. There would be a hearing in which surrounding neighbors would be entitled to pitch any objections,

And the same thing seems to be happening here, just on a larger scale.

The real "hard knocks" that I see here is that the City of Rochester has a party (the Mayo Clinic) on it's side whom cannot be taken lightly and just brushed aside. That is the real fly in the ointment here isn't it? That the railroad can't just do as it darn well pleases and get away with it?

The City found itself a formidable bodyguard. That's the breaks, I guess.

AntiGates - Hard to disagree with you there. It just seeems like a rather chaotic process. And there are going to be a lot of hard feelings when it is done. But, so goes politics.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

Well I fail to see what all the crying over spiltr milk is about.


This is what we are talking about correct? http://www.visi.com/~mfrahm/dme/plant/dmeprb0.jpg

With the $2.5 billion going to construct the orange segment and expand a few sidings along DM&E's exiting line?


For example, If I owned a house in Rochester, and wanted to convert it into a hotel, (expanding it's volume and capacity) I'd have zoning requirements I'd have to comply with, proving there was adequate parking, fire protection, etc, and that the day to day operations were not going to cause a nusianceto the existing neighbors. There would be a hearing in which surrounding neighbors would be entitled to pitch any objections,

And the same thing seems to be happening here, just on a larger scale.

The real "hard knocks" that I see here is that the City of Rochester has a party (the Mayo Clinic) on it's side whom cannot be taken lightly and just brushed aside. That is the real fly in the ointment here isn't it? That the railroad can't just do as it darn well pleases and get away with it?

The City found itself a formidable bodyguard. That's the breaks, I guess.

Hold on, now. DM&E isn't expanding it's ROW through town, is it? They're not adding tracks next to the Mayo, are they. All they are doing is improving the current layout that happens to abut El Clinico del pretentiouso.

That's a little bit different than turning your three bedroom home into a 50 room hotel. As far as I know, you can make all the improvements you want to your house in it's current configuration without the need for permitting, as long as you are not physically adding to the houses dimensions.

The other way to look at it is this: RIght now, DM&E could legally and concievably run 50 trains a day over they current trackage without prejudice. Yeah, it'd have to be at 10 mph and would clog all the crossings all day long, but there would be nothing the scrubs could do about it. The fact that DM&E is improving the trackage and (I presume) the operational fluidity of the tracks should be counted as a favor by DM&E to the Mayo folks and the surrounding townscape.

[wallyworld]

MichaelSol and I had an interesting ( at least to me ) exchange under the broader heading of Mergers= where I learned quite abit.

[wallyworld]

Another hold out?

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/14572965.htm

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

Well I fail to see what all the crying over spiltr milk is about.


This is what we are talking about correct? http://www.visi.com/~mfrahm/dme/plant/dmeprb0.jpg

With the $2.5 billion going to construct the orange segment and expand a few sidings along DM&E's exiting line?


For example, If I owned a house in Rochester, and wanted to convert it into a hotel, (expanding it's volume and capacity) I'd have zoning requirements I'd have to comply with, proving there was adequate parking, fire protection, etc, and that the day to day operations were not going to cause a nusianceto the existing neighbors. There would be a hearing in which surrounding neighbors would be entitled to pitch any objections,

And the same thing seems to be happening here, just on a larger scale.

The real "hard knocks" that I see here is that the City of Rochester has a party (the Mayo Clinic) on it's side whom cannot be taken lightly and just brushed aside. That is the real fly in the ointment here isn't it? That the railroad can't just do as it darn well pleases and get away with it?

The City found itself a formidable bodyguard. That's the breaks, I guess.

AntiGates - Hard to disagree with you there. It just seeems like a rather chaotic process. And there are going to be a lot of hard feelings when it is done. But, so goes politics.

Well, just playing devil's advocate, but there would be hard feelings if the railroad were allowed to do as it darn well pleased as well, no?

Just muttering out loud, but whenever you or I go out railfanning, we are looking forward to seeing trains, we focus our ambitions upon seeing as many as possible, and the prospect of 50 trains per day SOUNDS like a bonanza.

And when we are done, we go back to our remote, quiet, homes


Living lineside with 50 trains per day, I suspect would be another matter entirely.


I guess there is an opposite to a "NIMBY" that is equally self centered, where the thinking goes "since it's not in my back yard, NO ONE should object to whatever it is that I want"

Those people who's back yard it actually is, will have to end up living with whatever ends up getting done.

I bet 2 trains per hour, all day and all night, would get mighty old real quick, if one lived just a block or two from a grade crossing

[solzrules]

Just imagine the folks living by the Rochelle, Illinois diamonds! 100+trains a day! Yet somehow they seem to make it, albeit their property values aren't as high. My point is, if you decide to live next railroad tracks (you do have a choice in the matter) you should expect to deal with trains at any time. You should also expect the frequency of the trains to fluctuate with the time of day. To move in next to the railroad tracks and then decide you are going to raise hell when the railroad wants to move more trains over them is a great example of a self-centered life. I still think that the Mayo clinic is being unreasonable in this whole affair.
For them to state that an increase in train frequency will adversely affect their patients' well-being is a rather incredible statement.

Let's pretend that I really could care less about the trains or the industry or anything like that. Let's make it purely objective.

1.) Mayo argument: Increased vibrations from increased train frequency adversely affects patients and equipment.

Question: Given that there are already trains passing by there on a daily basis how is this existing condition affecting the quality of care? Do you have statistics to prove this? Is your eqipment designed so that the slightest vibration can cause a traumatic failure? Couldn't this be a design flaw? How do other hospital cope?

2.) Mayo argument: Upgrading the track structure in Rochester is not in the best interest of Rochester.

Question: Given your concerns about the transportation of hazardous materials through the city on the existing track structure, how do you justify this statement? Wouldn't an upgraded track structure make the transportation of hazardous chemicals safer?

3.) Mayo argument: The DME will be unable to repay the loan based upon a recently released study from the Rochester Coalition.

Question: A study performed at the behest of the city which historically is opposed to ANY rail upgrading what so ever (new construction in Wyoming is excluded here because it has no relevance to issues in Rochester, MN) may be called into question as a conflict of interest. Do you have additional studies that supprt your thesis? A descision based upon one source of information would be considered hap-hazard at best.

If the Mayo clinic and the city of Rochester could answer these questions with adequate proof then maybe they would have an argument. Such is not the case.

What is true is that there is a problem with capacity in the PRB. Utilities are filing lawsuits against the UP contending that they are fixing prices by restricting supply. Some are even calling for the re-regulation of railroads. Along comes a railroad willing to take an ambitious step to join the fray and compete for business on its own track. 55 of 56 communities affected by this have been able to work out a compromise (inlcuding Brookings). What is the problem? After following all of this the obvious answer is politics. Rochester (a liberal city in a liberal state) appears to have a problem allowing a railroad to haul coal to coal burning power plants, contributing to the greenhouse affect. It really is the only argument that makes sense. That is not the STATED reason for the opposition, but really it fits well with the illogical opposition being thrown up by Rochester-Mayo.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates
Living lineside with 50 trains per day, I suspect would be another matter entirely.

Those people who's back yard it actually is, will have to end up living with whatever ends up getting done.

I bet 2 trains per hour, all day and all night, would get mighty old real quick, if one lived just a block or two from a grade crossing

Quite true; however, they DID move that close to the tracks by their own choice.....
Perhaps if the RR would build the crossings such that they could be 'quiet zones' there might be less uproar.

But on the other hand, I can relate to the noise issue. Where I live (along the Farm sub of the UP), there used to be just two trains per day. Now because of the increase in the number of rock trains, there are sometimes 10 daily train movements past my house.

I have a similar issue with the Ocean Spray processing facility that is just over the tracks by my house. When I moved there (15 years ago) the only downside of the plant was when the wind was from the north, the whole neighborhood smelled like cranberries; not so bad if you like cranberries, but if you do not,,,). I knew the factory was there when I move in, so I could hardly complain. However, recently Ocean Spray has installed new equipment that is very loud when it operates (which fortunately is not that often). Do I have a right to complain? Yes, I did knowingly move near a factory, but it is no longer quite the same factory. The same could be said for the residents of Rochester that live next to the tracks.

[Anonymous]

Well, how about this: What if DM&E played the NIMBY and objected to any expansion by the Mayo Clinic in DM&E's backyard? Remember, the railroad predates the clinic. Why, bringing in even more sick people might increase the risk of a rouge virus making it's way into unsuspecting DM&E personel. After all, them ain't healthy folks inhabiting those sick rooms.

[Anonymous]

Solzrules spaketh:

{A}My point is, if you decide to live next railroad tracks (you do have a choice in the matter) you should expect to deal with trains at any time. You should also expect the frequency of the trains to fluctuate with the time of day.

{B} To move in next to the railroad tracks and then decide you are going to raise hell when the railroad wants to move more trains over them is a great example of a self-centered life.

{C} I still think that the Mayo clinic is being unreasonable in this whole affair.
For them to state that an increase in train frequency will adversely affect their patients' well-being is a rather incredible statement.



{A}. OK, fair enough, but isn't it just as fair for the person deciding to move in to make their decision based upon the observed usage of the line in question? I mean it's one thing if some guy buys a house next to a 4 track segment of the old water level route back in the 1930s What he was buying into was abundently clear. Such is not the case in the scenario at hand, the railroad is seeking to change things, and as an agent of change has to deal with the hurdles set up in front of it.

Afterall, using your very logic, is't it just as fair to say "When the railroad decided to pick a rail line through a city to upgrade, they should have fully realized that dealing with the concerns of that city's residents would be an unavoidable part of the bargain"? (the city being there first)

{B}Funny thing about that being "everybody's doing it" why be a saint and live in misery?


{C} The following is as much to address FM's post as yours, but when in battle, one works with what one has. "health concerns of the suffering" is just the kind of weepy eyed, begging for sympathy tactic that gets people's attention in this "Oprah'ized" PC society of ours.

'the poor poor suffering patients" don't you know? LOL!

Zardoz seems to understand the position I'm working from. These days It doesnt really matter how "fair" it is or not. All that matters is who can milk the most sympathy out of those standing witness.

The well being of the patients probably just looks like the most promising ammo to use, so that's the way it'sd going. (my gut feeling)

Not entirely different from the excuse CSX is trying to use that lead content of the old paint on it's rusting bridges makes the prospect of repainting them an environmental issue.

Clearly THAT is not the reason CSX has let it's bridges deteriorate, but it is the excuse they evidently think will gain their position the most sympathy, so guess what? they use it.

Same dif with the Mayo.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, how about this: What if DM&E played the NIMBY and objected to any expansion by the Mayo Clinic in DM&E's backyard? Remember, the railroad predates the clinic. Why, bringing in even more sick people might increase the risk of a rouge virus making it's way into unsuspecting DM&E personel. After all, them ain't healthy folks inhabiting those sick rooms.

Interesting tack.....throw their arguments right back at them... I love it!

Perhaps you might suggest it to someone at the DM&E. Maybe they'll name a siding in your honor. Or a station. Who knows?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, how about this: What if DM&E played the NIMBY and objected to any expansion by the Mayo Clinic in DM&E's backyard? Remember, the railroad predates the clinic. Why, bringing in even more sick people might increase the risk of a rouge virus making it's way into unsuspecting DM&E personel. After all, them ain't healthy folks inhabiting those sick rooms.

Interesting tack.....throw their arguments right back at them... I love it!

Perhaps you might suggest it to someone at the DM&E. Maybe they'll name a siding in your honor. Or a station. Who knows?

Make it a coaling tower.......right smack dab next to the Mayo!

[solzrules]

AnitGates -

I completely understand that the Mayo is using sympathy stories to solicite support. I am curious as to why they are against it in the first place. They are using their patients as ammo in a battle over a larger issue. That is why I think the reason they don't want the railroad there is because of the whole enviromental degradation thing. To me it makes sense.

As for Opra (Porka as I like to call her) I couldn't agree with you more.

A touch of humor - What if they bulldozed the Mayo with its helpless patients and put in a 80 track classification yard for all that coal and haz mat stuff? They could call it AntiGates yard. [:D]

[wallyworld]

Is there any documents or studies that conclude certain levels of noise adversely effect health or the healing process in patients? Is this a potential basis of a legal or social action? You be the judge.
"By delivering their patients and staff from decibel hell, facilities like Woodwinds and the Mayo Clinic have scored one small victory in the ongoing battle against noise pollution. Their initiative, moreover, shows that given the pervasiveness and harmful effects of noise, governments, communities, and organizations worldwide will need to be creative and aggressive in addressing what will certainly continue to be one of the 21st century's most important environmental health issues. "
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/113-1/focus.html

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Is there any documents or studies that conclude certain levels of noise adversely effect health or the healing process in patients? Is this a potential basis of a legal or social action? You be the judge.
"By delivering their patients and staff from decibel hell, facilities like Woodwinds and the Mayo Clinic have scored one small victory in the ongoing battle against noise pollution. Their initiative, moreover, shows that given the pervasiveness and harmful effects of noise, governments, communities, and organizations worldwide will need to be creative and aggressive in addressing what will certainly continue to be one of the 21st century's most important environmental health issues. "
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/113-1/focus.html

To take this one step further, did they measure the decibel level at the clinic when a train passes as close as it comes to the clinic with the locos in Run 8? Running more trains isn't going to raise the sound level, but will increase the frequency (of occurance) of the same sound level.

[solzrules]

Good question. I would almost be willing to place money on the fact that the nurse's call system and the general public address system in the hospital rooms are louder than a train passing by two blocks away. Now just think if the DME could put down welded rail like they want and get some Tier 2 engines. I betcha someone flushing the toilet in the basement would be louder.

As for the article in the link above, yeah it would be really great if we could develope a noise pollution free society. Again, this is such a far fetched idea I find it hard to believe that serious people actually think about it. There are certain logical steps one can take like ear plugs and so on, but trying to start a world wide battle against noise pollution would be kind of difficult and a tad bit idealistic to say the least. What are you going to do about Teddy bear Kennedy????[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

They could call it AntiGates yard. [:D]

LOL, Well IN THAT CASE, lets build the sucker!! [:)][:p][:p]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

As for the article in the link above, yeah it would be really great if we could develope a noise pollution free society. Again, this is such a far fetched idea I find it hard to believe that serious people actually think about it. There are certain logical steps one can take like ear plugs and so on, but trying to start a world wide battle against noise pollution would be kind of difficult and a tad bit idealistic to say the least. What are you going to do about Teddy bear Kennedy????[:D]

But that would take away most of Tim Allen's comedy.

"Big, powerful, smelly, dirty, LOUD (insert grunts here)." [:D]

[wallyworld]

Here's similar situation in terms of noise reduction where all parties work together for a resolution. It can be done. At least on the BNSF.
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006605150358

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Is there any documents or studies that conclude certain levels of noise adversely effect health or the healing process in patients? Is this a potential basis of a legal or social action? You be the judge.
"By delivering their patients and staff from decibel hell, facilities like Woodwinds and the Mayo Clinic have scored one small victory in the ongoing battle against noise pollution. Their initiative, moreover, shows that given the pervasiveness and harmful effects of noise, governments, communities, and organizations worldwide will need to be creative and aggressive in addressing what will certainly continue to be one of the 21st century's most important environmental health issues. "
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/113-1/focus.html

To take this one step further, did they measure the decibel level at the clinic when a train passes as close as it comes to the clinic with the locos in Run 8? Running more trains isn't going to raise the sound level, but will increase the frequency (of occurance) of the same sound level.

I go back to my point about an airport. The railroad isn't going to bring patients to Mayo. An airport would. Would the airport get such a concentrated fight? Methinks not. And for my money, it would be a larger noise problem than the railroad. Pollution, too.

[zardoz]

WASHINGTON — Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle said Wednesday he is backing efforts to prevent the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad from running more trains near the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Daschle, who joined the Mayo Clinic’s board of directors earlier this year, said the Sioux Falls, S.D.-based railroad should try harder to find a solution in a dispute with the clinic.

The railroad’s expansion and renovation plan includes rebuilding its 600 miles of track through South Dakota and Minnesota and building 280 miles of new line into Wyoming’s Powder River Basin coal fields.

The city of Rochester and the clinic said the expansion would mean more trains running through the city and near the hospital. Mayo officials have argued that the increased traffic and the possibility of accidents could put their patients in danger.

The railroad is being unreasonable, Daschle said.

“It just seems to me to be insensitive to the needs and concerns of arguably the finest hospital in the world to say there’s only one route and, like it or not, this is the only option we can agree to,” Daschle said. “I think there has to be more willingness to give and take and to find a win-win solution here.”

Daschle suggested the railroad could go around or under the city instead of through it.

“I don’t think the Mayo clinic is asking for too much,” he said.

Kevin Schieffer, DM&E president, disagrees. The idea of going around or under the city is “goofy” and would be difficult to pull off, he said.

“You can’t go around the city without going somewhere else,” Schieffer said.

Schieffer said the Mayo Clinic has not come to him with specific proposals for alternate routes.

“I would welcome an open dialogue with the Mayo Clinic or Senator Daschle, or anyone they want to designate, to explain what it is they are proposing,” Schieffer said. “I don’t think they have a clue what they want.”

Schieffer said the railroad project will bring more jobs to South Dakota, boost crop prices and help small communities along the line.

Daschle is not the only South Dakota politician involved with the project. Bill Janklow, a former congressman and governor, is working with a group of consultants brought in by the city of Rochester to address local concerns about the railroad.

Sen. John Thune, the Republican who defeated Daschle in 2004, is on the other side of the debate.

He inserted language into a transportation bill last summer that expanded the amount of federal money available for small railroads to borrow, helping DM&E apply for a $2.5 billion government loan. Thune had lobbied for the railroad before he was elected.

Daschle said he hasn’t spoken with Schieffer but hopes to take a more active role in the dispute.

“I want to be helpful in finding some middle ground and to help mediate this problem to the extent anyone can,” he said.

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/05/18/news/state/state02.txt

[wallyworld]

Summary:
Another big politico dog weighs in. Doublespeak. Daschle to be helpful in finding middle ground and mediate by subtly kicking DME in the pants where it will count. Mediator seeking middle ground says DME is unreasonable. Some mediation. DME doesnt get it. You cant go around the city without going somewhere else. Opposition says Go Somewhere Else. Its all goofy says DME. Guess where this will end. Note to DME-You will need all the connected allies you can find. Where are the Ulilities who decry monopoly in this dog fight? Noticably silent. Do they consider this project a well intentioned but financially shaky proposition? Theres more of a back story in this than headlines cover.

[StillGrande]

My favorite argument in this is that Senator Thune should not be allowed to argue about this because he used to be a lobbyist, but the former Senator Daschle is okay to be appointed to the Mayo Board (this year no less) and argue for the Clinic side and that is okay. It is also evidently okay for lobbyists to try to influence elected officials (including supporting their campaigns through contributions) but not to become elected officials.

The clinic argument is the same one DC is trying against CSX to get hazardous materials routed around DC and DME is giving the same responses about why they can't (including the "okay, so what population center has less valuable people we can put at risk and we will run trains through there").

[solzrules]

Ah yes.

Ladies and Gentlemen the pillar of truth, the last bastion of honesty, the sole proprietor of moral integrity-

(Drum roll please)

TOM DASCHLE!

(massive rabid applause here)

Now all of this should be taken care of in a jiffy.

I think my electric rates are going down already. [8)]

[samfp1943]

http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&tab=wl&q=Rochester%2CMn
When you look at this map of the track structure through Rochester, it looks like a couple of turns that will need to be straightened out, but road alignments could be an issue. Why not work with the City of Rochester [eminent domain] and swing South of town. or even North?. Looks like mostly farmland there. I would thionk that if this is such an issue to the community, they would be willing to pay and pay dearly to get the DM&E out of their town, Let Rochester pony up for the infrastructure move, or dig a ditch right through town same as they did in, I think it was Reno,Nv for the UP.
Also it appears to me that the City Owatona will have som real issues with increased traffic in their community.
Sam

[blhanel]

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

Why not work with the City of Rochester [eminent domain] and swing South of town. or even North?. Looks like mostly farmland there. I would thionk that if this is such an issue to the community, they would be willing to pay and pay dearly to get the DM&E out of their town, Let Rochester pony up for the infrastructure move, or dig a ditch right through town same as they did in, I think it was Reno,Nv for the UP.
Also it appears to me that the City Owatona will have som real issues with increased traffic in their community.
Sam

Actually, the area around Rochester is very hilly and populated with residential developments consisting of multi-acre lots. No matter which way they go, the DM&E is severely limited by the terrain and would wipe out quite a few residences in the process. I've mentioned it before, a ditch wouldn't be a good idea either, as it would probably put the railroad dangerously close to or below the level of the Zumbro River, which also runs through downtown Rochester. I think their best choice is to elevate the roadbed east of US 52 and turn all the downtown grade crossings into underpasses.

Owatonna may also have issues, but they don't have the clout, political or otherwise, and there are probably alot of people there that would like to see increased traffic on the railroad.

[MStLfan]

What I would like to know is this. Has the city of Rochester or the Mayo clinic ever signalled an intention to compromise like the other towns have done?
Or heve they just said no, no, no.

Are they holding out for the best deal possible?

These days there are a variety of means to counter the noise pollution etc.
I live next to a busy four track going to eight tracks mainline plus storage yard here in the southern part of Rotterdam the Netherlands.
To combat noise pollution the trackowner (a government company) builds a 6 meter high soundbarrier on the other side of the tracks.
We, on our side, are luckier as they are installing sound dampening equipment around the rails so we keep our view and heve less noise.

From a trip to Japan I remember various elevated limited access highways that had a roof (like a tunnel on stilts). You could do that with a railline.

However these are expensive measures so is this only dealing by both sides to get the best deal?
greetings,
Marc Immeker

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marcimmeker

What I would like to know is this. Has the city of Rochester or the Mayo clinic ever signalled an intention to compromise like the other towns have done?
Or heve they just said no, no, no.

Are they holding out for the best deal possible?

These days there are a variety of means to counter the noise pollution etc.
I live next to a busy four track going to eight tracks mainline plus storage yard here in the southern part of Rotterdam the Netherlands.
To combat noise pollution the trackowner (a government company) builds a 6 meter high soundbarrier on the other side of the tracks.
We, on our side, are luckier as they are installing sound dampening equipment around the rails so we keep our view and heve less noise.

From a trip to Japan I remember various elevated limited access highways that had a roof (like a tunnel on stilts). You could do that with a railline.

However these are expensive measures so is this only dealing by both sides to get the best deal?
greetings,
Marc Immeker

Marc -

There has been a lot of speculation as to what the real reasons are behind the Mayo clinic's (and the city of Rochester) refusal to come to the negotiating table. If they were holding out for the best possible deal then you would think that they would at least signal the intent to negotiate. So far, all they have done is refused. And they have failed to offer any suggestions as to what the DME could do to ally their concerns.

Tommy Daschle suggested that the line could be run under the city of Rochester. My understanding is that this is impossible for the railroad due to the proximity of river nearby. I suppose elevating the line could be taken into consideration, but I highly doubt that the city of Rochester would actually PAY for such a project.

Personally I think Rochester and the Mayo clinic are against any and all suggestions of increased use of the railroad in that city. I guess time will tell.