Hold The Mayo: Study Says DME Cant Repay Loan

[solzrules]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. They sound awfully nervous about DME 'taking it to the streets'. Me wonders why when 'the people' are behind them in this like they claim. And what would revealing the details of the loan application have to do with Rochester I might ask? Sour grapes maybe?

At 1:26 AM I find it is too late to comprehend this.

Sleep time.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. They sound awfully nervous about DME 'taking it to the streets'. Me wonders why when 'the people' are behind them in this like they claim. And what would revealing the details of the loan application have to do with Rochester I might ask? Sour grapes maybe?

At 1:26 AM I find it is too late to comprehend this.

Sleep time.

350Am..Can't Sleep...
TRAINS News Wire for May 18, 2006

Daschle: DM&E should be more flexible on railroad plan

WASHINGTON — Former Democratic South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle said Wednesday he is backing efforts to prevent the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern from running more trains near the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., according to an Associated Press story in The Pioneer Press of St. Paul.

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, as well as building 280 miles of new line into Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal fields.

Rochester and the clinic say 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 told the A.P. "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 Sen. 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."

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.

Thune and the other two members of South Dakota's congressional delegation, Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson and Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth, wrote the Federal Railroad Administration this week questioning a recent Mayo Clinic-commissioned analysis that asserted DM&E would not be able to repay the federal loan.

I would hate to think what the Mayo Clinic is having to fork over[$$$$$$$] for a couple of hasbeen politicos, Janklow and Dashle. I would be really surprised it anything comes out of that public meeting listed in the thread above..All the Mayo wants is for the RR to go away, they want no negotiation. It would as somebody has said earlier, the "back" story on this is probably a doozy. I wonder what the "buzz" is in the local Rochester citizenry?? Where does the majority of those folks stand on this???

Sam





















05/18/2006

[Anonymous]

Well, it's growing clearer by the minute where the REAL problem rests.

Schieffer's "my way or the highway" approach, refusing to even consider an alternate routing AROUND the city, speaks loads.

Obviously he intends to barrel through the town irrespective of what the locals might think,and let me guess, he probably thinks that any mitigation work (grade separations, sound walls, etc) should be funded by the tax payer.....right. No wonder there is so much local resistance.

The man probably has delusions that this is the 19th century all over again where towns are supposed to fall all over themselves and mortgage their future begging the rails to come through their town? The robber baron era is gone. So sorry Mr Schieffer.

Maybe your business will bring *skepticism* "thousands of jobs" */skepticism* to South Dakota, but it is the people of Minnesota you must now deal with, what's in it for them?

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

[:(][:(]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
......Well I'm perfect..........[:D]

yeah, but a perfect what? [;)]

Come on now. That hurts.

[:(][V][V][:(]

Solz,
I am truly sorry if you took that as a cut; it was just a feeble attempt at humor.

Ya gotta admit, tho, you did sort of set yourself up.....

However, certainly no offense was intended. Please, no hard feelings.

[wallyworld]

I have a different spin-Whether you agree or disagree with Schieffer-put yourself in his
place-he is going into the lions mouth and putting his case right or wrong, directly to the public, and bypassing the "behind closed doors" mentality of "robber baron" political power held in the hands of afew highly connected good old boys.He will have to convince the portions of the public who insist railroad tracks are not for trains, "whats in it for them." Rochester is the only holdout which speaks of itself. Maybe he will-maybe he won't-but it wont be boring-wish I could listen in. This is where the tires meets the road. Frankly Antigates -I think your views on this situation are what are in the 19th century.
Neither side has clean hands aka "perfection." Give me a break. At the beginning of this thread-you also decried what a shame it is that if the transcontinental would probably not be built due to NIMBY. I am getting an impression you enjoy being contrary to ordinary.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

Well, it's growing clearer by the minute where the REAL problem rests.

Schieffer's "my way or the highway" approach, refusing to even consider an alternate routing AROUND the city, speaks loads.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? Pull the other one.

It is Mayo who is taking the "my way or the highway" approach. If DM&E were to reciprocate Mayo's tactics aka "DM&E must relocate their line", they would be telling Mayo "we were here first, so why don't YOU relocate your little glorified germ incubator". The fact that DM&E isn't using this tactic shows that they are taking the high road.

Also, it is living proof that Democrats are self serving rather than public serving. Here's Daschle, the ex-South Dakota senator (ostensibly a representative of the best interests of South Dakota), now aligning himself with the "Mayo is worth more than the entire state of South Dakota" morons.

Perhaps the people of SD knew of Dachle's fickleness when they booted him from office. Maybe the rest of the Dakotas will realize the same with their senatorial *representatives*.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates


Schieffer's "my way or the highway" approach, refusing to even consider an alternate routing AROUND the city, speaks loads.

I think the lay of the land really precludes going around.

QUOTE:
Maybe your business will bring *skepticism* "thousands of jobs" */skepticism* to South Dakota, but it is the people of Minnesota you must now deal with, what's in it for them?

Just a note here: I don't think DM&E is expected to bring gobs of jobs to S.D.

My perspective of what's going on, is that both sides are putting up a "my way or the highway" type attitude. A betting man would bet on DM&E flinching first.

A related note: Brookings, S.D., the second biggest city on the DM&E PRB expansion line, (Rochester is the biggest), has asked to have another look at the agreement they made with DM&E.

[tree68]

I'm all for the public meeting. The railroad has already more or less laid its cards on the table - it's the opposition who doesn't seem to want to show their hand. I suspect that if the meeting goes off as requested that someone is going to come out of it looking like a buffoon. While it appears that neither side is without sin here, my money is on the coalition to end up looking like the fools. "You can't do it because I'm the mommy and I said so!"

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

[:(][:(]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
......Well I'm perfect..........[:D]

yeah, but a perfect what? [;)]

Come on now. That hurts.

[:(][V][V][:(]

Solz,
I am truly sorry if you took that as a cut; it was just a feeble attempt at humor.

Ya gotta admit, tho, you did sort of set yourself up.....

However, certainly no offense was intended. Please, no hard feelings.

No No No. Believe me I understood you. My response was a sort of fake 'devastated' thingy. No offense taken. Yes, I walked into that one! I am kind of glad you poked fun at it. That was the intent.[:D]

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

Well, it's growing clearer by the minute where the REAL problem rests.

Schieffer's "my way or the highway" approach, refusing to even consider an alternate routing AROUND the city, speaks loads.

The railroad is limited by geography and a river. That is why they built it where they did 100 years ago. Before Rochester even existed.

QUOTE:

Obviously he intends to barrel through the town irrespective of what the locals might think,and let me guess, he probably thinks that any mitigation work (grade separations, sound walls, etc) should be funded by the tax payer.....right. No wonder there is so much local resistance.

At this point we know there is resistance from the Mayo clinic and the Rochester city officials. That is not Rochester itself. Seen any polling data? Even you AntiGates, must admit that elected representatives do not always represent the will of the people ( I am sure you could through a few examples of Bush's policies in here....[:D])?

QUOTE:
The man probably has delusions that this is the 19th century all over again where towns are supposed to fall all over themselves and mortgage their future begging the rails to come through their town? The robber baron era is gone. So sorry Mr Schieffer.

The railroad has been there for 100 years. In a way they were there first, everyone else should blow off. The rails already go through the town.

QUOTE:
Maybe your business will bring *skepticism* "thousands of jobs" */skepticism* to South Dakota, but it is the people of Minnesota you must now deal with, what's in it for them?

Jobs, industry, careers, lower ag prices, lower coal prices, increased competition in a somewhat monopolized market, and host of other benefits. And that's just for Minnesota. Makes sense to me.

[zardoz]

From the Mankato Free press:

Our View -- Bad manners won't pull this train

editorial board,The Free Press

Thumbs down

To Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad President Kevin Schieffer for an apparent onset of bad manners and lack of willingness to discuss issues relevant to the DM&E expansion though southern Minnesota.

The Rochester Coalition commissioned a study that took issue with the economic viability of the DM&E project as it awaits federal approval of a $2.5 billion low-interest federal loan. That prompted, in part, a letter from Sens. Norm Coleman, Mark Dayton and congressman Gil Gutknecht to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta asking the transportation agency to carefully scrutinize DM&E’s loan application.

Schieffer immediately lashed out at the study.

“Mayo’s tax exempt resources and Rochester’s tax dollars have produced more nonsense that will be rejected as every other discredited study they have done.”

When former senator and Mayo board member Tom Daschle suggested Schieffer take a more conciliatory approach, Schieffer unleashed more of the same vitriol.

Said Daschle: “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. I think there has to be more willingness to give and take and to find a win-win solution here.”

Schieffer called Rochester’s idea “goofy.” Not exactly a good faith discussion word. Schieffer added: “I don’t think they have a clue what they want.”

At the same time, Schieffer says he welcomes open discussion. Calling potential negotiating partners clueless, goofy and nonsensical suggests Schieffer isn’t seriously willing to negotiate much of anything.



Thumbs up

To Coleman, Dayton, Gutknecht and congressmen John Kline and Mark Kennedy for asking the secretary of transportation to be sure the DM&E federal loan application for $2.5 billion shows the project will be able to pay the loan back.

“It is essential that you ensure that this loan can be repaid in full,” the letter said.

Coleman went further, saying DM&E should negotiate a plan acceptable to Rochester or he will “not support the project.”

http://www.mankato-freepress.com/editorials/local_story_140010330.html?keyword=secondarystory

[tree68]

Wow. I wonder how much that editorial cost the coalition?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld



(A.)"whats in it for them." Rochester is the only holdout which speaks of itself.


(B) Frankly Antigates -I think your views on this situation are what are in the 19th century.

LOL!!

A. So, you are saying that "just because everybody else is doing it" that Rochester must greet the rail project with open arms? I think you see the pitfall in that logic.

B. Nice try, but it didn't work. My emotions on this entire deal are neutral enough that I won't wear my emotions on my sleeve, either way. Afterall, it won't be in my back yard, regardless.

The point I was trying to make is that in the 19th century, many towns and hamlets did bend over backwards trying to please the railroads, hoping to woo a new line through their towns.


Those days are over, yet we have mr DME still wondering why the city of Rochester isn't head over heels excited to have him get rich at the expense of their peace and quiet.


He talks about "thousands of jobs" in Dakota, but realistically what is he proposing to the City of Rochester of benefit?

Dirty smelly diesels with air horns blaring around the clock? OH boy!! I'[ll bet they are lining up around the block.

OH well, time will tell. But if mr DME wants to entice the people of Rochester, he'd better think of what they might see as attractive but quick, and somehow I don't think that "thousands of jobs in South Dakota" is gonna be the persuasive argument that will move them.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? Pull the other one.

It is Mayo who is taking the "my way or the highway" approach. If DM&E were to reciprocate Mayo's tactics aka "DM&E must relocate their line", they would be telling Mayo "we were here first, so why don't YOU relocate your little glorified germ incubator". The fact that DM&E isn't using this tactic shows that they are taking the high road.

Mr DME's categorial dismissal of the option of building around the city to be "goofy" with no further dialog, speaks loads for his intent to not participate in meaningful compromise

Hence the "my way or the highway" shoe seems to fit his foot rather well

As far as who was there first, I point back to the analogy of turning a house into a hotel, change of use changes the rulebook.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding


(A) I think the lay of the land really precludes going around.


(B) Just a note here: I don't think DM&E is expected to bring gobs of jobs to S.D.



(C) A related note: Brookings, S.D., the second biggest city on the DM&E PRB expansion line, (Rochester is the biggest), has asked to have another look at the agreement they made with DM&E.

(A) the thought that occurred to me was with the claim that many of the farmers surrounding Rochester thight the DME's expanded presence would do them good.

So, maybe the farmers could "co-op" some land for an alternate route around the city Just a thought. One thing farmers usually temd to have is land


(B) I thought I saw some one claiming that the deal would mean "thousands of jobs to S Dakota? As though THAT was supposed to sway opinion. Was that just over excitement, on somebody's part?

(C) Interesting, once a deal is done, I've always been of the opinion that the parties have to live with what they dealt. uess they are looking for loopholes?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules




(A) ( I am sure you could through a few examples of Bush's policies in here....[:D])?



(B)The railroad has been there for 100 years. In a way they were there first, everyone else should blow off. The rails already go through the town.

(A) A heh heh hee... I won't go there, You know full well how I feel about weapons of mass deception.

(B) Not to get repetitive, but I point back to the 'converting a house into a hotel' analogy.

[wallyworld]

If you take a neutral stance- I can play devils advocate on both sides-I agree. The issue appears to be noise abatement. If I have a problem with my upstairs neighbor making too much noise-I dont resolve the issue by questioning his bank statement. Trains run on tracks. Trains make noise. If I live next to tracks-expect noise-not relocation of the tracks. Which is the red herring? Is there a viable alternative route? It appears not. Perhaps this fact is known to be impractical-perhaps someones bluff will be called. This is not real estate-this use is pre-existing unless they propose to run NASCAR races down the right of way. Barrier walls? Horn use? What is the increase in noise? Why doesnt DME take reasonable steps to demonstrate good faith? Or is it longer duration of noise rather than an increase in volume? Why not electrify a short section through the area as a compromise- no engine noise? Are there other specific cases to prove that railroad noise has caused a decrease in healing when the volume of trains are increased while remaining at the same noise level? Or, is it true because I say so? If DME is stopped, what about other lines increasing their volume of traffic? If a legal precedent is set-does that open the door to schools-retirement homes-to file suit? Alot of open ended questions.

Jobs are a possibility but what does that have to do with noise abatement?

Is the legal precedent of the government's role to promote competition a factor here?

f99% of the communities want the line-what does that have to do with noise abatement.?

While I admire their willingness to take the bull by the horns and meet the community and erode Mayo's base of support-I think it may come down to a court case. Prove noise is a factor in this specific locatiion upon healing. Mayo is the complaintant-not DME-they will have to prove their case. But its their right to do so-regardless of how it impacts DME financial viability. If they lose their case, what are DME's legal recovery tactics-loss of prospective business? Whats that worth?

[Anonymous]

I've always seen Minnesota as being the "most Canada like" of all 50 states anyway

[zardoz]

I can't help but wonder why they built the hospital so close to the tracks in the first place?

How many trains were running on those tracks during the construction surveys?

And how many trains are "too many"?

Why doesn't DM&E offer to rebuild the line's crossings such that they could be "quiet zones" regarding whistling?

Or offer to build overpasses for the roads, thus eliminating the risk for travellers as well as greatly reduce the noise level?

Or maybe put a permanent speed restriction by the hospital? I know that the trains that go through Burlington, WI come through very quietly due to the speed restriction (I think its either 30 or 40 mph) through town. Almost every train that comes through there is in about the 3rd or 4th notch. I wi***hey were that quiet going ny my house.

[wallyworld]

In my field.its a fact that work is based on good faith and reasonable efforts. You only need a contract as a court tested document, when the good faith and reasonable efforts fail. Litigation is always more expensive than resolving the dispute out of court.
I think the burden of proof on Mayo's side is "iffy" Maybe an old fashioned Q & A between the community and DME is whats needed rather than posturing in the media and using clout as a hammer.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: [i] Are there other specific cases to prove that railroad noise has caused a decrease in healing when the volume of trains are increased while remaining at the same noise level?

I for one would not want to be a patient undergoing brain surgery right when Iron Ken came rolling by and decided to serenade some cute nurses on his Nathan 5 chime [:D].

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Maybe an old fashioned Q & A between the community and DME is whats needed rather than posturing in the media and using clout as a hammer.

Very very true. well put.

lets also not overlook the "coalition" nature of DM&E' s opponents.

They very well might not all have the same reason for opposing the railroad, in fact there likely are various and sundry reasons among a number of (temporarily aligned) "partners".


The Mayo might be seen as the heavy hitter sitting on the bench, that can win the game with one mighty swing of the bat, therefore many place their faith (and hopes) upon them.


And, I still wouldn't be at all surprised if BNSF and UP are not "rooting" for the Mayo's cause, from behind the jury box.

[Murphy Siding]

I live about 3/4 of a mile from the BNSF line through our town. Sometimes, at night, I can hear grain trains coming through town. I can tell which crossing they are at, just by the loudness of the horn, and the elapsed time between crossings. Most times, I sleep through them.
On various occassions, we've stayed in Hinckley Minnesota, while passing through on vacation. Hinkley is on very busy coal line between Minneapolis, and Duluth, Minnesota. The trains literally scream through there all day and night . Because of the speed of the train, the horn for one crossing transitions right into the horn for the next, and so on. You have one, LOUD, screaming horn sound for 1to 2 minutes. If you're not used to it,say you're from out of town, it will wake you from the soundest sleep. That, I believe is what Rochester feels they are fighting to keep out their town.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

And, I still wouldn't be at all surprised if BNSF and UP are not "rooting" for the Mayo's cause, from behind the jury box.

That would be consistent with BNSF and UP denziens. They both "rooted" for the Milwaukee bankruptcy trustee to declare the PCE for the scrap heap. They both "rooted" for the econazis to have the Columbia and Snake River dams breached. They both "rooted" for the closure of the Missouri River waterway. They both "root" for limitations on truck size and weights. Why wouldn't they "root" for the DM&E's demise?

And of course, in all these cases, "root" should be spelled with a few "$$".

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

And, I still wouldn't be at all surprised if BNSF and UP are not "rooting" for the Mayo's cause, from behind the jury box.

That would be consistent with BNSF and UP denziens. They both "rooted" for the Milwaukee bankruptcy trustee to declare the PCE for the scrap heap. They both "rooted" for the econazis to have the Columbia and Snake River dams breached. They both "rooted" for the closure of the Missouri River waterway. They both "root" for limitations on truck size and weights. Why wouldn't they "root" for the DM&E's demise?

And of course, in all these cases, "root" should be spelled with a few "$$".

Well man, you are miles ahead of me with all that.

The dam breaching, did that cause a competing rail line to get submerged permanantly?


And as for closure of the Missouri River waterway, maybe I wasn't paying attention at the time, not familiar with the story. Got a link? or a short recap? it sounds interesting

[rrandb]

I live in a house that backs up to a UP double track main. If I choose to turn my "house" into a "hotel" there will be train noise. Go figure. Anyone who is willing to pay out of there pocket the expenses to re-locate, put up noise abatement walls, or install "quiet" crossing zone should approach the railroad. Untill there is an formall abondonement of their right of way they have the right and obligation to run as many trains as the market will bear. For a small group of poeple( no matter how well ententioned) to attempt to impeed national commerce is both un-american, short sighted and selfish. The interseting part is that they are compaining about something that is not even a problem yet. What TRAINS? [2c] As always ENJOY

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I live in a house that backs up to a UP double track main. If I choose to turn my "house" into a "hotel" there will be train noise. Go figure. Anyone who is willing to pay out of there pocket the expenses to re-locate, put up noise abatement walls, or install "quiet" crossing zone should approach the railroad. Untill there is an formall abondonement of their right of way they have the right and obligation to run as many trains as the market will bear. For a small group of poeple( no matter how well ententioned) to attempt to impeed national commerce is both un-american, short sighted and selfish. The interseting part is that they are compaining about something that is not even a problem yet. What TRAINS? [2c] As always ENJOY

Well put. I think that if the DME knew that Rochester would agree to anything, DME would be the first to support it. Rochester simply doesn't want the railroad there. They have so far put forth no evidence to support their claims. How can the DME suggest alternatives if the only response is 'not in my backyard'? Okay, so in someone else's backyard then? What kind of agreement is that? Sure, they COULD build a trench with noise reduction panels and quiet zones and whistle free crossings and the whole nine yards but should the DME have to pay for all of that? Why should they? At what point does an entity's demands become ludicrous? Does the court system decide that?

Selfishness:

We don't want an increase in trains in our city so can you pull up your tracks and run your trains through someone else's city? Or backyard?

We don't like loud noises (unless we make them) so can you somehow re-build the railroad so that we can't see or hear it. Oh, and since you're a big private corporation that makes money can you pay for all of these things (Wal-Martphobia)? Better yet, why not let us spend your money in Rochester and design your railroad for you, all at DME's expense?


DME's mistake -
They should have quietly upgraded the line through Rochester and then just start running more trains. When does a hospital decide how a railroad runs their business?

Not one track is scheduled to be added in Rochester. Not one. And some make it sound like the DME wants to level eight thousand houses and put up a yard to dump cyanide in. Who is being dramatic and touchy feely here?

[Anonymous]

hee hee, funny thing is, until I read these last 2 posts, today I was starting to soften to the railroad's plight.

But no more, with this conveniant refresher course on the kinds of attitudes supporting the railroad side of the coin, just like a fresh breeze beneath my wings, I now remember WHY it's important to maintain the position I've had from square one.


[:D]

[vsmith]

If Rochester is soooo concerned about noise? why havent they offered to help pay for sound walls? Dont want horns blaring? Why not work with the RR to eliminate grade crossings? Dont want to see it? investigate trenching it. Vibration? The tracks are ALREADY there, so it doesnt seam to have effected there surgeons so far has it?Theres nothing being discussed here that doesnt have a solution, some more affordable than others. But instead of working towards a solution, all we get is a bunch of crying and whining on the cities side. NIMBY pure and simple.

Example from the left coast:
SF abandoned its mainline Pasadena route back in the early 90's to make way for the eventual replacement of a Metro light rail line. So for about 5 years while the line was being designed the line lay fallow. During that time without huge frieght trains rumbling through 8 times a day, the land values rose in a certain South Pasadena neighborhood, where the houses are right literally next to the tracks. So the older residents sold and new residents moved in. Now when construction started on the light rail line, what hapened....you guessed it. What light rail line? even though it was common knowledge these knuckleheads actually never thought it would get built, right literally in there backyards even thought the SF tracks were still there! They threatened lawsuits. complained, grumbled , whined, as pissed all through the construction process. And the REAL crying came when they ran the first test trains.OMG ITS THE END OF THE WORLD I CAN ACTUALLY HEAR THE TRAIN WHEN I'M STANDING NEXT TO THE TRACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! (It goes Whoosh verrrryy queitly BTW) And they were just as vemonent about SEEING the trains from any vicinity of there house, street, corner....They claimed the horns were too loud, the trains were too fast, and that their "quality of life" was being compromised. This is after the MTA bent over backwards to try to accomodate there concerns buy building soundwalls, *lowering* the volumn of crossing gates and *lowering* the volumn of the train horn to the point where instead of a horn it sounds more like an enemic duck squak. The Nimbys wanted the trains to slow to under 20mph and to ban the use of the horn through their little stretch of town. RRs said forget it, would wreck thier schedules and be a safety issue, besides they had already made a good faith effort with all the other remediations mentioned above. They still sued, and it got tossed out. So they then resorted to waving banners over their houses. All this time (over the first 2 years or so of the lines operation) everyone else realized that the issues they were gripping about were really either nitpickingly small or negligable. Apparently everyone else along the lines route got used to the trains very fast, they were a heck of alot quieter than the behemoth frieght trains and small siesmic events that occured when they rolled by! But the NIMBYs just wanted the light rail to go away and werent interested in any real solution, they just didnt want it anywhere in the vicinity of their backyard. Eventually THEY moved away or amazingly, got used to it. Now those neighborhoods are considered some of the most "desirable" due to their close walking proximity to the light rail station! Go figure!

Maybe thats the solution, the Mayo should consider moving! Afterall the RR *WAS* there first and is operating within its rights, and if its current proximity to the Mayo is compromising the Mayo's delicate operations to such a degree already, then its the *Mayo's* resposibility to move to a location thats mitigates these concerns, not to tell its nieghbors YOU have to change to accomodate US, that unbeleivably self-righteous. Its like building a hospital next to a freeway whining that the freeway HAS to go because its distrubing them !!!

Incredulous !!!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Interest rates are starting to edge back up, so that $2.5 billion loan isn't getting any cheaper, even with a federal guarantee.