Hold The Mayo: Study Says DME Cant Repay Loan

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

That EXACT scenario is currently happening to a buddy of mine in Manitowoc.

It's sadly amusing what petty, vindictive people we truly are..

I go to the monthly meetings of my neighborhood association primarily to stay abreast of all the conspiratorial backstabbing that goes on, listening to them discuss what some neighbors perceive to be "problem" households, and how (example) although what the household is doing is not illegal, they share strategies to make sure weed violations, tardy garbage can retrievals, long curb parking of second autos, etc etc etc get reported "round robin style" mostly as a tool of harrassment against their declared adversaries.

I go to the meetings chiefly so that they can't talk about me, without making seperate arrangements [:o)]

[wallyworld]

I agree-thats what makes this situation so interesting. On a related use of rail property, I was reading about a speed increase of freights on the UP. I safely bet that if this is a trend, that speed will become another issue in addition to noise. I was thinking of derailments of which I imagine the catastrophic results would increase in terms of damage especially the spill or explosion of toxic materials. New regulations?
Is noise complaint a virus?-it has spread to Chicago
.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/west/chi-0605240245may24,1,5773949.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Wanna have fun? go anywhere along the Nantuket Bay and say "Lets build a wind farm" and see how long before your being chased out by rabid townsfolks with pitchforks and torches !!!

Not to mention the rabid Teddy (aka Submarine) Kennedy and Walter Cronkite, whose precious ocean views would be affected by the windmill farms.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates
As another abstract parallel, if a quiet little bar suddenly starts having live bands and dancing and becomes a real hot spot, with a 20 fold increase in customers at all hours, the neighbors can't very well say they didn't know they were moving in next to a bar when they first moved in, but if they find the increase in business to be annoying, You can bet they will try to 'fight back' with any resource available to them. Fire code and occupancy restrictions, zoning and parking availability regulations, common nusiance laws, you name it. Happens all the time.

That EXACT scenario is currently happening to a buddy of mine in Manitowoc.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

it's amazing how many issues can be piled onto this project. .

That's just human nature, everybody does it.


As another abstract parallel, if a quiet little bar suddenly starts having live bands and dancing and becomes a real hot spot, with a 20 fold increase in customers at all hours, the neighbors can't very well say they didn't know they were moving in next to a bar when they first moved in, but if they find the increase in business to be annoying, You can bet they will try to 'fight back' with any resource available to them. Fire code and occupancy restrictions, zoning and parking availability regulations, common nusiance laws, you name it. Happens all the time.

Here, with DM&E/Rochester, the muck throwing is just happening before the fact.


When you really look at it, the folks who are protesting on behalf of the railroad are being just as "NIMBYish" (how DARE the city try to tell us how to run our railroad) as the people they are fighting against.


That has been a source of amusement for me since this thread started. [(-D][(-D][(-D]

[wallyworld]

VS-Thats a good one-I got a good chuckle out of that one. NIMBY srikes again like the townsfolk in frankenstein movies.

[vsmith]

Wanna have fun? go anywhere along the Nantuket Bay and say "Lets build a wind farm" and see how long before your being chased out by rabid townsfolks with pitchforks and torches !!!

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Thats really interesting. I wonder when Rochester is planning their construction of a nuclear power plant. Wind Mills as an alternative? Again-interesting but the stated objection is noise reduction although it's amazing how many issues can be piled onto this project. By the way, I wonder who is paying for all these wind mills? This seems like a long way around the mountain-why dont they target utilities? Seems like a wee stretch to connect the dots between DME and windmills unless youre Don Quixote.

Hey - people fight wind farms, too!

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

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*.

Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter. Daschle is just a typical political whore, like so many in both parties, no more and no less. He, and they, are "for" whomever pays them the most.

[Murphy Siding]

EUCLID TRAVIS: I stand corrected. In reading this, I can't seem to understand what difference it will make if the coal is from west or east?

[wallyworld]

Thats really interesting. I wonder when Rochester is planning their construction of a nuclear power plant. Wind Mills as an alternative? Again-interesting but the stated objection is noise reduction although it's amazing how many issues can be piled onto this project. By the way, I wonder who is paying for all these wind mills? This seems like a long way around the mountain-why dont they target utilities? Seems like a wee stretch to connect the dots between DME and windmills unless youre Don Quixote.

[Anonymous]

This is from a site called,"SUSTAINABLE MN". i can't get the link to work . It came up on the first page of a Google search for, "Rochester coal trains." There are other entries on the site concerning the DM&E coal train controversy.




Stopping the Coal Train:
Plan Would Flood the Midwest With Coal
If a proposal currently before the Surface Transportation Board (STB) is approved, an extra 100 million tons of coal per year may soon be moving by rail through south-central Minnesota. Certain to bring increased noise, dust, and pollution to local residents, the plan would likely also have significant impacts on air quality and global climate by enabling Midwestern power plants to tap into a cheap source of coal.
The Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E) filed an a application with the STB in February 1998 seeking authority to construct 281 miles of new rail line through Wyoming, South Dakota, and Minnesota, including new lines near Mankato and Owatonna. In addition the company proposes to rebuild 598 miles of existing track.
The purpose of the plan, known as the Powder River Basin Expansion Project, is to provide Midwestern electric utilities easy access to coal mines in northeastern Wyoming. According to DM&E, the expanded rail will supply power plants in the Midwest with 40 million tons of coal in its first year and 100 million tons annually within 10 years, approximately 10 percent of the nation's current demand. The delivered coal will cost $5 to $10 per ton less than eastern coal, amounting to a 19-38 percent price reduction.
ME3 has urged the STB to consider the impact of increased coal utilization by electric utilities in its analysis of the environmental impacts of this proposal.
DM&E contends that displacing eastern coal with lower sulfur coal from Wyoming will reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution, but there is no compelling evidence that this will occur since emissions of SO2 are already capped by the Clean Air Act. Low-sulfur coal would benefit Midwestern utilities by allowing them to avoid purchasing higher-priced scrubbers, but it is likely that SO2 emissions will remain just below the cap. Only a tightening of the cap would lead to further reductions in SO2 emissions.
DM&E's plan could lead to a significant increase in coal burning by supplying currently under-utilized coal plants with cheaper fuel. The lower-priced coal will further exacerbate the gap in cost between out-dated coal generation technologies, which are exempt from the new performance standards under the Clean Air Act, and other energy sources such as high efficiency natural gas power plants or wind energy.
While the Clean Air Act should prevent increases in sulfur dioxide emissions, other pollutants produced when burning coal coal are either not capped or completely unregulated, including nitrous oxides (NOx), particulates, mercury, and greenhouse gases.
"Most environmental costs are ignored by the market, a perversity which makes shipping coal from Wyoming to Eisenhower-era coal plants in the Midwest cheaper than building modern technology for the 21st century," remarks Michael Noble, ME3's Executive Director, adding that an investment in Great Plains wind energy comparable to the rail project's $1.2 - $1.4 billion price tag could go a long way towards providing the Midwest with clean power.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by EUCLID TRAVIS
I believe that they are simply offended by the shear political incorrectness of what coal trains represent in terms of U.S. energy policies and their impact on the environment.

It’s not so much the physical intrusion of the trains that bothers the coalition, but rather, is the fact that the trains will bring in vast amounts of coal that will be burned in power plants, which they believe will contribute to global warming.

Interesting perspective. If that is the case, Mayo and Rochester would want to go the extra mile for the cause and ask that their electric power source be disconnected too-right?[;)]

I've not seen anything printed that says that the aim of the Coalition has any goal other than trying to keep lots of high-speed coal trains from rolling through town.

[wallyworld]

It would seem as if, Mayo were extolling political correctness, they would be the first to reach beyond self righteousness, into their deep pockets and be the first to do, shall we say, their share to mitigate the problem, especially as it impacts their customer-patients.. Is this a case of do as I say - not as I do?

[Anonymous]

When NYC required the railroads to stop running steam in their jurisdiction, how much taxpayer money was contributed towards electrification?

[Anonymous]

On the surface, it would seem that the objection of the Rochester Coalition is the physical intrusiveness of the trains such as noise, vibration, smoke, dust, and the possibility of collisions with cars or pedestrians. As has been pointed out here, all of these problems could be eliminated with sound walls, grade depressions, overpasses, quiet running, etc., although these measures do impose extra cost, raising the question of who pays for them.

From what I understand, however, the coalition has not specifically indicated that they would accept the coal trains if such problems were mitigated. I believe that this intransigent attitude on the part of the coalition is evidence that the specific intrusiveness factors of the trains are not what they really object to. I believe that they are simply offended by the shear political incorrectness of what coal trains represent in terms of U.S. energy policies and their impact on the environment.

It’s not so much the physical intrusion of the trains that bothers the coalition, but rather, is the fact that the trains will bring in vast amounts of coal that will be burned in power plants, which they believe will contribute to global warming.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: <i>Solzrules said: </i>

Besides, how can this thread continue if you don't interject some of your humerous asides from time to time?

Wow man, you're upset, huh?
Ferget it then. Not worth making enemies just debating BS that's gonna happen it's own way, regardless.

Dude, I wasn't serious okay? Believe me, I don't lose sleep at night over this stuff. I actually find it kind of fun. [:p]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


The dam breaching and Missouri River drawdowns would result in barges unable to move product, so the expectation is that users of the waterway systems would turn to the railroads, aka more business for the railroads.

OK thanks...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Solzrules said:

Besides, how can this thread continue if you don't interject some of your humerous asides from time to time?

Wow man, you're upset, huh?
Ferget it then. Not worth making enemies just debating BS that's gonna happen it's own way, regardless.

[Murphy Siding]

Dave-not sure which Missouri River you're talking about. The one that goes through North and South Dakota has been the center of controversy about water levels since the ***s were built. The ***s were put in place to: 1) control flooding and erosion 2) control water flow for downstream barges and 3) provide recreation oportunities to those states whe *donated* land for the lakes. The reason for the fight over water levels has to do with flooding, and droughts. It has nothing to do with railroads, or any of their *diabolical plans* Try again.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

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

It's just one of the characteristics of a closed access transportation system, you get the monopolists out greasing palms to limit competition, no matter what mode it is, even intramodes.

The dam breaching and Missouri River drawdowns would result in barges unable to move product, so the expectation is that users of the waterway systems would turn to the railroads, aka more business for the railroads. Problem is, the railroads don't really want that business anyway, and would more than likely turn it down, leaving those shippers to turn to the mode of last resort aka trucks.

Thus, the subconcious cancer inherent in closed access systems. Not only do they not want others to participate in economic actions, they also don't want to take part themselves. Kind of like the spoiled kid who doesn't want his friends playing with *his* toys, but won't play with them himself. That's the Class I railroad oligarchy for you.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

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]

Good. I didn't want you to go all wobbly and suddenly see the light.

Besides, how can this thread continue if you don't interject some of your humerous asides from time to time?

Show me where I am wrong. I love to learn.

[wallyworld]

Once all the posturing on both sides to test the water of public opinion is exhausted, then both will get serious about moving toward the middle or take Option B-the court room which is not inexpensive to either party. One has to wonder if Mayo's strategy is hold the whole project up in the courts until it withers away. I am not an attorney, but it doesnt appear that Mayo has much of a case, but not knowing any specifics about a topic never stopped myself nor most of us from having an opinion. Appeals on either side can go on comparitively forever. Muffling horns as the ITRR did on street trackage-slower speeds-putting a sound damping curtain wall on the trackside of the Mayo- planting sound absorbing trees- barrier walls- put them all together and I think what ever side one is on- reducing sound levels seems do-able. Heres a curve ball-what if Rochester changed its ordinances and tailored them to block an increase in sound levels although an increase in volume isnt the issue-it appears to be duration.

[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.

[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 !!!

[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]

[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?

[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

[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

[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 "$$".