Hold The Mayo: Study Says DME Cant Repay Loan

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules


A yes, the exciting world of the hypothetical.

Before we spar over this, has it actually happened,[b} or are we trying to think of every conceivable bad thing that could plague the DME's proposal[/b]?

Sorta, but not to the sinister extent you put it.


I just like to evaluate as many potential variables in a given scenario as come to mind, and ,....strictly speculating, this one has some possibilities.

just trying to understand WHY so many of the small fry along the wayside had no second thoughts about blaring horns and smelly diesels forever changing the world as they have come to know it....and the possibility of -not being able to do a darn thing about it for lack of funds- struck me as a possibility

Both Pierre, the State Capitol, and Brookings,S.D., the second largest city on the PRB coal line put up a big stink in the past. Recently, Brookings has talked about wanting to *re-open* their agreement with DM&E, whatever that means.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules


A yes, the exciting world of the hypothetical.

Before we spar over this, has it actually happened, or are we trying to think of every conceivable bad thing that could plague the DME's proposal?

Sorta, but not to the sinister extent you put it.


I just like to evaluate as many potential variables in a given scenario as come to mind, and ,....strictly speculating, this one has some possibilities.

just trying to understand WHY so many of the small fry along the wayside had no second thoughts about blaring horns and smelly diesels forever changing the world as they have come to know it....and the possibility of -not being able to do a darn thing about it for lack of funds- struck me as a possibility

Alright, then I guess it could be a possibility. It would seem that some people in these towns are attempting to re-open the agreements. I don't think it is because they are afraid of big smelly diesels, but maybe because they think they might get some more out of it. I always thought once you signed on the dotted line that was it. Sounds like more court battles to me.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules


Alright, then I guess it could be a possibility. It would seem that some people in these towns are attempting to re-open the agreements. I don't think it is because they are afraid of big smelly diesels, but maybe because they think they might get some more out of it. I always thought once you signed on the dotted line that was it. Sounds like more court battles to me.

I agree with everything you say there.

[wallyworld]

When you consider that this never ending saga is based on a swath of land that is wide enough to hold 4 feet 81/2 inches of rail together has produced reams of paper, streams of charges and counter charges from political figures, corporations, state groups to town hall meetings one can imagine that many years ago during the construction of the transcontinental railroad, a headline appearing announcing that the negotiations between the various tribal councils and representitives of the Central Pacific have broken down, that the enviromental impact studies concerning the disruption of the free migration of buffalo herds are not addressed and that the stagecoach lines have filed suit in federal court over the federal funding of a potential monopoly. Investors are beginning to get cold feet....

[zardoz]

Even now, years after a Rochester-proposed, rural railroad bypass proposal was struck down by federal regulators, some Olmsted County residents remain fearful the idea somehow could be revived at any moment.

So there were jangled nerves among bypass opponents when they read this passage, in a May 15 letter from Gov. Tim Pawlenty to Sen. Mark Dayton concerning the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad project.

Pawlenty wrote: "I believe a reasonable compromise would be to route trains south of Rochester. From my perspective, it is unwise to route trains directly through the city."

The question: Whether the route Pawlenty referred to was the 34-mile Olmsted County bypass proposal, which the federal Surface Transportation Board rejected in 2002, or a more recent city proposal to require the DM&E to have coal trains bypass Rochester on a route south through Iowa. Local officials have since withdrawn that request.

Whichever, the statement prompted a letter to Pawlenty from the Citizens Against Rochester's Bypass group, reminding the governor of the history of the city-proposed bypass, and inviting him to tour the area.

"We were not willing to be caught flat-footed," said Kathy King, chairwoman of the citizens group. She signed the letter along with Susan Bartels, the group's secretary.

"What we want to say is, 'We're still here,'" King said.

Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said he was not aware of any efforts to revive the rural Olmsted County bypass plan, and said Pawlenty's letter was not intended to reopen a rift between Rochester and its rural neighbors.

"Our interest is in working with residents in the entire area to find a solution that's reasonable," he said, noting that, if the bypass has been rejected, "this is a federal issue."

"The Surface Transportation Board has ruled on it," McClung said. "They're the experts in the matter."

The STB rejected the bypass route in its January 2002 decision. A federal appeals court upheld that part of the STB's decision in an October 2003 ruling.

Rochester City Council President Dennis Hanson, a member of the Rochester Coalition fighting the DM&E project, said there has been no discussion here of trying to revive the bypass plan.

"I can tell you, without any hesitation, that we have not discussed it at all," he said.

But King said she intends to stay skeptical.

"Just because they haven't talked about it, doesn't mean we're not on the back burner," she said. "If you talk to people around here, that is the thing they are afraid will come back again."

http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?a=259581
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following two paragraphs are letters from readers of the above-mentioned site.

I can not believe that a group of residents who live in rural Rochester, have one bit of influence of where the trains will run. The entire Rochester community is run from the heart of the Mayo Clinic, and these few residents are forcing the train downtown? I would hope that these people will be stepped on when push comes to shove. The trains need to be routed south, not through downtown, no way.
-------------------
I can not believe that a group of residents who live in rural Rochester, have one bit of influence of where the trains will run. The entire Rochester community is run from the heart of the Mayo Clinic, and these few residents are forcing the train downtown? I would hope that these people will be stepped on when push comes to shove. The trains need to be routed south, not through downtown, no way.

[Anonymous]

What reasoning was used by the STB in 2002 to reject the rural bypass?

[rrandb]

Here,s the deal. When surveyer's came thru this area before there was a railroad they picked the best route for one based on the lay of the land. And then they built a railroad before very many people were there yet. Heck there not that many more 100 years later inspite of the sales pitch "If you build it, they will come!". To change the routing now to a more goegraphically less desirable route will cost the railraod money, will need the condemnation of peoples land(split farms in half) and so far there has not been shown a compelling reason except "Not In My Backyard". The STB's answer is more technical. [2c]

[Anonymous]

Question: What is the assessed value of the collection of buildings and grounds known as the Mayo Clinic?

Is it possible that it would be cheaper to simply relocate the Mayo Clinic out of downtown Rochester? Then all those former Clinic buildings would become prime commercial real estate, condos, casinos, brothels, or whatever those folks might value more than a bunch of sick people.

[rrandb]

There are any niumber of possible soulutions if the clinic would participate in a rational dialouge with the railroad. The railroad has asked them what they can do to solve this diliema. So far there has been little reasonable progress made. I doubt its because the railroad is trying to delay there own construction.[V][B)][:(!]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

To change the routing now to a more goegraphically less desirable route will cost the railraod money, will need the condemnation of peoples land(split farms in half) and so far there has not been shown a compelling reason except "Not In My Backyard".

Bahhhh! [:)] If it was the railroad who desired to reroute to obtain a more desireable grade, and it was the towns people fighting to keep the route as it currently sits, you'd still be faulting the railroads opponents as "stupid/selfish nimby's"

Railroads have been known in the past to re route to obtain advantage, so it's not like asking one to do so sets an unequaled precedent. Often the first surveyed route is the lowest "first cost' path, do we know for sure the lay of the land is "prohibitive" to a superior bypass route?

[rrandb]

It was the STB that denined the re-route, not the railroad! DME offered to reroute but was denied. What would you have them do. Move it anyway? [?] P.S. The reroute would not have been anything close to superior and in fact they said it was geogrphically undesirable. While you do not know for sure if it was not the way to go, they (the STB) though it was. [tdn] [:-^] [%-)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

It was the STB that denined the re-route, not the railroad! DME offered to reroute but was denied. What would you have them do. Move it anyway? [?] P.S. The reroute would not have been anything close to superior and in fact they said it was geogrphically undesirable. While you do not know for sure if it was not the way to go, they (the STB) though it was. [tdn] [:-^] [%-)]

What were the STB's specific reasons for nixxing the alternate?

pressure from OTHER nimby's?

Here we go: the local authority having jurisdiction takes the bypass land under the supreme court's recent reinterpretation of imminent domain , Mayo pays for it and they lease it to DM&E.....STB has not said that Mayo cannot build a railroad, have they

[rrandb]

No. They just get to say where you can and can not put your rails. The Mayo bunch are not the majority even in Rochester. There was local opposition and still is to the re-route. I do not have access to actual report but am using what has been published. If Mayo wants to build a railroad they will need STB approval just like anyone else.[:O]

[Anonymous]

It was just a thought.....

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

It was just a thought.....

Think about this!! There are only 2 companies who have a huge financial stake in the DME not going into the PRB. One's initials start with U and the others initials start with B. The Mayo clinic is only the head of the snake. Remember it's the snake you do not see that bites you. Even thogh DME knew they would not be happy that has not stopped them (U&B) from wagging the dog. [;)] [%-)]

[solzrules]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

(extremely thoughtful expression here..)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

It was just a thought.....

Think about this!! There are only 2 companies who have a huge financial stake in the DME not going into the PRB.

Yes, I think that I acknowledged that possibility several pages ago

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

It was just a thought.....

Think about this!! There are only 2 companies who have a huge financial stake in the DME not going into the PRB.

Yes, I think that I acknowledged that possibility several pages ago

Well in my case you were/are preaching to the choir!!! [:-^]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Well in my case you were/are preaching to the choir!!! [:-^]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as "preachy"...my bad.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Well in my case you were/are preaching to the choir!!! [:-^]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as "preachy"...my bad.

What makes you think it was directed at you. Your post gave me the chance to restate what to me was obvious. Its what I do best . Overstate the obvious, then underline it. Nothing personel.[%-)]

[Anonymous]

OK, cool.

[zardoz]

DM&E expansion plans raise concerns in capital city
BY TERRY WOSTER
[e-mail]
June 16, 2006

PIERRE – Three trains and 20,000 vehicles a day cross a tricky little Pierre intersection called the “S-Curve."

That’s enough traffic to prompt state planners and city residents to worry about how the stretch of highway might handle another 30 Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad coal trains a day, if the company’s ambitious Wyoming coal-train project materializes.

The line crosses Pierre near the heart of the business district.

Business managers like Andrew Fuhrman wonder how the additional trains – and attempts to mitigate the traffic – will affect them. So far, Fuhrman says, there are few answers.

He manages United Building Center. The DM&E runs along the north border of his property, and part of his lumberyard abuts the S-Curve. The business no longer receives shipping on the line. Materials are sent to a distribution point and trucked to the Pierre location.

“I’ve heard a few rumors. It might take part of our yard here,’’ Fuhrman said this week. “Nothing’s official that I’ve seen. I’d like to know. The sooner I know something the sooner we can plan something. I have a feeling we aren’t going to have any choice when it happens, so advanced warning would be nice.’’

Many people in the capital city share Furhman’s concern. About 120 area residents attended a Wednesday evening information session with Department of Transportation officials and representatives of a consulting company.

The purpose was to talk about the crossings through Pierre and how they might fit into a future DOT five-year construction plan. Residents wanted more specifics than the DOT had to offer. DOT’s Tim Bjorneberg said several times that the meeting was a first step toward planning and design, a search for concerns, not a time to lay out finished blueprints.

“There is nothing in our plan today to do anything,’’ he said.
Driving the discussion is the DM&E’s proposed $2.5 billion construction and upgrade to create a rail line that would haul coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to customers in the Midwest and East.

Kevin Schieffer, president and CEO of the railroad, said Thursday that the earliest the massive project could begin moving additional trains would be 2010.

The company is seeking a federal loan for financing.

“If we got every green light available tomorrow and all the money and everything else, and we took off at a dead run, it wouldn’t be up and operating until 2010 anyway, late 2009,’’ Schieffer said. “The first full year of operation would be 2010. I would love to think there would be all that traffic there on Day One. That is not going to happen. . . What the experts say and what’s in the record, I think the consensus is it will take five to six years under a best-case scenario to have the traffic built up. Some say it’s going to take longer than that, and some say it’s never going to build up to where we think it’s going to build up.’’

He said the city of Pierre and state officials “are ahead of the game’’ by starting the kind of planning involved in this week’s meeting.
Some cities along the line have been fighting the DM&E. Rochester, Minn., formed a coalition for that purpose.

Brookings residents will vote on a partnership agreement between the city and the railroad. Opponents of the deal gathered signatures on a referral petition.

For more on this story, read Saturday's Argus Leader.
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060616/BUSINESS/60616003

[Anonymous]

Looks like some folks are finally awakening from their slumber, and thinking about what the looming changes will mean to the world they've become accustomed to. [2c]

[rrandb]

It sounds to me like the DOT and DME are being responsible and planning to address concerns and issues of cities along the route. As a foot note the 2.5 billion is just the Fed loan. The total cost will be even greater.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

Looks like some folks are finally awakening from their slumber, and thinking about what the looming changes will mean to the world they've become accustomed to. [2c]

To be honest, I think most towns didn't worry because they never thought the DME proposal would actually amount to anything.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding


To be honest, I think most towns didn't worry because they never thought the DME proposal would actually amount to anything.

That is definitely another strong possibility.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

Looks like some folks are finally awakening from their slumber, and thinking about what the looming changes will mean to the world they've become accustomed to. [2c]

To be honest, I think most towns didn't worry because they never thought the DME proposal would actually amount to anything.

Come on, now. Isn't this sudden *concern* about DM&E operations through SD towns mostly a media creation? Don't most polls show widespread support for DM&E?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

Looks like some folks are finally awakening from their slumber, and thinking about what the looming changes will mean to the world they've become accustomed to. [2c]

To be honest, I think most towns didn't worry because they never thought the DME proposal would actually amount to anything.

Come on, now. Isn't this sudden *concern* about DM&E operations through SD towns mostly a media creation? Don't most polls show widespread support for DM&E?

What polls would those be?

[zardoz]

I bet by now the folks at DM&E are beginning to regret that they even started the whole proposed operation. I mean, how many times does one have obstacles placed in one's path before you just get tired of climbing over them.

Too bad that the utilities and businesses and people that would benefit from the alleged advantages (cost, reliability of delivery) of having a third rail carrier handling coal shipments do not join forces with the DM&E and go after the Mayo clinic and all the others that have suddenly climbed on the anti-progress bandwagon.

[Anonymous]

I believe that DM&E should merge with KCS.

This guy Sheiffer doe not impress me as being particularly smooth. He comes across as cocky and defiant.

Some guy like Haverty could probably find a middle ground solution most folks would find agreeable.