RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Poppa_Zit wrote: solzrules wrote:Yeah we've discussed the merits of the whole petition idea above in this thread. You aren't the only one with that opinion. (In fact in some cases I am inclined to agree with you. But not this one.) Ask anyone in Chicago about the value of "hand-signed" petitions. To run for some elected offices, for example, a candidate may need 50,000 names on signed (and notarized) petitions to get his/her name put on the ballot. Most candidates usually push their volunteers to get an overage -- 65,000 to 70,000 signatures -- to be on the "safe" side. That's because both the election board and the opposing camp will attempt to verify signatures as authentic. If they discover a trend of phony names, then a full investigation will be launched (usually by the opposing candidate's lawyers). It is not uncommon to have 10,000 to 15,000 of 70,000 signatures disallowed as being forged, and history shows many candidates after just such an audit fell short of the required number and didn't get their name printed on the ballot. BTW, the unofficial Top Ten "leading" names on petitions in Chicago/Cook County over the last 10 years: Mickey Mouse; Oprah Winfrey; Michael Jordan; Ozzie Guillen; Mike Ditka; Ernie Banks; Jerry Springer; John, Tom, Dick or Harry Smith; Jane Doe; Joe Blow; and Clark Kent.
solzrules wrote:Yeah we've discussed the merits of the whole petition idea above in this thread. You aren't the only one with that opinion. (In fact in some cases I am inclined to agree with you. But not this one.)
Ask anyone in Chicago about the value of "hand-signed" petitions.
To run for some elected offices, for example, a candidate may need 50,000 names on signed (and notarized) petitions to get his/her name put on the ballot. Most candidates usually push their volunteers to get an overage -- 65,000 to 70,000 signatures -- to be on the "safe" side. That's because both the election board and the opposing camp will attempt to verify signatures as authentic. If they discover a trend of phony names, then a full investigation will be launched (usually by the opposing candidate's lawyers). It is not uncommon to have 10,000 to 15,000 of 70,000 signatures disallowed as being forged, and history shows many candidates after just such an audit fell short of the required number and didn't get their name printed on the ballot.
BTW, the unofficial Top Ten "leading" names on petitions in Chicago/Cook County over the last 10 years:
Mickey Mouse; Oprah Winfrey; Michael Jordan; Ozzie Guillen; Mike Ditka; Ernie Banks; Jerry Springer; John, Tom, Dick or Harry Smith; Jane Doe; Joe Blow; and Clark Kent.
No need to brag there, PZ. Milwaukee had everyone beat decades ago. Bogus registration drives, manufactured votes, race baiting and useless petitions have been modus operandi in this city for years. The primary election here in September was noteworthy in that Milwaukee had a record 30-50 percent turnout - when the average turnout in a primary election is 16 percent. In some wards the turnout was as high as 75 percent. Dirty politics or incompetent poll workers? No one seems to know (and nobody-including the media-cares). What's funny is that some of the names you listed above apparently have residences here in Milwaukee, too!
The petitions that I deem to be worthless are the "Let's lose the Iraq War" petitions. Every now and again some town up here will think they have a clever way to make a big splash in the news and they will come up with variations of this theme. Other similar petitions are "Let's fight the war on terror from Okinawa" (Murtha is a tactical genius when it comes to military matters) or "Let's impeach Bush" or - my all time favorite themes- "Let's withdraw so the enemy knows we're really serious". Okay, enough ranting.
The DME petition is a genuine opportunity to show support to the government for a good idea. This isn't a petition to voice some useless party platform plank like some, but rather a way to put some faces on the people who want this thing to go through.
TheAntiGates wrote: solzrules wrote: . The way I understand things the federal loan approval process for the DME's expansion right now is at a state of public comment. This means that petitions (however useless they sometimes appear to be) are one of the few ways that I and other people on the forum my show their support to the government for the project at hand. It certainly is more proactive than dropping snide little comments in a trains forum. I just signed it 143 times, under cooked ID...do I get a biscuit?
solzrules wrote: . The way I understand things the federal loan approval process for the DME's expansion right now is at a state of public comment. This means that petitions (however useless they sometimes appear to be) are one of the few ways that I and other people on the forum my show their support to the government for the project at hand. It certainly is more proactive than dropping snide little comments in a trains forum.
. The way I understand things the federal loan approval process for the DME's expansion right now is at a state of public comment. This means that petitions (however useless they sometimes appear to be) are one of the few ways that I and other people on the forum my show their support to the government for the project at hand.
It certainly is more proactive than dropping snide little comments in a trains forum.
Nope. And it is obvious you didn't even go to the site because you need a whole lot more than just a fake name to sign it. Try again.
solzrules wrote:. The way I understand things the federal loan approval process for the DME's expansion right now is at a state of public comment. This means that petitions (however useless they sometimes appear to be) are one of the few ways that I and other people on the forum my show their support to the government for the project at hand. It certainly is more proactive than dropping snide little comments in a trains forum.
The Wall Street Journal recently published a favorable DME editorial. I could not find a direct link, but the article is reprinted here (with the Mayo response of course.)
http://www.dmetraintruth.com/dme-news-item-wsj.html
solzrules wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: solzrules wrote: Weellllll, if we use the Star-Tribune's line of thinking we might as well just shut down railroads everywhere. In fact, why not roll the calendar back the middle ages while we are at it. Another brilliant piece of editorial stupidity by the Star-Tribune. I read that paper extensively when I was in college out in Minnesota. I see nothing has changed much. OK, let's approach this as balanced and fairly as possible. What could the Star-Tribune's motivations be? Hmmmm... let's see. Potential advertising revenue from said railroad: ZERO Selling extra papers by splashing a hot topic as often as possible on the front page above the fold ... substantial. Potential advertising revenue from ancillary businesses -- including, but not exclusive to hotels, restaurants, car rental agencies, airlines, etc. -- that directly benefit from and perhaps owe their existence to where the Mayo Clinic is located ... priceless. Seems pretty clear to me. So in other words, the ideal of a completely neutral, selfless newspaper editorializing based on just the facts (in other words, not out to serve their own interests) has not been met here? Darn. That's a nasty cup of spilled coffee.
Poppa_Zit wrote: solzrules wrote: Weellllll, if we use the Star-Tribune's line of thinking we might as well just shut down railroads everywhere. In fact, why not roll the calendar back the middle ages while we are at it. Another brilliant piece of editorial stupidity by the Star-Tribune. I read that paper extensively when I was in college out in Minnesota. I see nothing has changed much. OK, let's approach this as balanced and fairly as possible. What could the Star-Tribune's motivations be? Hmmmm... let's see. Potential advertising revenue from said railroad: ZERO Selling extra papers by splashing a hot topic as often as possible on the front page above the fold ... substantial. Potential advertising revenue from ancillary businesses -- including, but not exclusive to hotels, restaurants, car rental agencies, airlines, etc. -- that directly benefit from and perhaps owe their existence to where the Mayo Clinic is located ... priceless. Seems pretty clear to me.
solzrules wrote: Weellllll, if we use the Star-Tribune's line of thinking we might as well just shut down railroads everywhere. In fact, why not roll the calendar back the middle ages while we are at it. Another brilliant piece of editorial stupidity by the Star-Tribune. I read that paper extensively when I was in college out in Minnesota. I see nothing has changed much.
Weellllll, if we use the Star-Tribune's line of thinking we might as well just shut down railroads everywhere. In fact, why not roll the calendar back the middle ages while we are at it.
Another brilliant piece of editorial stupidity by the Star-Tribune. I read that paper extensively when I was in college out in Minnesota. I see nothing has changed much.
OK, let's approach this as balanced and fairly as possible.
What could the Star-Tribune's motivations be?
Hmmmm... let's see. Potential advertising revenue from said railroad: ZERO
Selling extra papers by splashing a hot topic as often as possible on the front page above the fold ... substantial.
Potential advertising revenue from ancillary businesses -- including, but not exclusive to hotels, restaurants, car rental agencies, airlines, etc. -- that directly benefit from and perhaps owe their existence to where the Mayo Clinic is located ... priceless.
Seems pretty clear to me.
So in other words, the ideal of a completely neutral, selfless newspaper editorializing based on just the facts (in other words, not out to serve their own interests) has not been met here? Darn. That's a nasty cup of spilled coffee.
Why, do I detect a faint whiff of sarcasm in your response?
They are NOT serving their own interests. They are supporting (certainly not regurgitating) the "popular opinion" -- whatever that means -- rather than una voce.
In other words, when a newspaper of any size claims it editorializes based on the premise's "being good for the community" it usually means "what's best for local commerce" -- a catch-all that just so happens to include its own advertising sales. The last thing a newspaper wants to do in today's soft print ad market is offend its advertisers.
Just for your information, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune today published an editorial suggesting DME should not run through Rochester - the main concern being the possibility of hazardous materials accidents. While this is a nationwide issue (recently made a big issue in Washington, D.C.), and it in and of itself is a seemingly reasonable concern, nationwide, the Star-Tribune didn't stop there but spent an inordinate amount of ink on cheap shots at DME. At least they were consistent by suggesting DME should shut down their existing line through Rochester for the same hazmat related reason.
http://www.startribune.com/561/story/695306.html
The benefits to the agricultural communities along the existing route will be enormous, by the way, because the refurbished trackage will allow a lot better movement of their goods - capital improvements that would be very, very hard to accomplish out of annual earnings of the railroad as it currently exists.
marcimmeker wrote: gabe wrote: (2) A land grant is more of a public benefit, because it causes an unsettled area of land to be injected with commerce. Gabe Uuhmm, Gabe, North America was not unsettled when white man arrived on its shores... It was only used differently from how the white guy would use it. greetings, Marc Immeker
gabe wrote: (2) A land grant is more of a public benefit, because it causes an unsettled area of land to be injected with commerce. Gabe
(2) A land grant is more of a public benefit, because it causes an unsettled area of land to be injected with commerce.
Gabe
Uuhmm, Gabe, North America was not unsettled when white man arrived on its shores...
It was only used differently from how the white guy would use it.
greetings,
Marc Immeker
As a 25% Cherokee, I will not feel too badly using unsettled as a term of art--especially considering how much commerce--referred to in my quoted sentence--derived from this "settled land."
Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: solzrules wrote:And I would argue that this project has very tangible benefits to the public at large, even though it is a private rail company that is getting the money. It could reduce truck traffic (with associated wear and tear) on the freeway systems, which would reduce fuel consumption and reduce the need to rebuild freeways every 20 years. It would reduce pollution because trains are much more efficient than trucks doing the same amount of work. A disclaimer first: If DM&E was such a good thing, private financing would have been a slam-dunk. Sure,as a railfan, this would be a pretty neat deal. As a private citizen, I have doubts about them pulling it off. In my mind, there are a lot of unanswered questions, about how this is going to be profitable enough to work. As for the post above, by solzrules: Wouldn't it just be a matter of a different train hauling the coal and grain, verses the one that's hauling it now? I don't see where this will take any traffic from trucks. Their intention, is to take coal hauling business from BNSF and UP, after all. Let's clear up something right now before this goes any further. To all of you who are complaining or otherwise stating misgivings about DM&E's federal aid, why do you same people make no mention in the same vein regarding: NS's use of public money to fund their little double stack clearance project? Or the State of Washington providing public aid to purchase the WATCO lines? Or the State of South Dakota effectively subsidizing BNSF's purchase of the Core Lines? Or the nation's taxpayers paying for part of the Alameda Corridor? Ect., etc., etc.? Is not what's good for the geese also good for the gander? I agree. Therefore, you'd certainly have no issue with Uncle Sam guaranteeing a $2Billion loan to BNSF & UP to upgrade their PRB coal lines to increase capacity, and decrease our dependance on foreign energy sources-right? BNSF and UP have up to now scammed much much more than a present value of $2 billion from Uncle Sam, both in the form of those old land grants, and in the form of their anti-trust exemption aka lack of enforcement of competitive caveats in Staggers. No soup for them! So you wouldn't have an issue with them getting a loan guarantee-right?
futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: solzrules wrote:And I would argue that this project has very tangible benefits to the public at large, even though it is a private rail company that is getting the money. It could reduce truck traffic (with associated wear and tear) on the freeway systems, which would reduce fuel consumption and reduce the need to rebuild freeways every 20 years. It would reduce pollution because trains are much more efficient than trucks doing the same amount of work. A disclaimer first: If DM&E was such a good thing, private financing would have been a slam-dunk. Sure,as a railfan, this would be a pretty neat deal. As a private citizen, I have doubts about them pulling it off. In my mind, there are a lot of unanswered questions, about how this is going to be profitable enough to work. As for the post above, by solzrules: Wouldn't it just be a matter of a different train hauling the coal and grain, verses the one that's hauling it now? I don't see where this will take any traffic from trucks. Their intention, is to take coal hauling business from BNSF and UP, after all. Let's clear up something right now before this goes any further. To all of you who are complaining or otherwise stating misgivings about DM&E's federal aid, why do you same people make no mention in the same vein regarding: NS's use of public money to fund their little double stack clearance project? Or the State of Washington providing public aid to purchase the WATCO lines? Or the State of South Dakota effectively subsidizing BNSF's purchase of the Core Lines? Or the nation's taxpayers paying for part of the Alameda Corridor? Ect., etc., etc.? Is not what's good for the geese also good for the gander? I agree. Therefore, you'd certainly have no issue with Uncle Sam guaranteeing a $2Billion loan to BNSF & UP to upgrade their PRB coal lines to increase capacity, and decrease our dependance on foreign energy sources-right? BNSF and UP have up to now scammed much much more than a present value of $2 billion from Uncle Sam, both in the form of those old land grants, and in the form of their anti-trust exemption aka lack of enforcement of competitive caveats in Staggers. No soup for them!
Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: solzrules wrote:And I would argue that this project has very tangible benefits to the public at large, even though it is a private rail company that is getting the money. It could reduce truck traffic (with associated wear and tear) on the freeway systems, which would reduce fuel consumption and reduce the need to rebuild freeways every 20 years. It would reduce pollution because trains are much more efficient than trucks doing the same amount of work. A disclaimer first: If DM&E was such a good thing, private financing would have been a slam-dunk. Sure,as a railfan, this would be a pretty neat deal. As a private citizen, I have doubts about them pulling it off. In my mind, there are a lot of unanswered questions, about how this is going to be profitable enough to work. As for the post above, by solzrules: Wouldn't it just be a matter of a different train hauling the coal and grain, verses the one that's hauling it now? I don't see where this will take any traffic from trucks. Their intention, is to take coal hauling business from BNSF and UP, after all. Let's clear up something right now before this goes any further. To all of you who are complaining or otherwise stating misgivings about DM&E's federal aid, why do you same people make no mention in the same vein regarding: NS's use of public money to fund their little double stack clearance project? Or the State of Washington providing public aid to purchase the WATCO lines? Or the State of South Dakota effectively subsidizing BNSF's purchase of the Core Lines? Or the nation's taxpayers paying for part of the Alameda Corridor? Ect., etc., etc.? Is not what's good for the geese also good for the gander? I agree. Therefore, you'd certainly have no issue with Uncle Sam guaranteeing a $2Billion loan to BNSF & UP to upgrade their PRB coal lines to increase capacity, and decrease our dependance on foreign energy sources-right?
futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: solzrules wrote:And I would argue that this project has very tangible benefits to the public at large, even though it is a private rail company that is getting the money. It could reduce truck traffic (with associated wear and tear) on the freeway systems, which would reduce fuel consumption and reduce the need to rebuild freeways every 20 years. It would reduce pollution because trains are much more efficient than trucks doing the same amount of work. A disclaimer first: If DM&E was such a good thing, private financing would have been a slam-dunk. Sure,as a railfan, this would be a pretty neat deal. As a private citizen, I have doubts about them pulling it off. In my mind, there are a lot of unanswered questions, about how this is going to be profitable enough to work. As for the post above, by solzrules: Wouldn't it just be a matter of a different train hauling the coal and grain, verses the one that's hauling it now? I don't see where this will take any traffic from trucks. Their intention, is to take coal hauling business from BNSF and UP, after all. Let's clear up something right now before this goes any further. To all of you who are complaining or otherwise stating misgivings about DM&E's federal aid, why do you same people make no mention in the same vein regarding: NS's use of public money to fund their little double stack clearance project? Or the State of Washington providing public aid to purchase the WATCO lines? Or the State of South Dakota effectively subsidizing BNSF's purchase of the Core Lines? Or the nation's taxpayers paying for part of the Alameda Corridor? Ect., etc., etc.? Is not what's good for the geese also good for the gander?
Murphy Siding wrote: solzrules wrote:And I would argue that this project has very tangible benefits to the public at large, even though it is a private rail company that is getting the money. It could reduce truck traffic (with associated wear and tear) on the freeway systems, which would reduce fuel consumption and reduce the need to rebuild freeways every 20 years. It would reduce pollution because trains are much more efficient than trucks doing the same amount of work. A disclaimer first: If DM&E was such a good thing, private financing would have been a slam-dunk. Sure,as a railfan, this would be a pretty neat deal. As a private citizen, I have doubts about them pulling it off. In my mind, there are a lot of unanswered questions, about how this is going to be profitable enough to work. As for the post above, by solzrules: Wouldn't it just be a matter of a different train hauling the coal and grain, verses the one that's hauling it now? I don't see where this will take any traffic from trucks. Their intention, is to take coal hauling business from BNSF and UP, after all.
solzrules wrote:And I would argue that this project has very tangible benefits to the public at large, even though it is a private rail company that is getting the money. It could reduce truck traffic (with associated wear and tear) on the freeway systems, which would reduce fuel consumption and reduce the need to rebuild freeways every 20 years. It would reduce pollution because trains are much more efficient than trucks doing the same amount of work.
A disclaimer first: If DM&E was such a good thing, private financing would have been a slam-dunk. Sure,as a railfan, this would be a pretty neat deal. As a private citizen, I have doubts about them pulling it off. In my mind, there are a lot of unanswered questions, about how this is going to be profitable enough to work.
As for the post above, by solzrules: Wouldn't it just be a matter of a different train hauling the coal and grain, verses the one that's hauling it now? I don't see where this will take any traffic from trucks. Their intention, is to take coal hauling business from BNSF and UP, after all.
Let's clear up something right now before this goes any further.
To all of you who are complaining or otherwise stating misgivings about DM&E's federal aid, why do you same people make no mention in the same vein regarding:
NS's use of public money to fund their little double stack clearance project?
Or the State of Washington providing public aid to purchase the WATCO lines?
Or the State of South Dakota effectively subsidizing BNSF's purchase of the Core Lines?
Or the nation's taxpayers paying for part of the Alameda Corridor?
Ect., etc., etc.?
Is not what's good for the geese also good for the gander?
I agree. Therefore, you'd certainly have no issue with Uncle Sam guaranteeing a $2Billion loan to BNSF & UP to upgrade their PRB coal lines to increase capacity, and decrease our dependance on foreign energy sources-right?
BNSF and UP have up to now scammed much much more than a present value of $2 billion from Uncle Sam, both in the form of those old land grants, and in the form of their anti-trust exemption aka lack of enforcement of competitive caveats in Staggers.
No soup for them!
So you wouldn't have an issue with them getting a loan guarantee-right?
Remember, the prevailing thought here is that a federal loan gaurantee will come with some strings attached to protect the public interest. So no, I have no problem with UP or BNSF getting a similar loan gaurantee, but I doubt they'd want to deal with the attached strings.
BNSF is currently trying to get the State of Washington to help with the Stampede Pass Tunnel clearance issue. There are some within WSDOT who want some concessions for that end - my hope is that the WSDOT holds out for allowing UP and others overhead rights from Pasco to Seattle via the Stampede line if indeed the State's taxpayes have to poney up to subsidize BNSF on this one project.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
zugmann wrote:Without getting into the whole DME argument, I do not consider my comments "snide".There are dozens of ways to make your voice heard. Call legislators, contact the Mayo Clinic, the DME, newspapers, or sign a REAL petition for starters.No one takes online petitions seriously. Want to waste your time? Go ahead.
First of all.Click the link and look at the petition.You have to have name,e-mail address,address,and phone number.
Second.Most of those 'REAL' petitions only require a name.Anyone can put a list of names on a petition.
Third.Polls are only numbers or percentages which also can be 'adjusted' to make the pollers point look good.
Have a good one.
Bill B
solzrules wrote: Would UP and BNSF be patient enough to go through the eight year approval process like the DME? Or do they have the capitol on hand to just 'git 'er done'? Good point.
Would UP and BNSF be patient enough to go through the eight year approval process like the DME? Or do they have the capitol on hand to just 'git 'er done'?
Good point.
You overlook the obvious: Maybe they have looked into it, and decided it was too risky of an investment?
Ah Murph now you've hit a good one! Do we do this for every railroad?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.