The Post Bulletin reports that Jim Oberstar thinks Mayo presents 'stunning' case against DM&E plan in Rochester:
Whether Canadian Pacific Railway can route trains away from Mayo Clinic should be discussed, U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar said Friday after meeting with Mayo representatives, U.S. Rep. Tim Walz and local officials.
Oberstar, chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, made his comments at the Charter House in Rochester 10 days after CP announced plans to buy Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad.
For about a decade, DM&E, Mayo and local officials have been deadlocked over the railroad's proposal to expand its rail line into Wyoming's coal-rich Powder River Basin. The expansion would increase rail traffic in Rochester, though DM&E and local officials have disagreed over the amount.
"In Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic should come first," Oberstar said Friday after what he called a "stunning" Mayo presentation about the possible impacts of increased rail traffic that he said would run 800 feet from clinic facilities. . . .
. . .Oberstar's comments came after a lunch meeting with Walz, Rochester Mayor Ardell Brede, Rochester City Council President Dennis Hanson, Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce President John Wade, and Mayo officials.
Walz said the meeting focused on what would happen in "the next chapter" of discussions over the railroad issue. He added that he wants to see a compromise "that's a win-win for everyone."
Oberstar, who represents the 8th Congressional District in northeastern Minnesota, said Walz plans to meet with communities along DM&E's southern Minnesota route and meet with CP officials next week. Oberstar also plans to meet with CP officials to learn more about their plans. . . .
In the Mankato Free Press, Upgraded track could bolster rural business, a story about a different sort of railroad. The Minnesota Prairie Line operates with just 94 miles of track, 175 freight cars and two locomotives, and its track really needs an upgrade:
The Minnesota Prairie Line operates in five counties and covers the needs of Gaylord, Winthrop, Fairfax and a dozen other small towns.
But the Prairie Line is crucial to those towns even as it struggles to coax its aging rails to hold up to the increasing demands of shippers, particularly Winthrop’s Heartland Corn Products ethanol plant.
“This is the most important economic development project in my district,” said state Sen. Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato.
The project is the railroad’s attempt to get $30 million from the state and $20 million from the federal government to upgrade its nearly century-old track.
The track, which is owned by a five-county organization known as the Minnesota Valley Regional Rail Authority, has undergone some improvements this decade. At one point, a brisk walker could move more quickly than the trains on the line. And the track was so decrepit in places that there was once a derailment while the rail cars were standing still.
The battle over captive shipping and rail re-regulation
Both articles illustrate the importance of rail service to rural Minnesota. And there's third story here: a fight going on between the rail shippers--who groan under the cost of increased captive shipper rates--and the railroads, which shun reregulation. If you've seen the ads for the railroads' side of the story, now running on a number of Minnesota progressive blogs that sell ad space together, you've had access to one side's legislative agenda. (The ads do not represent the opinion of the blogs taking the advertising, and as far as we can tell, they've not covered this regulatory battle).
The railroads' advocacy group is working against HR 2125, sponsored by Oberstar and Walz in Minnesota, Wisconsin's Ron Kind, South Dakota's Herseth-Sandlin, North Dakota's Earl Pomeroy and a handful of representatives outside of the Midwest. Amy Klobuchar is a sponsor of the companion bill in the Senate. The bill would reform the Surface Transportation Board (STB).
Senator Norm Coleman is a sponsor of another rail competition measure, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act (S. 772) to restore antitrust laws over railroad monopolies; Walz has signed on to the House version, HR 1650.
On Tuesday in Washington, the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee will hear testimony from both sides about rail competition and service (hat tip to NetRoots Mass for putting a weekly Congressional hearings schedule together). The committee has posted a ten-page backgrounder on competitive access issues.
Support for rail competition and anti-trust legislation in Minnesota's congressional delegation reflects the importance of agriculture, co-ops, and other business concerns in the state. Two advocacy groups support the House and Senate companion bills: Consumers United for Rail Equity and Alliance for Rail Competition (ARC). CURE describes itself as:
An umbrella membership organization, CURE includes large trade associations that represent more than 3,500 electric, utility, chemical, manufacturing and forest and paper companies and their customers.
The Hill described the battle in July in Railroads fight against freight competition bill. The article noted the importance of the issue in the upper Midwest:
The co-sponsors of the bills represent areas with limited or no competition. Lawmakers from Western states such as North Dakota, Montana and Idaho have been the main backers of the bills.
In July, Tim Walz inserted an amendment into the House version of the Farm Bill, calling for a study of the effects of poor rail service and high prices of transporting essential goods on the economic growth of rural America. According to CURE, the amendment:
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to study the railroad industry’s ability to transport resources that are essential to the economic development and sustainability of rural America. These resources include products such as coal, agricultural products and domestically-produced renewable fuels.
Thanks Ollie for spotlighting this rail legislation. GORAIL, the Big Railroad lobbying front, thinks it's quite fair for a shipper to pay $185,000 just for the right to complain about their rates from the railroad.
Posted by: A reader | September 24, 2007 at 05:05 PM