8 June 2009
Editorial Supports Rerouting Rail Around Rochester, Minn.
Rochester Minnesota USA - The Economist magazine
occasionally wields a phrase that best sums up the situation Minnesota and its political leaders find themselves in when it comes to a
long-simmering railroad dispute in Rochester, Minn., according to an editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Faced
with a situation that demands a solution but for which there are only hard choices, the magazine says true leaders sift through the
facts, consider the greater good, and then make the difficult decision based on what is the "least bad" option at hand.
Although it didn't generate many headlines outside southern Minnesota, some heavy hitters in the state's political delegation recently
made a courageous "least bad" type of call.
Recognizing a very real threat to Minnesota's largest private employer, the world-class Mayo Clinic, a bipartisan group
led by U.S. Rep. Tim Walz, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, stepped up and publicly lent their support to an expensive,
controversial plan to reroute freight trains carrying dangerous compounds away from the city and through the farm fields south of
Rochester. U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, the powerful chairman of the U.S. House Transportation Committee, also has pledged support.
It's dubbed the Southern Rail Corridor proposal, and there are a host of reasons why this is not an easy project to love. There are
environmental issues to consider in building the 48.3-mile freight train bypass, and property owners along the proposed
route have some legitimate concerns.
It also comes with a hefty price tag. Early estimates are $325 million - a cost the public's used to seeing attached to a
stadium-sized project.
It should be noted that passenger trains would be able to use the line, but it would not be ready for true high-speed
rail.
While the plan is in its preliminary stages, it's clear that public money would pay for most of it. A big chunk of money would likely
come from the federal government, but the state could also shoulder a substantial sum.
Walz, the Democratic congressman in whose district Mayo resides, has requested federal funding for the corridor as a
high-priority project in the Surface Transportation Bill reauthorization. Currently, Walz's proposal calls for about $190
million in federal funding (58 percent) and 42 percent from non-federal funding.
Pawlenty has said he would support state bonding to leverage federal funds, and he has directed the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to seek grants to help pay for it.
Some private money may be available; Mayo is open to contributing.
In contrast, Canadian Pacific Railroad, which runs the line, said this week that it absolutely would not contribute to the project,
though it would deign to use it if it met its needs. "We will not spend limited resources on a project that is not needed,"
said CP spokesman Mark Seland.
That tone-deaf-to-community-concerns response has been typical of the rail industry in this decade-plus
standoff - and it's absolutely wrong.
It is asking for disaster to run trains - and more of them at higher speeds at some point - carrying anhydrous ammonia or explosive
compounds such as ethanol within hundreds of feet of hospitals and other medical buildings filled with nearly 4,000 patients. Rail
accidents are uncommon, but they do happen. Minnesotans may recall the 1992 benzene spill in Duluth and the 2002 anhydrous ammonia
leak in Minot, N.D. If this happened near Mayo, it could kill thousands of vulnerable patients who could not be evacuated quickly. Are
we really willing to run this nightmarish risk so that a railroad can move coal and other freight cheaply?
Unfortunately, industry-friendly laws and regulatory bodies have consistently and recklessly placed the railroad above
patient safety and the well-being of one of the state's most critical economic engines.
An accident of any magnitude would substantially harm Mayo's reputation and ability to bring patients, the lifeblood of its practice,
to its Rochester campus.
The jobs of about 31,000 Mayo Rochester staffers - and the growth to come with the burgeoning biosciences sector - are at stake.
Thus Minnesota is left to tackle a mess not of its making, but one that nevertheless must be fixed. By paying for an engineering
study, Mayo has laid the groundwork for a thorough discussion of the corridor's minuses and its pluses, which include readying
Rochester for the coming era when patients increasingly cross the cornfields on trains to come to the clinic.
Forming a regional rail authority would be an excellent next step, bringing together localities affected by the project and giving
people an avenue to reach out to local officials with thoughts and concerns.
There are no easy answers other than this one: Inaction is not an option.
|
|