In answer to a Wall Street Journal op-ed article last week, here's a letter from Mayo Clinic, which ran in today's WSJ:
Why Bill the Taxpayers For a Shaky Railroad?Let's make it a double-shot: Here's a press release from DM&E that I received on Tuesday and haven't done anything with yet. Sorry for the delay in posting it:
September 15, 2006; Page A13Holman W. Jenkins Jr. documents many of the troubling circumstances behind a proposed rail project that would cut through the heart of Rochester, Minn., a few hundred feet from Mayo Clinic ("Train in Vain?1" Business World, Sept. 6). Political gamesmanship created an earmark for the DM&E Railroad without actually naming the company in federal legislation. A company with barely $200 million in annual revenue doesn't warrant a federal subsidy larger than the Chrysler bailout, putting taxpayers on the hook for $2.3 billion. Meanwhile, other railroads in an unregulated industry are investing their own money to increase capacity.
Mr. Jenkins may not realize it, but Mayo Clinic has had its own electrical generating capacity since 1927; not quite as long as we've been practicing medicine, but we understand how it works. We understand that America needs affordable access to coal. We don't understand why a company that neglects its own track for 20 years deserves government subsidy or why taxpayers should give venture capital for a speculative expansion. The Chrysler loan went to a company with 140,000 employees and more than $9 billion in annual sales and was debated vigorously in the halls of Congress and by the American people. The proposed $2.3 billion taxpayer loan to the fledgling DM&E has had no floor debate in Congress, and the public has been barred from examining details of the loan application and the company's finances.
Our primary concern is protecting our patients, who come from every state and 122 countries. Far from the "leafy" image portrayed in the editorial, Mayo Clinic was the largest provider of Medicare services among all teaching hospitals by nearly a five-to-one ratio in 2003. We are speaking out because of the DM&E's worst-in-class safety record that would put our patients, employees and community at risk. Taxpayers also should be concerned about the risk of a DM&E default. We hope Mr. Jenkins's column will help spur the open debate a taxpayer subsidy of this magnitude deserves.
Denis Cortese, M.D.
President and CEO
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minn.
September 12, 2006 Contact: Jafar KarimDOWNLOAD: DM&E's Sept. 5 letter to FRA (pdf)
For Immediate Release 605-782-1224DM&E Rail Upgrade Exceeds National Safety Mark
Upgraded Segments 13 Times Safer than National AverageSIOUX FALLS – DM&E railroad has filed documentation and has urged the FRA consider the dramatic safety improvements resulting from upgrading its rail line. The comparison of 325 miles of track that DM&E upgraded to both the national average and the old rail on DM&E that has not been upgraded demonstrates the profound safety benefits of the proposed upgrade. Comparing the old rail with the upgraded rail for all 325 miles that have been replaced over the past 11 years, the analysis shows the following:
- On the 325 miles of rail that has been upgraded, DM&E operations have been 12.7 times safer than the national average.
- The upgraded rail is 58.7 times safer than the fatigued rail it replaced.
- Failure to replace DM&E’s remaining fatigued rail makes it at least 4.6 times more dangerous than the national average.
- Instead of the 110 derailments that might be expected if none of this rail had been replaced (based on an average of 10 derailments per year if no replacement had occurred), there was only 1 derailment in the past 11 years.
In the letter to the FRA, DM&E encouraged the agency’s “independent review of this information.” These findings help prove the federal surface Transportation Board’s finding that the DM&E upgrade project would actually “reduce the risk” of hazardous material spills and increase safety. It also demonstrates clearly that those who are working to delay this DM&E upgrade are unnecessarily exposing citizens in every community along the DM&E line to derailments that are easily preventable.
This evidence shows clearly that DM&E operates much safer than the national average if allowed to upgrade its track. The finding also confirms rulings by the Surface Transportation Board, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and the FRA that the rail upgrade would improve safety of the line. The ruling was in response to DM&E opponents that had suggested the rail upgrade will not improve safety.
A copy of the DM&E letter to the FRA and a table of derailments on the affected track are attached.
###
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
Comments