The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the state law and a Mundlein municpal ordinance barring trains from blocking grade crossings for more then 10 minutes invalid because the federal government has jurisidiction.
I find it an odd decision because states have supplemented the federal law since the beginning of railroads.
No more large fines for blocked grade crossings.
Jeff
fairness doctrine wins out over local ego/greed...everybody plays by the same rules.
as it should be.
Are quiet zones next?
doghouse wrote: Are quiet zones next?
Some place will find out that local arrogance (or stupidity) will get the local quiet zone revoked by the FRA. Word has it that Illinois has a prime candidate just out of the numbers department.
mudchicken wrote: fairness doctrine wins out over local ego/greed...everybody plays by the same rules.as it should be.
I'd like to see someone block the rail line for ten minutes ... and claim it's only "fair."
These ordinances generally originate with the public safety agencies -- the ones that are often risking their lives trying to save lives -- and are typically designed to ensure that the public highways have a minimum access window for emergency services -- police, fire and ambulance. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the legal analysis of the Illinois Supreme Court, the suggestion that public officials under these circumstances are not attempting to reasonably regulate a legitimate safety concern -- and that it comes instead from "ego" and "greed", "arrogance" and "stupidity" -- is pretty far over the top, even for these forums.
Bucyrus wrote:Blocking grade crossings with a stopped train is directly related to the beat-the-train, risk taking cause of grade crossing crashes.
MichaelSol wrote:These ordinances generally originate with the public safety agencies -- the ones that are often risking their lives trying to save lives -- and are typically designed to ensure that the public highways have a minimum access window for emergency services -- police, fire and ambulance. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the legal analysis of the Illinois Supreme Court, the suggestion that public officials under these circumstances are not attempting to reasonably regulate a legitimate safety concern -- and that it comes instead from "ego" and "greed", "arrogance" and "stupidity" -- is pretty far over the top, even for these forums.
When a railroad has owned and used its right-of-way for longer than a town existed in any great size on both sides of the tracks, who then assumes the liability to protect the public on the opposite side of the tracks from where the emergency services are based?
To alleviate this problem, many towns along the railroads in the Chicago suburbs built fire stations on both sides of the tracks, which intersect most towns. Most towns make sure they always have an available police patrol car on each size of the tracks.
But you cannot offer 100 percent guaranteed protection. What happens when all of the emergency services in a town are tied up with, say, a major fire and a second alarm comes in for another large fire?
What's the difference from living on the "unprotected" side of the tracks and living in a rural area 6-10 miles from the closest town and emergency services?
However, I agree with MC. Many towns in the Chicago area -- especially LaGrange Park in the 1960s and 1970s-- virtually "count" on fines from ticketing railroads for blocking crossings as an active revenue stream. LaGrange Park used to ticket the Indiana Harbor Belt several times a week in those days.
Hog&Tow,
You make a good point. There is no reason to take a large risk to beat a train that will clear in a few seconds. However, a motorist does not know what is coming when the signals activate. They only have their memories of being blocked by a train for an insufferable amount of time, and they are bound and determined to not let it happen again.
Railroaders shake their collective heads in bewilderment at the risks drivers take. Yet the reason for it is obvious.
Poppa_Zit wrote: When a railroad has owned and used its right-of-way for longer than a town existed in any great size on both sides of the tracks, who then assumes the liability to protect the public on the opposite side of the tracks from where the emergency services are based?
Whoa. You make some pretty big assumptions "when a railroad has owned ...". The railroads exist by grant of a privilege from society through easement and eminent domain. The rest of society doesn't exist by grant of a privilege from the railroad. Suppose the town existed, on that exact spot, long before the railroad? There are good many roads that existed long, long before the railroads arrived. Does your theory exempt them? Or include them?
However, you miss my point, entirely. Saying that people involved in saving lives have only "greed" and "ego", 'arrogance" and "stupidity" is, I think, uncalled for, when they simply call upon the railroad to assist in that endeavor by offering a reasonable clearance for "public" highways. The emergency services people encounter enough handicaps and little enough thanks as it is to deserve to be called greedy because they hope to be able to use a highway crossing in a timely manner when someone's life may be at stake.
The claim that a small community should build duplicating services in each case where a railroad has exercised, or will exercise, eminent domain is ... well, a "new one".
The legal and practical issues are debatable. The "need" call someone "greedy" as a purely name-calling device designed to libel one side of the discussion is the tactic I object to.
edbenton wrote:Micheal here in my hometown they built not one but 3 separate ways for EMS to get around trains in town if one has to stop. There are 2 underpasses and 1 Viaduct crossing the yard. Even if there is a train doing interchange with the NS and ties up the Main street crossing it adds 15 seconds to the reponse time for any of our units to the call. Our Avarage time with a train is 4.30 without 4.15 and that is anywere in town. Called the City fathers and the RR's worked together to come up with a solution to the problem and fixed it before it was one and have stayed on it.
My point is: it was the name-calling I objected to -- the reflexive psychological need by some posters to drag someone through the dirt simply because they disagree with them.
MichaelSol sez:
Whoa. You make some pretty big assumptions "when a railroad has owned ...". The railroads exist by grant of a privilege from society through easement and eminent domain. The rest of society doesn't exist by grant of a privilege from the railroad.
Michael, get serious. That's nit-picking not germane to the argument. Let's just say the signs always say "RR Property, Keep Off" and you can be arrested for trespassing on RR property and so let's not worry about the nits.
Suppose the town existed, on that exact spot, long before the railroad? There are good many roads that existed long, long before the railroads arrived. Does your theory exempt them? Or include them?
Neither. You are trying to take this where I didn't go. My words were: "When a railroad has owned and used its right-of-way for longer than a town existed in any great size on both sides of the tracks..."
Go back and read my words again. I never called the emergency services "greedy" or any of your other hot-button terms. The towns, yes.
I was a fireman for 18 years and the last 14 doubled as a medic on the ambulance. Most years I made over 1,200 ambulance runs. The true instances along the busy Chicago BNSF Racetrack of a person actually losing their life because of a stopped train affecting an emergency response -- while it happens -- is RARE. And far more rare than a person in a town with no rail line losing their life because a town's emergency resources were already tied up on another call. Or multiple calls. As someone else pointed out, that's what automatic mutual aid agreements are for. They work just fine.
Not new. Come to the Chicago suburbs and take a look for yourself. Again, I was writing about the RR being there before the town expanded. If a town collects real estate taxes from both sides of a RR, and if trains could present a problem, I'd say the ethical liability would rest on the town to do whatever it needs to prevent the problem. Either build a brifge, underpass or build another fire station.
The legal and practical issues are debatable.
Debate all you'd like, but I'd rather look at how it is being handled in practice.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Go back and read my words again. I never called the emergency services "greedy" or any of your other hot-button terms. The towns, yes.
My "hot button" terms?
This is why agendas trump reality on these forums.
Those weren't my "terms". Oddly, you did not object to them as "hot button" terms when the original source used them.
MichaelSol wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Go back and read my words again. I never called the emergency services "greedy" or any of your other hot-button terms. The towns, yes.My "hot button" terms? This is why agendas trump reality on these forums.They weren't my "terms".
They weren't my "terms".
But I am right on every other point. Thanks for acknowledging that.
Poppa_Zit wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Go back and read my words again. I never called the emergency services "greedy" or any of your other hot-button terms. The towns, yes.My "hot button" terms? This is why agendas trump reality on these forums.They weren't my "terms".But I am right on every other point. Thanks for seeing that.
But I am right on every other point. Thanks for seeing that.
I said no such thing. My point was that small communities are trying to make the "public highways" available for emergency services on a reasonable basis. That is not a defense of communities that have other motives, nor was that discussion included in the reasoning of the Illinois Supreme Court. My objection was to the terminology of "greedy" applied to ordinances arising out of legitimate public concerns: and public safety is a legitimate public concern.
MichaelSol wrote:I'd like to see someone block the rail line for ten minutes ... and claim it's only "fair." These ordinances generally originate with the public safety agencies
So, regarding the information of the first post, what does it mean? Since the law was struck down, does that mean that there is no limit on how long a train can block a crossing in Mundlein, IL? Or does some other rule apply?
Are there not dozens if not hundreds of other local ordinances throughout the country that limit the time that a train can block a crossing? If so, are they enforceable?
How many of you feel that there should be no local, state, or federal law whatsoever that prohibits trains from blocking grade crossings for more than a specific amount of time?
If that is your preference, are you in favor of the railroad companies imposing operating rules that limit the amount of time their trains can block grade crossings, or not?
Bucyrus wrote: So, regarding the information of the first post, what does it mean? Since the law was struck down, does that mean that there is no limit on how long a train can block a crossing in Mundlein, IL? Or does some other rule apply? Are there not dozens if not hundreds of other local ordinances throughout the country that limit the time that a train can block a crossing? If so, are they enforceable?How many of you feel that there should be no local, state, or federal law whatsoever that prohibits trains from blocking grade crossings for more than a specific amount of time? If that is your preference, are you in favor of the railroad companies imposing operating rules that limit the amount of time their trains can block grade crossings, or not?
The state of IL has rules on how long a crossing can be blocked. If the time is exceeded a fine is involved. As for railroad companies having their own rules, I can tell you that the railroad I work for says that if a train is blocking a crossing for more than 15 minutes, and is not in a emergancy situation, then the train will be cut at the crossing/crossings that are blocked.
An "expensive model collector"
For 2000 years and more, land transportation moved at the speed of a Horse !
Then, in the 1820s, the railroads came. They were given land so they would serve their Town or City. To be bypassed by the Railroad was economic disaster. The Railroad owns the land they were given. In some States, if they stop using it, it reverts back to the State, City, Town.
If the Rails were there First, and then the Town or City puts a road across the tracks, the Railroad still owns the Right-of-Way and will want to protect there property. The Town or City will have to regulate the crossing of the tracks.
If the Town or City require 24/7 access, then the Tax Payer pays for the Bridge or Tunnel.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Since this is a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court, it only applies to ordinances within the State of Illinois. While it has no effect on the rest of the country, the decision may well be cited by courts in other states as part of the basis of their decisions.
I am not real comfortable with a railroad being able to block crossings, legal or not.
ed
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote:I'd like to see someone block the rail line for ten minutes ... and claim it's only "fair." These ordinances generally originate with the public safety agencies I disagree. Those ordinances have never, IIRC, been as a result of a life being lost.
And where did you look that up at?
This goes to reasonableness. And it is unreasonable to think that people with responsibilities for fire, police, and medical emergency responding do not look at railroad crossings as threatening chokepoints for the quick response of emergency vehicles and that fashioning a variety of mechanisms, including city ordinances, might not be a reasonable approach to facilitating emergency responders.
And I stress "reasonableness" because this is probably the only group of people that I know of that could recognize that everyone who uses or crosses public roadways has to yield the right of way to emergency vehicles, and then can proclaim without any embarrassment to their gift of logic that if railroads don't have any such requirement, that finally it is fair and everyone operates under the same laws, even as they seek to justify exempting railroads from the same rules that everyone else must follow.
And, once again, it is not that I feel strongly about the law one way or the other; it is the absurd observation that everyone operates under the same laws coupled with the notion that facilitating emergency responders is "greedy' and "arrogant".
I'm sure many members have read this.http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/907
spokyone wrote: Those ordinances have never, IIRC, been as a result of a life being lost. They (politician, newspaper reporter) say "Someday we may have an emergency when a train is blocking a road, therefore let's make the railroad change."
According to the FRA, such concerns are, in fact, "serious". Indeed, Congress commanded the FRA to do a study on the problem, from which the FRA itself noted: "While every minute can be precious in an emergency, crossings blocked for extended periods of time are a much greater problem than simply having to wait while a train passes through a crossing".
"Blocked crossings are a problem for all highway users, but they can be a particularly serious problem for emergency responders. Emergency responders (emergency medical services, fire and police) need to reach their destinations as quickly as possible. An ambulance racing to a heart attack victim or an automobile accident may be delayed only a few minutes by a passing train, but even a few minutes is a very long time in an emergency. A fire engine forced to take another route because of a stopped train may arrive at a fire too late to prevent significant damage or even deaths or injuries. Delayed police response can lessen the chance to apprehend a criminal or prevent a more serious crime.
"The problem is not simply trains moving through a grade crossing. Many areas reported problems with trains that stopped while blocking a crossing, sometimes for hours."
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/blocked_crossings_emergency_response.pdf
Interestingly, the FRA itself does not assert that "pre-emption" exists, but only notes that railroads have been using the claim in court, notwithstanding FRA's admission that there is nothing in its regulations saying one thing or the other about such restrictions. Contrary to what the Illinois Supreme Court states, the FRA acknowledges that "Communities are the best judges of the severity of the problem of blocked crossings".
The Illinois opinion appears to me to be quite weak, in that no less an authority than the US Supreme Court has shown great deference to municipal ordinances.
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Goldsboro, 232 U.S. 548 (1914)
Syllabus
Whether a municipal ordinance is within the power conferred by the legislature upon the municipality is a question of state law.
A municipal ordinance within the power delegated by the legislature is a state law within the meaning of the federal Constitution.
Any enactment, from whatever source originating, to which a state gives the force of law is a statute of the state within the pertinent clause of § 237, Judicial Code, conferring jurisdiction on this Court.
A railroad charter may embody a contract within the protection of the federal Constitution.
Although the state court may have held that there was a contract, but that it was subject to constitutional reserved power to alter and repeal, this Court, in reviewing that judgment under § 237, Judicial Code, will determine for itself the existence or nonexistence of the asserted contract and whether its obligation has been impaired.
While a railroad company which devotes a part of its right of way to public use inconsistent with railway purposes may not lose its property right therein, the state may, in the exercise of its police power and for the protection of the public so using such property, require the company to so use its other property as not to endanger the public, applying the principle underlying the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.
Neither the "contract clause" nor the "due process clause" of the federal Constitution overrides the power of the state to establish necessary and reasonable regulations under its police power, a power which can neither be abdicated nor bargained away and subject to which all property rights are held.
The enforcement of uncompensated obedience to a properly enacted police regulation for public health and safety is not an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation or without due process of law.
The constitutional validity of ordinances affecting public safety as affected by railroads must be considered not only in view of charter and property rights, but also of the consent and acquiescence of the owners of railroads.
Ordinances limiting speed of trains, requiring notice of their approach, fixing hours for shifting cars and periods of stoppage of cars, and requiring the adjustment of tracks to the established grade of the streets in business sections of the municipality are properly within the police power of the municipality, and, when fairly designed to promote the public health and safety, do not violate the contract clause or due process clause of the federal Constitution.
Ordinance of the City of Goldsboro, North Carolina, regulating speed of trains, notice of their approach, periods for car shifting and length of time of car stoppages and requiring adjustment of grades of track to grades of streets in business sections of the town held proper and reasonably suited to the purposes they are intended to accomplish, and therefore that they do not impair the obligation of the charter of a railroad occupying those streets, nor do they take any of its property without due process of law. 155 N.C. 356 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance regulating the operation of railroad trains and the standing of the cars in the street and requiring the tracks to conform to the street grade and to be filled in between the rails, are stated in the opinion.
Opinion held: "The regulations in question are thus found to be fairly designed to promote the public health, safety, and welfare; the measures adopted appear to be reasonably suited to the purposes they are intended to accomplish; and we are unable to say that there is any unnecessary interference with the operations of the railroad, or with the property rights of plaintiff in error. Therefore, no violation of the 'contract' or 'due process' clauses is shown.
Judgment affirmed."
As I mentioned, "reasonableness" -- often missing here -- is a useful guide and there is nothing unreasonable, per se, about requiring all citizens, corporations and individuals alike, to acknowledge some minimum level of care regarding blocking public highways where emergency services are concerned. The specious argument that "railroads were here first" -- aside from the historical illiteracy of the proposition -- inverts the authority of the government and the governed: railroads are and always will be a creature of government charter and commanded to obeys its laws; not the other way around.
The "police power" is a Constitutional power discussed in the Atlantic Coast Line case. There is no special Constitution just for railroads ...
"It is elementary that for the safety and convenience of the public, the state, either directly or through its municipalities, may reasonably regulate the construction and use of highways where they cross railroads. The legitimate exertion of police power to that end does not violate the constitutional rights of railroad companies. They may be required at their own expense to construct bridges or viaducts whenever the elimination of grade crossings reasonably may be required, whether constructed before or after the building of the railroads. Northern Pacific Railway v. Duluth, 208 U.S. 583, 597 , 28 S. Ct. 341; Chi., Mil. & St. P. Ry. v. Minneapolis, 232 U.S. 430, 438 , 34 S. Ct. 400; Mo. Pac. Ry. v. Omaha, 235 U.S. 121, 127 , 35 S. Ct. 82; Erie R. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Com'rs, 254 U.S. 394, 409 , 412 S., 41 S. Ct. 169. And such costs are not included in the just compensation which the railroad companies are entitled to receive. Cincinnati, I. & W. Ry. v. Connersville, 218 U.S. 336, 343 , 31 S. Ct. 93, 20 Ann. Cas. 1206; Chi., Mil. & St. P. Ry. v. Minneapolis, supra, 440 (34 S. Ct. 400). If the enforcement of its provisions operates to hamper the state's power reasonably to regulate the construction and use of the Comanche avenue crossing, then undoubtedly the ordinance is void. Chicago & Alton R. R. v. Tranbarger, 238 U.S. 67, 76 , 35 S. Ct. 678; Atlantic Coast Line v. Goldsboro, 232 U.S. 548, 558 , 34 S. Ct. 364; Denver & R. G. R. R. Co. v. Denver, 250 U.S. 241, 244 , 39 S. Ct. 450".
From: MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. v. STATE OF OKL., 271 U.S. 303 (1926).
Referenced with approval in: UNITED STATES TRUST CO. v. NEW JERSEY, 431 U.S. 1 (1977).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.