Here is Tribune article about the ruling.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-trains_26jan26,0,6363722.story>In 2005, Mundelein took the Wisconsin Central railroad to Lake County court and won a >$14,000 fine after one of its trains blocked the Hawley Street crossing for more than 2 1/2 >hours. The state law, passed in 1999 and incorporated in local ordinances across the state, >prohibited trains from blocking a grade crossing for more than 10 minutes unless the train >was moving or could not be cleared from the crossing for reasons beyond its control.Both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Supreme Court said the local law and ordinance had overstepped federal authority.It seems to me that Mundelein spent a lot of money attempting to collect a fine assessed by a county court. Do the local officials feel that the court action was going to make their town safer if they collected the $14,000? It seems that Mr. Mayor is not trying to work out the problems with the railroad. He just complains about the stubborn railroads. I see that the local newspaper has not printed the court's decision.
Question. Did the decision eliminate the 1999 state law? I'm not sure.
spokyone wrote: Both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Supreme Court said the local law and ordinance had overstepped federal authority.
The Federal authority must first be invoked by the Federal authority, and authorized by Congress. Regarding rail crossings, it hasn't been. Now that I've done some reviewing of the case law, the Illinois Supreme Court was plainly wrong.
For instance, railroads long fought state crew laws on the basis that the economic impact interferred with Interstate Commerce, and therefore violated the Federal authority to regulate railroads. In FIREMEN v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO., 393 U.S. 129 (1968) 393 U.S. 129, the US Supreme Court noted that Congress had not specifically acted in the area of crew laws, and while it had the inherent authority to do so, it hadn't and therefore the States retained jurisdiction. It is a very similar safety argument to the ones disposed of, wrongly I think, by the Illinois Appellate court system.
This decision was handed down by a distinctly Liberal court, more inclined for instance than the current US Supreme Court, to find federal jurisdiction for just about anything it could.
Notwithstanding that, they yielded on safety issues to the states:
"Nor was it open to the District Court to place a value on the additional safety in terms of dollars and cents, in order to see whether this value, as calculated by the court, exceeded the financial cost to the railroads. 12 As we said [393 U.S. 129, 140] in Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, 359 U.S. 520 (1959), where the District Court had struck down an Illinois law requiring trucks to be equipped with contour mudguards, on the ground that the equipment had no safety advantages and was very costly to install and maintain:
"It is difficult at best to say that financial losses should be balanced against the loss of lives and limbs of workers and people using the highways. We certainly cannot do so on this showing."
Opinion held: "Under all the circumstances we see no reason to depart from this Court's previous decisions holding that the Arkansas full-crew laws do not unduly burden interstate commerce or otherwise violate the Constitution. Undoubtedly heated disputes will continue as to the extent [393 U.S. 129, 144] to which these laws contribute to safety and other public interests, and the extent to which such contributions are justified by the cost of the additional manpower. These disputes will continue to be worked out in the legislatures and in various forms of collective bargaining between management and the unions. As we have said many times, Congress unquestionably has power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the number of employees who shall be used to man trains used in interstate commerce. In the absence of congressional action, however, we cannot invoke the judicial power to invalidate this judgment of the people of Arkansas and their elected representatives as to the price society should pay to promote safety in the railroad industry. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the cases are remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
It is so ordered."
spokyone wrote:Here is Tribune article about the ruling.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-trains_26jan26,0,6363722.story>In 2005, Mundelein took the Wisconsin Central railroad to Lake County court and won a >$14,000 fine after one of its trains blocked the Hawley Street crossing for more than 2 1/2 >hours. The state law, passed in 1999 and incorporated in local ordinances across the state, >prohibited trains from blocking a grade crossing for more than 10 minutes unless the train >was moving or could not be cleared from the crossing for reasons beyond its control.Both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Supreme Court said the local law and ordinance had overstepped federal authority.It seems to me that Mundelein spent a lot of money attempting to collect a fine assessed by a county court. Do the local officials feel that the court action was going to make their town safer if they collected the $14,000? It seems that Mr. Mayor is not trying to work out the problems with the railroad. He just complains about the stubborn railroads. I see that the local newspaper has not printed the court's decision. Question. Did the decision eliminate the 1999 state law? I'm not sure.
I must say that this story is silly. There is a perfectly good underpass on the other side of the passenger station. It would have taken them only a few minutes to go around as opposed to waiting there for 2.5 hours. Or if it only blocked the Hawley Street crossing, merely driving up the next block to Park or even Rt 176 would have cost, oh, maybe 60 seconds more time if you drive slowly.
Should they have the right to regulate crossing times? I think so, but my guess is that they spent way more than $14,000 attempting to collect this fine, which was merely a matter of inconvenience and not a matter of life and death.
Wow, ok, I just read the background of the Mundelein story. The reason the Supreme Court knocked it down, was because the train was disabled. A drawbar had come loose and killed the air hose on the rear car while they were slowing down due to notification of dragging equipment. So the train dumped air and came to rest across the Hawley Street crossing. You can all read it for yourself (here). They had to cut the train twice to allow Metra passengers across to the parking lot, which added a lot of time.
But it all comes down to this: The Village ordinance isn't wrong, just the application was. I think the media and the general public has once again taken a story out of context and blown it out of proportion.
Krazykat112079 wrote: Wow, ok, I just read the background of the Mundelein story. The reason the Supreme Court knocked it down, was because the train was disabled. A drawbar had come loose and killed the air hose on the rear car while they were slowing down due to notification of dragging equipment. So the train dumped air and came to rest across the Hawley Street crossing. You can all read it for yourself (here). They had to cut the train twice to allow Metra passengers across to the parking lot, which added a lot of time.But it all comes down to this: The Village ordinance isn't wrong, just the application was. I think the media and the general public has once again taken a story out of context and blown it out of proportion.
Well, something might be "out of context and .... out of proportion" but I am reading it differently. The ordinance was struck down. The Court specifically stated the facts of the case didn't matter.
The official Opinion states as follows:
"In sum, the saving clause does not apply because the ordinance is incompatible with the federal regulations on train speed and air brake testing. We conclude that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA and is, therefore, unenforceable. Because we have concluded that the ordinance is preempted by the FRSA, we need not consider ... the facts of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the appellate court's conclusion that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA."
Any decision to the contrary would have been big news, and might well have resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court reversing it. It's a legal doctrine called federal preemption. Basically, states and localities have very limited power to tell railroads how to operate.
MichaelSol wrote: Well, something might be "out of context and .... out of proportion" but I am reading it differently. The ordinance was struck down. The Court specifically stated the facts of the case didn't matter.The official Opinion states as follows:"In sum, the saving clause does not apply because the ordinance is incompatible with the federal regulations on train speed and air brake testing. We conclude that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA and is, therefore, unenforceable. Because we have concluded that the ordinance is preempted by the FRSA, we need not consider ... the facts of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the appellate court's conclusion that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA."
We need not consider the Village's argument that the trial court did not err in applying the ordinance to the facts of this case.
For your Gee Whiz file...
The Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court is a former NFL player
For 10 points and a shiny new dime the next time I see you:
1) Name the team
2) Name his position
3) Name him
For more Gee Whiz... My EX once was on a jury in his court (before the Supreme Court thing)
greyhounds wrote: For your Gee Whiz file...The Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court is a former NFL playerFor 10 points and a shiny new dime the next time I see you:1) Name the team2) Name his position3) Name himFor more Gee Whiz... My EX once was on a jury in his court (before the Supreme Court thing)
Get out your dime. Robert F. Thomas, Chicago Bears, Kicker.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Well, something might be "out of context and .... out of proportion" but I am reading it differently. The ordinance was struck down. The Court specifically stated the facts of the case didn't matter.The official Opinion states as follows:"In sum, the saving clause does not apply because the ordinance is incompatible with the federal regulations on train speed and air brake testing. We conclude that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA and is, therefore, unenforceable. Because we have concluded that the ordinance is preempted by the FRSA, we need not consider ... the facts of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the appellate court's conclusion that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA." Very smooth Michael: We need not consider the Village's argument that the trial court did not err in applying the ordinance to the facts of this case.
Didn't expect that. Maybe Mike is just quoting and not editing.
I agree that the Illinois Supreme Court may have erred on this decision. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants the right of the US Congress to regulate commerce between the state, but I do not think it completely or automatically preempts the states from establishing laws or regulations the may have an impact on interstate commerce. The cited FRA statement notes that their action in this area is advisory, and it appears to me that the regulation of blocked crossings may be controled by local ordinance.
Beyond their possible right to do so in any circumstances, I wonder if Mundelien's situation is really one of safety, or just a political response to complaints by citizens to being inconvenienced by stopped trains. A post above notes the existance of clear options available allowing prompt movement of emergency responders via routes not blocked by a train. So this raises a question. Was the motivation for passing the ordinance really the safety issue, or was it to appease citizen complaints and perhaps pick up a little extra income for the village coffers?
I honestly don't know the answer, but let me pose this. I would not be comfortable if I lived in a community where emergency response units could not reach me promptly if a train was blocking a crossing. Even with a ten minute rule, the delay might be too much to allow a critical rescue or save a burning building. Further, in the absence of planned optional routes, what is to be done if it is physically impossible for the railroad to clear a street crossing?
I'm not saying that local ordinances governing blocked crossings are wrong, even if just for the convenience of local citizens. However, I think reason might suggest that fines would only be assesed in the event that the railroad refused to open a street crossing when there was no mechanical problem keeping the train from being cut and the blocked cars moved.
jeaton wrote:I agree that the Illinois Supreme Court may have erred on this decision. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants the right of the US Congress to regulate commerce between the state, but I do not think it completely or automatically preempts the states from establishing laws or regulations the may have an impact on interstate commerce. The cited FRA statement notes that their action in this area is advisory, and it appears to me that the regulation of blocked crossings may be controled by local ordinance.
Your interpertation of the Commerce Clause sounds reasonable to me, however the SCOTUS has taken a more inclusive view of the clause. One example is the law requiring states to approve use of 53' trailers.
erikem wrote: jeaton wrote: I agree that the Illinois Supreme Court may have erred on this decision. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants the right of the US Congress to regulate commerce between the state, but I do not think it completely or automatically preempts the states from establishing laws or regulations the may have an impact on interstate commerce. The cited FRA statement notes that their action in this area is advisory, and it appears to me that the regulation of blocked crossings may be controled by local ordinance.Your interpertation of the Commerce Clause sounds reasonable to me, however the SCOTUS has taken a more inclusive view of the clause. One example is the law requiring states to approve use of 53' trailers.
jeaton wrote: I agree that the Illinois Supreme Court may have erred on this decision. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants the right of the US Congress to regulate commerce between the state, but I do not think it completely or automatically preempts the states from establishing laws or regulations the may have an impact on interstate commerce. The cited FRA statement notes that their action in this area is advisory, and it appears to me that the regulation of blocked crossings may be controled by local ordinance.
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. 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."
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
More than a few were driven by Mr and Mrs Megabucks calling in favors from their bought and paid for politicians after having been inconvenienced ONCE by such an incident.
Go back a few months and look at the thread that described a newcomer to town expecting the railroad to move because SHE objected to the noise of passing trains - on a railroad which had been there two hundred times as long as she had.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Chuck
spokyone wrote: Very smooth Michael: We need not consider the Village's argument that the trial court did not err in applying the ordinance to the facts of this case.
Very smooth Michael:
Nothing smooth about it. That's what is said. The Village wanted to argue that the ordinance applied to the specific facts of this case, and that the Trial Court had carefully looked at the facts, and in upholding the Village, read them in the context of the words of the ordinance.
The Illinois Supreme Court said they did not have to consider whether or not the ordinance applied to the facts of the case. That was because they found that the ordinance was preempted by Federal law, and by finding that, they did not have to proceed to investigate whether or not the Trial Court's application of the actual "facts" made any difference or not. The "facts" didn't matter because of the Court's use of the doctrine of preemption.
A couple of you gentlemen aren't reading carefully, or don't understand the language of courts.
The Village wanted to talk "facts" and how the ordinance applied. The Illinois Supreme Cour disagreed: "We need not consider [as urged by the Village].... the facts of the case."
They couldn't, under their view of preemption.
tomikawaTT wrote: 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. 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."More than a few were driven by Mr and Mrs Megabucks calling in favors from their bought and paid for politicians after having been inconvenienced ONCE by such an incident.Go back a few months and look at the thread that described a newcomer to town expecting the railroad to move because SHE objected to the noise of passing trains - on a railroad which had been there two hundred times as long as she had.Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.Chuck
Usually these kind of comments are reserved for "bought and paid for" politicans that are appointed by their cronies to Supreme Courts or elected courtesy of huge corporate contributions, and always rule in favor of the big corporate interests. Sometimes these are even characterized as decisions based on the "greed" and "arrogance" of ruthless, powerful corporate entities. It is refreshing, finally, to see a recognition that there can be two sides to these matters and that even stupid people who haven't lived in one place long enough to suit somebody else's opinion can apparently control outcomes of important litigation.
That is what you meant, isn't it?
jeaton wrote: However, I think reason might suggest that fines would only be assesed in the event that the railroad refused to open a street crossing when there was no mechanical problem keeping the train from being cut and the blocked cars moved.
However, I think reason might suggest that fines would only be assesed in the event that the railroad refused to open a street crossing when there was no mechanical problem keeping the train from being cut and the blocked cars moved.
And that is how I read this ordinance; that it was, in fact, carefully drafted to protect the railroad from being fined for mechanical problems -- problems beyond its "control" -- but would be fined for blocking the crossing for more than ten minutes if the circumstance was one that the railroad could control. Practically speaking, the ordinance appears to be close to what the FRA has recommended, particularly in the context that the advantage goes to the railroad company -- nobody clicks the stopwatch when the train crosses the crossing, and the burden of proof of the minimum time frame is on the Village. Realistically, ten minutes is the minimum that the train would be allowed to block the crossing, rather than the apparent maximum.
The Trial court looked at the facts under the ordinance; the Illinois Supreme Court said they didn't matter since the ordinance was unenforceable as a matter of law.
jeaton wrote: Beyond their possible right to do so in any circumstances, I wonder if Mundelien's situation is really one of safety, or just a political response to complaints by citizens to being inconvenienced by stopped trains. A post above notes the existance of clear options available allowing prompt movement of emergency responders via routes not blocked by a train. So this raises a question. Was the motivation for passing the ordinance really the safety issue, or was it to appease citizen complaints and perhaps pick up a little extra income for the village coffers?
This raises two troubling questions.
First, should a court inquire as to whether a Village has a right to enforce an ordinance against all crossings, or just some of them based on "convenience" and location as adjudged by a court attempting to anticipate all possible permutations of location of emergencies and location of emergency responders? I think the task would be impossible and far beyond what courts are supposed to do.
Second, should the courts be required to inquire into the motive of each and every person voting for a particular ordinance, to see if their motives were pure enough to meet ... what? ... a court's arbitrary criteria of appropriate motive?
Don't railroads pick up "a little extra income" from captive shippers?
Is there an inappropriate motive in that?
The village argues that the train crew should have done an additional inspection when the train was 10 miles away. I am surprised a trial judge would rule in favor of the village. The village had a weak argument and now look what happened. No more ordinance. WC has no incentive to keep the crossings clear.
spokyone wrote: WC has no incentive to keep the crossings clear.
WC has no incentive to keep the crossings clear.
Suggesting that the ordinance was necessary?
MichaelSol wrote: spokyone wrote: WC has no incentive to keep the crossings clear.Suggesting that the ordinance was necessary?
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote: spokyone wrote: WC has no incentive to keep the crossings clear.Suggesting that the ordinance was necessary?No. I am suggesting that WC is going to save attorney fees.
Obeying the law is always one way of avoiding attorney fees, but that's just not as satisfying is it?
I'll bet WC spent considerably more of its shareholder money to overturn this ordinance than to simply comply, or even just to pay the fine.
And between the Trial court and the Appellate courts, I'm not convinced either one handled this case very well, but to suggest that outcomes should be based on attorney fees is, well ....
MichaelSol wrote: I'll bet WC spent considerably more of its shareholder money to overturn this ordinance than to simply comply, or even just to pay the fine. And between the Trial court and the Appellate courts, I'm not convinced either one handled this case very well, but to suggest that outcomes should be based on attorney fees is, well ....
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote: I'll bet WC spent considerably more of its shareholder money to overturn this ordinance than to simply comply, or even just to pay the fine. I suggested no such thing.
MichaelSol wrote: I'll bet WC spent considerably more of its shareholder money to overturn this ordinance than to simply comply, or even just to pay the fine.
I suggested no such thing.
But earlier, the identical person suggested exactly "such thing":
spokyone wrote:No. I am suggesting that WC is going to save attorney fees.
You want something your way here, whatever it is. I can't tell. Well, whether you are or are not gleeful over attorney fees, or something else, take it, with my compliments.
spokyone wrote: I believe the Appellate court acted properly.
Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position, I am curious, what is your legal basis and authority for your personal opinion on this conclusion? What are your criteria for "acting properly"?
MichaelSol wrote: spokyone wrote: I believe the Appellate court acted properly. Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position, I am curious, what is your legal basis and authority for your personal opinion on this conclusion? What are your criteria for "acting properly"?
Holy cow, I didn't know you had to have authority to have an opinion. Where do you submit the application for authority to posess opinions?
As for how he developed that opinion, perhaps he read the opinion of the Appellate court and agreed with them. I did. Is that a crime?
MichaelSol wrote: spokyone wrote: I believe the Appellate court acted properly. Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position
Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote: spokyone wrote: I believe the Appellate court acted properly. Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different positionBy APPEAR do you mean in your opinion?
I offered you the courtesy of citing cases from the "highest court" in the land, uniquely empowered by the Constitution to express opinons on precisely such issues, and I did take the time to cite the appropriate portions of those cases that deal with the specific topic.
In addition, I cited to the FRA reports that express the FRA's attitude on the matter which is 1) they have no regulations nor has Congress commanded any on the subject of rail crossing blockage, and 2) that they believe local communities are in the best position to resolve the problems.
I utilized those as the basis for my opinion. Had they been substantively different, my "opinion" would have been different since my opinion is nothing more than the effort to summarize what appears to me to be the controlling law on the subject.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.