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)
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)
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
"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).
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 ...
I'm sure many members have read this.http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/907
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.
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
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 am not real comfortable with a railroad being able to block crossings, legal or not.
ed
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.
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
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?
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"
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
But I am right on every other point. Thanks for acknowledging that.
Those weren't my "terms". Oddly, you did not object to them as "hot button" terms when the original source used them.
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?
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?
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..."
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.