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?
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.
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.
train crews generally feel they have a responsibilty to the public when it comes to blocking crossings & will do their best not to block them any longer than neccessary…sooner or later it’s going to happen though.some [not all] dispatchers have the attitude that “the R.R.'s were here long before motorists were & the crews can cut the crossings if need be, they’re just sitting there anyway” arrogance has long been a fact when it comes to the railroads.I guess when you have the monopoly that comes with the industry these attitudes are enevitable.
Blocking grade crossings with a stopped train is directly related to the beat-the-train, risk taking cause of grade crossing crashes.
this has been going on for a hundred years…to want to beat the train is probably a natural reaction, but remember in a collision “the TRAIN ALWAYS WINS” when a mother driving a mini van kills innocent children because of her impatience she should rot in hell!! these crossings being blocked are a fact of life…actually life or death.
I don’t know how many times I have been on a light power move & seen these impatient people back up & turn around only to realize I am clear of the crossing before they get 20 ft. down the road…it’s comical really [(-D] they just think “oh hell, here comes another train” [%-)]
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
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.
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.
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.
Towns/Cities have mutual aid agreements. So that if you need assistance. Can;t get an emergency vehicle to a location or there is a fire. They call for assistance and those units respond.
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.
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.
But I am right on every other point. Thanks for acknowledging 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.
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.”