Who sets speed restrictions through towns?

I'm curious who has the authority to slow Amtrak to a crawl. Case in point, all six Wolverines crawl through Albion, MI at what I'm guessing is 25 mph on very smooth track. Two hours later we're blasting through towns west of Kalamazoo at 100+. Anyone have any insights?

The host RR. I believe the section where it goes 100+ is owned by Amtrak, but the freight RRs own the rest.

The freight railroads set the speed limits on their tracks. STB has some oversight, however the local municipalities have absolutely zero control over this.

At least this is true in Texas, and I feel safe saying it is the case elsewhere.

From Porter, IN., to Kalamazoo, the Michigan LIne is owned by Amtrak, from Kalamazoo to Detroit, the line is now owned by the Michigan Department of Transportation and is in the process of being upgraded to 110 mph standards. I don't know what the case is in Albion, multiple grade crossings, perhaps.

MikefromCrete said:

From Porter, IN., to Kalamazoo, the Michigan LIne is owned by Amtrak, from Kalamazoo to Detroit, the line is now owned by the Michigan Department of Transportation and is in the process of being upgraded to 110 mph standards. I don't know what the case is in Albion, multiple grade crossings, perhaps.

Click to expand...

It may actually be a slow zone while they work on completing the Battle Creek<->Jackson upgrade.

tonys96 said:

The freight railroads set the speed limits on their tracks. STB has some oversight, however the local municipalities have absolutely zero control over this.

At least this is true in Texas, and I feel safe saying it is the case elsewhere.

Click to expand...

That's not always true. After the Fox River Grove incident, the town attempted to force the UP and Metra to reduce track speed from 70mph to 50mph. The UP, Metra and the Illinois DOT were against it. Ultimately, the governor interceded and passed a feel good law compelling the trains to slow down through the town although most agencies agreed that speed wasn't a factor in the accident.

I can think of a few more examples, but they are not available in print.

Since when can the state control trains either? I thought they were Federal and states were hands off?

I suspect that states can regulate speed of trains that do not cross state boundaries, since they are not involved in interstate commerce? I dunno. Just guessing.

Of course I am almost certain that nothing prevents a railroad from abiding by a speed limit request from a state as a matter of goodwill either.

Thirdrail7 said:

tonys96 said:

The freight railroads set the speed limits on their tracks. STB has some oversight, however the local municipalities have absolutely zero control over this.

At least this is true in Texas, and I feel safe saying it is the case elsewhere.

Click to expand...

That's not always true. After the Fox River Grove incident, the town attempted to force the UP and Metra to reduce track speed from 70mph to 50mph. The UP, Metra and the Illinois DOT were against it. Ultimately, the governor interceded and passed a feel good law compelling the trains to slow down through the town although most agencies agreed that speed wasn't a factor in the accident.

I can think of a few more examples, but they are not available in print.

Click to expand...

You may be correct, that is why I said "At least this is true in Texas"..........however, I can absolutely assure you that a state law that contradicts the federal ones will likely be voided.

Your example stated that Metra was slowed down by the "feel good law" and that state funding would be withheld if there was non-compliance. That could very well be true. However, major freight carriers do not get any state funding...........

Case in point: In the Texas Transportation Code it specifically states that a train train cannot sit idle across any grade crossing with a public street, unless there is mechanical failure or an accident. The Texas Attorney General has opined that this contradicts the federal statutes invoked when the ICC was disbanded that gave regulation of freight rail to the STB, and therefore that is not enforced in Texas, even though it is specifically placed in the Transportation Code.

My city has about two dozen grade crossings owned by UP. The line that the TE used to run from DAL to FTW splits our city in half. UP tells us every year what the speed limit on that line is going to be for the following 12 months, and we have exactly zero we can do about it.

jis said:

I suspect that states can regulate speed of trains that do not cross state boundaries, since they are not involved in interstate commerce? I dunno. Just guessing.

Of course I am almost certain that nothing prevents a railroad from abiding by a speed limit request from a state as a matter of goodwill either.

Click to expand...

The way I understood it was that the Federal Government claimed exclusive control due to railroading being inherently interstate commerce despite a few places with "isolated" lines, and even the isolated lines I'm talking about are connected to the national network (FEC, ARR, most shortlines). I could see something like the Deseret Western or Black Mesa and Lake Powell escaping such since they have no connection to the rest of the rail network.

I wonder if there is a law that prevents the Feds from relinquishing interest on certain aspects of the governance of a line. Again you appear to be an expert on this and I yield to your deep knowledge on the matter.

AFAIR Didn't AAF get STB to say that they are not interested in having jurisdiction over the AAF service?

It's been a long time since I have been to Albion,,, but is that fantastic Cajun restaurant still in the old house, think it was the south side of town?

The "don't block crossings unnecessarily" regulation has been successfully enforced in states other than Texas, since the federal law does *not* preempt it. In fact the federal regulations explicitly exempt trains from state anti-crossing-blocking laws for the first some-number-of-minutes per train (I forget how many), implying that the state statutes are valid if a train sits longer than that.

Historically railroad regulation was a weird mix of state and federal, and it still is, really. The federal government explicitly struck down state and local railroad speed limits quite a long time ago, but the railroads are quite likely to agree to speed limits as a goodwill gesture anyway.

neroden said:

The "don't block crossings unnecessarily" regulation has been successfully enforced in states other than Texas, since the federal law does *not* preempt it. In fact the federal regulations explicitly exempt trains from state anti-crossing-blocking laws for the first some-number-of-minutes per train (I forget how many), implying that the state statutes are valid if a train sits longer than that.

Historically railroad regulation was a weird mix of state and federal, and it still is, really. The federal government explicitly struck down state and local railroad speed limits quite a long time ago, but the railroads are quite likely to agree to speed limits as a goodwill gesture anyway.

Click to expand...

You may be correct about some states......but definitely not all

https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/50abbott/op/2005/htm/ga0331.htm

I know some towns here in Alabama passed ordinances to limit train speed. However the railroads only followed these as a courtesy. NS removed all of the XX mph restrictions for the headend entering a certain crossing a few years ago. Now those ordinances are essentially ignored because the cities that made them don't have authority to set speeds

Federal "preemption" doctrines are mostly on very thin ice when the localities are dealing with actual safety problems; when the anti-blocking statutes are protecting public safety, the courts tend to take the cases more seriously, especially since the federal government *explicitly* said that the states can regulate local safety issues. None of these cases have hit the Supreme Court and I don't think they'll ever rule in favor of the railroads against the *police departments*. If they did they might find themselves impeached.

Howver, local train speed limits lower than that set by track geometry or conditions have no real safety justification ever, and there are experts who will testify to that, so they're *never* enforceable.

Local towns can set speed limits and even quite zone where no horns are blown.

erierail said:

Local towns can set speed limits and even quite zone where no horns are blown.

Click to expand...

Sure they can. And they will likely be ignored, since Federal Law supersedes them.

But you are correct about quiet zones, under some very onerous conditions:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L03055

neroden said:

Federal "preemption" doctrines are mostly on very thin ice when the localities are dealing with actual safety problems; when the anti-blocking statutes are protecting public safety, the courts tend to take the cases more seriously, especially since the federal government *explicitly* said that the states can regulate local safety issues. None of these cases have hit the Supreme Court and I don't think they'll ever rule in favor of the railroads against the *police departments*. If they did they might find themselves impeached.

Howver, local train speed limits lower than that set by track geometry or conditions have no real safety justification ever, and there are experts who will testify to that, so they're *never* enforceable.

Click to expand...

I am most definitely not a lawyer, and perhaps you are.......but the linked opinion of the Texas Attorney General (who is now governor) seems to indicate at least one lawyer's thoughts on this matter.

It would be excellent if there were a ruling from another court other than the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court that was opposite of the way they ruled, so there could be legal clarity on this. I know my city would appreciate some relief from UP trains blocking several crossings for long periods of time.

I read the Texas AG opinion, and if you read it you'll see what a complicated mishmash the situation is. It all hinges on the definition of "local" safety conditions, which is not going to be clarified. If you want your ordinance to stand up in court, it should specify *one particular* crossing and explain why blocking *that* crossing is causing dangerous and unsafe conditions (i.e. there are no alternative crossings for miles, it's needed for public safety vehicles, etc.)

If you have a grade crossing and there's a road bridge 1000 feet away, no court is going to let you enforce an anti-blocking statute on that crossing.

The way the Fifth Circuit and the Michigan court differ from some of the other courts which have ruled on this is that many of the other courts have taken an as-applied view of the situation, and enforced a relatively generic law *where the local conditions call for it*, while voiding it where they do not. The Fifth Circuit demands that the *law* be rewritten to specify the local conditions.

neroden said:

I read the Texas AG opinion, and if you read it you'll see what a complicated mishmash the situation is. It all hinges on the definition of "local" safety conditions, which is not going to be clarified. If you want your ordinance to stand up in court, it should specify *one particular* crossing and explain why blocking *that* crossing is causing dangerous and unsafe conditions (i.e. there are no alternative crossings for miles, it's needed for public safety vehicles, etc.)If you have a grade crossing and there's a road bridge 1000 feet away, no court is going to let you enforce an anti-blocking statute on that crossing.The way the Fifth Circuit and the Michigan court differ from some of the other courts which have ruled on this is that many of the other courts have taken an as-applied view of the situation, and enforced a relatively generic law *where the local conditions call for it*, while voiding it where they do not. The Fifth Circuit demands that the *law* be rewritten to specify the local conditions.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could take one of these cases and argue it in court for one of the municipalities?

tonys96 said:

I am most definitely not a lawyer, and perhaps you are.......but the linked opinion of the Texas Attorney General (who is now governor) seems to indicate at least one lawyer's thoughts on this matter.

Click to expand...

Not sure I'd count what said Governor says and does as "law" either. \

JoeBas said:

tonys96 said:

I am most definitely not a lawyer, and perhaps you are.......but the linked opinion of the Texas Attorney General (who is now governor) seems to indicate at least one lawyer's thoughts on this matter.

Click to expand...

Not sure I'd count what said Governor says and does as "law" either. \

Click to expand...

Agreed! IMHO he was a chump as AG and is an embarrassment as governor.

And the current AG ( under indictment for securities fraud)is even a bigger joke!

Poor Texas, we used to elect Giants and now we just have Pygmies!

tonys96 said:

Thirdrail7 said:

tonys96 said:

The freight railroads set the speed limits on their tracks. STB has some oversight, however the local municipalities have absolutely zero control over this.

At least this is true in Texas, and I feel safe saying it is the case elsewhere.

Click to expand...

That's not always true. After the Fox River Grove incident, the town attempted to force the UP and Metra to reduce track speed from 70mph to 50mph. The UP, Metra and the Illinois DOT were against it. Ultimately, the governor interceded and passed a feel good law compelling the trains to slow down through the town although most agencies agreed that speed wasn't a factor in the accident.

I can think of a few more examples, but they are not available in print.

Click to expand...

You may be correct, that is why I said "At least this is true in Texas"..........however, I can absolutely assure you that a state law that contradicts the federal ones will likely be voided.

Your example stated that Metra was slowed down by the "feel good law" and that state funding would be withheld if there was non-compliance. That could very well be true. However, major freight carriers do not get any state funding...........

Case in point: In the Texas Transportation Code it specifically states that a train train cannot sit idle across any grade crossing with a public street, unless there is mechanical failure or an accident. The Texas Attorney General has opined that this contradicts the federal statutes invoked when the ICC was disbanded that gave regulation of freight rail to the STB, and therefore that is not enforced in Texas, even though it is specifically placed in the Transportation Code.

My city has about two dozen grade crossings owned by UP. The line that the TE used to run from DAL to FTW splits our city in half. UP tells us every year what the speed limit on that line is going to be for the following 12 months, and we have exactly zero we can do about it.

Click to expand...

Why does UP tell you what the speed limit is on a yearly basis? Is it subject to change? Have you tried to do anything about it or do you just assume you can't do anything about it? I know of a town that took a railroad to court for blocking grade crossings. They even went as far as to ticket engineers (which is ludicrous in my mind and how the engineer allowed himself to be ticketed is beyond me.) Eventually, they closed one of the grade crossings and shifted traffic since by this particular state law, blocking a grade crossing was only allowed for a reasonable amount of time and the judge ruled a train blocking a crossing in excess of 5 minutes was unreasonable.