Dinah won't U blow yur horn

[Ispolkom]

Why should the community fit the bill for the railroad's decision to operate?

Why should the railroad pay for the community's decision to build next to it? I can understand noise barriers around Interstates, because the communities that demand the barriers were there before the Interstate was carved through their neighborhoods. Even noise restrictions on airports might be defensible, since the amount of air travel and the loudness of airlines has changed enormously since World War II, though in general I see little merit to such cases, and I live with in a few miles of MSP. After all, it was no secret where the airport was when I bought our house, so I can't really complain when the 747 to Amsterdam rattles my windows every afternoon.

This is rarely the case with railroads. They are just as loud now as they ever were, and I would be surprised if the requirements for signaling at grade crossings has changed significantly over the decades.

 

[AlanB]

So why should the RR's pay for something that they can't install without permission, something that is clearly the domain of the local city/state DOT departments by law, not to mention something that they have no use for?

Simple: because these devices are intended to lessen the impact their operations have on the communities they run through.

Why should the community fit the bill for the railroad's decision to operate?

Because the community is crossing private property. Consider the following:

You own a large farm next to a small, but growing town. The town comes to you and says, we need to build another road to get to/from downtown and we'd like to build that road through part of your farm bisecting your fields in half. Ten years later that road is so busy that you can no longer drive from one section of your farm to the other, since you can't get across the road.

So you go to the town and say "please put up a traffic light, so that I can cross the road." The town now looks at you and says "we'll be happy to do that if you pay for it." Unless you were totally desperate, you would not pay for that light. You would expect the town to pay for it, especially since you were already nice enough to allow them an easement on your private land in the first place.

Yet, that is exactly what you are asking the RR's to do. You want a private company to pay for warning devices so that people can have the privilege of crossing the RR's private property without getting killed because they refuse to obey the laws of this country. Laws by the way that aren't new, they've been around for well over 100 years now.

People move next to an Interstate Highway, and then demand noise barriers. People move next to an airport and then demand noise abatement procedures, which leave pilots doing stupid and odd movements while trying to get a plane into the air, like in Chicago.

Exactly! It's not so bizarre a notion that any creator of loud activity has a duty to minimize his impact on the surrounding community. Whether it's private citizens practicing for their soon-to-be-famous band in their garage, or cars who must install (and pay for) legally required and approved emissions management equipment, or airplanes taking less convenient routes (and thus paying that cost), it's a pretty generally accepted position that one should not force the whole community to live with unnecessary noise.

If the noise creator was there first, then YES, it is a bizarre notion. If the houses were there first, then NO.

Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer with my original statement. I should have said "build" instead of "move".

Or in other words, when people build houses at the end of the runway at O'Hare airport expecting that it won't be noisy, then yes, they should suffer the consequences. Instead each day pilots perform a series of tight turns, throttle backs at a time when they're trying to get the plane in the air, and potentially endanger hundreds of people’s lives, all because some developer saw cheap real estate and people were dumb enough to buy those houses expecting quiet.

In a large city when an Interstate comes through, I have no problem with using general wide spread tax payer monies to build sound walls. But when the highway was already there for 10 years and again someone comes along and puts up a house next to the noisy highway and then complains, I have no sympathy. If they want at a sound barrier, then they and their immediate neighbors can pay for it. But I don't want to see my tax monies being used there.

I've watched for over 30 years this phenomenon in the State of New Jersey. There are about 4 highways in northern NJ that I can name where the houses where there before the highway and I agreed with those walls going up. But for miles and miles of I-80, I-78, and I-287, the highways came first and were originally built without sound walls. At least until stupid people built houses next to those highways for the ease of a commute to NYC and then suddenly realized that "hey, highways are noisy." And now millions of tax dollars have been wasted building sound walls for those people who couldn't figure out ahead of time that living next to a highway might be noisy.

 

[Bob Dylan]

So why should the RR's pay for something that they can't install without permission, something that is clearly the domain of the local city/state DOT departments by law, not to mention something that they have no use for?

Simple: because these devices are intended to lessen the impact their operations have on the communities they run through.

Why should the community fit the bill for the railroad's decision to operate?

Because the community is crossing private property. Consider the following:

You own a large farm next to a small, but growing town. The town comes to you and says, we need to build another road to get to/from downtown and we'd like to build that road through part of your farm bisecting your fields in half. Ten years later that road is so busy that you can no longer drive from one section of your farm to the other, since you can't get across the road.

So you go to the town and say "please put up a traffic light, so that I can cross the road." The town now looks at you and says "we'll be happy to do that if you pay for it." Unless you were totally desperate, you would not pay for that light. You would expect the town to pay for it, especially since you were already nice enough to allow them an easement on your private land in the first place.

Yet, that is exactly what you are asking the RR's to do. You want a private company to pay for warning devices so that people can have the privilege of crossing the RR's private property without getting killed because they refuse to obey the laws of this country. Laws by the way that aren't new, they've been around for well over 100 years now.

People move next to an Interstate Highway, and then demand noise barriers. People move next to an airport and then demand noise abatement procedures, which leave pilots doing stupid and odd movements while trying to get a plane into the air, like in Chicago.

Exactly! It's not so bizarre a notion that any creator of loud activity has a duty to minimize his impact on the surrounding community. Whether it's private citizens practicing for their soon-to-be-famous band in their garage, or cars who must install (and pay for) legally required and approved emissions management equipment, or airplanes taking less convenient routes (and thus paying that cost), it's a pretty generally accepted position that one should not force the whole community to live with unnecessary noise.

If the noise creator was there first, then YES, it is a bizarre notion. If the houses were there first, then NO.

Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer with my original statement. I should have said "build" instead of "move".

Or in other words, when people build houses at the end of the runway at O'Hare airport expecting that it won't be noisy, then yes, they should suffer the consequences. Instead each day pilots perform a series of tight turns, throttle backs at a time when they're trying to get the plane in the air, and potentially endanger hundreds of people’s lives, all because some developer saw cheap real estate and people were dumb enough to buy those houses expecting quiet.

In a large city when an Interstate comes through, I have no problem with using general wide spread tax payer monies to build sound walls. But when the highway was already there for 10 years and again someone comes along and puts up a house next to the noisy highway and then complains, I have no sympathy. If they want at a sound barrier, then they and their immediate neighbors can pay for it. But I don't want to see my tax monies being used there.

I've watched for over 30 years this phenomenon in the State of New Jersey. There are about 4 highways in northern NJ that I can name where the houses where there before the highway and I agreed with those walls going up. But for miles and miles of I-80, I-78, and I-287, the highways came first and were originally built without sound walls. At least until stupid people built houses next to those highways for the ease of a commute to NYC and then suddenly realized that "hey, highways are noisy." And now millions of tax dollars have been wasted building sound walls for those people who couldn't figure out ahead of time that living next to a highway might be noisy.

Yes Alan!Here in Austin they are building condos next to the tracks, there are 2 new ones right beside the

station and already people are complaining wanting the tracks moved!(itll only cost billions! :lol: )Of course

Austin is also the place they built an Interstate with railroad tracks crossing it(its still there today on the

lower level!!) and people complain about waiting for trains!I noticed in Chicago they are building condos/

converting old buildings all over by the yards, how long till these dumbos want the yards moved out

of "their" neighborhood?

 

[volkris]

Who got there first doesn't really matter. The meaningful point is that the railroads are causing a disturbance that significantly impacts other people who are just trying to live peacefully in their own property.

The fact that the people showed up after a railroad was operating actually means the railroad was able to interfere with others' properties for a long time for free. That represents a gift to the railroads; once others start enforcing their property rights it represents an end to a free ride, not some new charge.

If I buy an unoccupied plot of land to build a house and find that there has been a weekly party on the plot for years, it's within my rights to kick those kids out and start construction, right? That they were able to take advantage of someone else's property for years doesn't mean that their use of the land somehow takes precedence over the rights of the owner.

And yet that's what's being said here: the rights of homeowners to not be bothered by other peoples' activities outside their houses is somehow revoked just because those people have been making the bothersome noise for a while? Come on.

In case after case we demand that people and organizations take whatever steps they can to minimize things like noise and pollution, generally at their expense and with the understanding that if they can't refrain from blanketing the surrounding area with the nuisance, then they can't do what they propose. Why should we be giving railroads a pass?

 

[volkris]

To put it another way, if you want the freedom to affect a ten square mile area with something--be it noise, pollution, radioactive waste, whatever--then buy the land and have at it.

Oh? Buying that much land is expensive? Well yeah: it's scarce and they're not making any more of it. That's why they're building condos next to the tracks in the first place. In the end, though, that only emphasizes the value of the property that is being interfered with and the need for the disturbance to be minimized.

 

[Ryan]

Just like I'm spending "your money" when I ask the Chinese toy manufacturers to test their products for lead before selling them in the US? Or, more fittingly, how I spend "your money" when I ask you to have a muffler on your car?

The difference is that you don't see me whining about having to pay for those things, because I understand that part of taking part in society is paying taxes that go towards things that I don't support and may never use!

Who got there first doesn't really matter.

This is by far the dumbest thing that I've read today. Of course it matters who was there first! If you buy a house next to the railroad tracks, what do you expect to hear? Expecting the environment to change to suit your desires is the height of arrogance and lunacy.

If I buy an unoccupied plot of land to build a house and find that there has been a weekly party on the plot for years, it's within my rights to kick those kids out and start construction, right? That they were able to take advantage of someone else's property for years doesn't mean that their use of the land somehow takes precedence over the rights of the owner.

Your analogy is flawed. The railroads aren't having parties on your property, they're having them on their property. If you purchase land adjacent to that property, then you get everything that you deserve.
I'll bet that you're one of those people that want to stop the jet noise at Oceania too, aren't you?

 

[AlanB]

The meaningful point is that the railroads are causing a disturbance that significantly impacts other people who are just trying to live peacefully in their own property.

No, the meaningul point seems to be that you want to penalize private industry for doing something that they are required to do, just to avoid paying more taxes.

Here's the real meaningful point. If the RR showed up in your town and had a party on the tracks, and by that I mean they parked an engine next to your house and invited anyone and everyone up into the engine to blow the horn, you might have half a leg to stand on.

The RR's aren't doing that. They are doing something that they are required to do by law, that's a key point here, they aren't doing this by choice. They are required to blow that horn at the crossing by law! They are required to do that because people can't exercise common sense and reason.

And now you want to penalize them for doing something that they have no choice about.

If you don't want the taxpayers footing the bill for a problem that they caused, then you need to get the law changed that says that the RR's don't have to blow a horn and that same law should indemnify the RR's from all harm caused at a crossing.

 

[Ispolkom]

I'm baffled. Trains don't blow their whistles randomly. I'd imagine that the vast majority of uses are at grade crossings. So it seems the height of impudence to put in grade crossings over a railroad, demand that the railroad use whistles signals at those grade crossings, then demand that the railroad pay for upgrades to the crossings because you don't like the whistles. That would be like moving next to a farm and then demanding that the farmer get out of the egg business when you're woken early by the farmer's roosters.

I'm also confused by your claim, "Oh? Buying that much land is expensive? Well yeah: it's scarce and they're not making any more of it. That's why they're building condos next to the tracks in the first place. In the end, though, that only emphasizes the value of the property that is being interfered with and the need for the disturbance to be minimized."

No, they're building next to the tracks because that land is cheap, and the reason it's cheap is that it's a noisy neighborhood. It's not because there is any shortage of land in Texas, which is generally regarded as quite a large place.

(Off topic) HokieNav, I'd like to say you can't be serious about complaints about noise from Oceana Naval Air Station, but I should know better. I remember once staying in Virginia Beach and having what seemed like a whole carrier Air Wing come from the sea over the hotel to land at Oceana. F-14s, F-18s, S-3s, about the whole shebang. Quite something, and the highlight of the trip for me.

 

[volkris]

No, the railroads don't have to blow their horns by law... they have to blow their horns if they want to operate by law. Point is, the laws are there because it's been determined that the trains can't operate safely without warning signals. They're not in place to force the trains to make noise, they're there to set the standards needed for safe operation.

These laws are actually consistent with the notion that the train should not interfere with others' property rights by blanketing the community with noise. The operation of the train, like the operation of nuclear power plants or chemical plants, expose people and property nearby to risk. The various safety-related laws are in place to minimize the risk posed to others, just as I contend the railroads should work to minimize the amounts of noise that they subject others to.

You talk as if violating peoples' rights in one way somehow permits the violation in another. I guess it's similar to your previous contention that it's ok to violate peoples' rights so long as the violating act has been going on for a while.

From my point of view it sounds like a bunch of rubbish, a feeble attempt to argue away a very real issue that might interfere with how you'd like the world to work. Yes, asking trains to minimize both risk and disturbance to communities they pass through would pose them a hassle, but in the end, it's not that unreasonable a request.

 

[RTOlson]

Perhaps the easiest way for the railroad companies to eliminate the use of horns in a community is to remove the grade crossings over their private property. No grade crossings-no horn!

The biggest downside is that you're cutting off access to certain parts of town, unless a city is willing to build other crossings that don't interact with the tracks.

The primary thing is that the cities have to ask railroads for permission to cross the private property of the tracks creating the grade crossing. Surely if the city has to ask for permission for their roads to cross the private property, they would also be responsible for what happens off the tracks?

 

[volkris]

I should probably repeat here that I personally don't have a problem with the horns. I actually like them as they zoom past, as many others on this board do... well, except when I'm trying to talk on the phone and the horn drowns out the conversation from a quarter mile away.

My concern is that quite a lot of people don't like the horns, and I find it hard to accept that people should be driven out of their own homes, off their property, and kept out of living in entire areas of town because of what someone else is doing on his property, be that a garage band that won't shut up or a rail road who hasn't minimized his acoustic impact on the community.

We require the railroads to operate safely, but that doesn't mean we can not and should not ask them to minimize their acoustic impact at the same time. I don't think I'm off base thinking that it's wrong to blare horns into other peoples' houses when you don't have to.

 

[Ispolkom]

No, the railroads don't have to blow their horns by law... they have to blow their horns if they want to operate by law. Point is, the laws are there because it's been determined that the trains can't operate safely without warning signals. They're not in place to force the trains to make noise, they're there to set the standards needed for safe operation.
These laws are actually consistent with the notion that the train should not interfere with others' property rights by blanketing the community with noise. The operation of the train, like the operation of nuclear power plants or chemical plants, expose people and property nearby to risk. The various safety-related laws are in place to minimize the risk posed to others, just as I contend the railroads should work to minimize the amounts of noise that they subject others to.

You talk as if violating peoples' rights in one way somehow permits the violation in another. I guess it's similar to your previous contention that it's ok to violate peoples' rights so long as the violating act has been going on for a while.

From my point of view it sounds like a bunch of rubbish, a feeble attempt to argue away a very real issue that might interfere with how you'd like the world to work. Yes, asking trains to minimize both risk and disturbance to communities they pass through would pose them a hassle, but in the end, it's not that unreasonable a request.

You really ought to stay away from arguments from analogy. They are inherently weak. I'd also avoid terms like "rubbish" and "feeble." If you have any argument, please present it. Personal attacks are not appropriate for this forum.

A steel plant, a power plant, and automobile plant all pollute regardless of whether people are there or not. These are externalities that it's reasonable to regulate.

Trains only blow their whistles where people are. No people, no noise. Why should the railroad pay for infrastructure improvements that benefit those people whose arrival caused the problem to begin with?

Here's another side of the issue. Install quad gates and whatever other improvements to a grade crossing you want, if I were running the railroad, I'd still want my engineer blowing that whistle. There was a sad case in Minnesota where five teenagers died at a grade crossing with a malfunctioning gate, and ended up BNSF paying $5-6 million. Wouldn't any reasonable railroad want to continue with any possible warning lest they be cited for contributory negligence?

Lastly what "right" are you describing? The right to move near a railroad, and then complain about noise? I'm not surprised that people do that, but it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not suggesting that people should be driven from their own houses, off their property, and kept out of living in entire areas of town. Instead, I'm taking the radical position that they shouldn't expect the world to revolve around them.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I find the local train horns an annoyance, just as I dislike the airplanes taking off overhead (and I see we'll get more of them when a runway shuts down later this month), and the idiot down the block with his loud motorcycle. But that's what you get, living in a city.

 

[tp49]

The RR's aren't doing that. They are doing something that they are required to do by law, that's a key point here, they aren't doing this by choice. They are required to blow that horn at the crossing by law! They are required to do that because people can't exercise common sense and reason.
And now you want to penalize them for doing something that they have no choice about.

If you don't want the taxpayers footing the bill for a problem that they caused, then you need to get the law changed that says that the RR's don't have to blow a horn and that same law should indemnify the RR's from all harm caused at a crossing.

Alan, I agree with you particularly about the indemity issue. Normally too I would raise the argument that local governments have no reason to even attempt to regulate something governed by the federal government and one could even argue that the "quiet zone" regulations re train horns are unconstitutional under both the supremacy and commerce clauses. However, it appears that the federal government wrote a regulation giving control to the local governments to set "quiet zones." I quote in pertinent part from the DOT press release (emphasis is mine).

Under the rule, local governments will have the opportunity to establish quiet zones in certain areas where there is a low risk of collision, or to make specific upgrades meant to lessen the risk where the hazards are greater. The upgrade options include the installation of crossing gates that block both lanes of traffic in both directions or some type of approved median divider to prevent drivers from crossing lanes to go around a lowered gate, the temporary closure of a crossing, or a one-way street with gates and lights. The rule also allows use of an automated horn system to be installed at the crossing as a substitute for the train horn.
�Our challenge has been to ensure the highest level of public safety possible, while recognizing communities� legitimate interest in seeking relief from unwanted noise,� Administrator Rutter said.

For communities with whistle bans, the rule outlines specific steps local jurisdictions can take to maintain those restrictions, provided they notify FRA of their plan to create a �pre-rule quiet zone� and take the steps required to qualify them as such.

�By employing a risk-based approach, communities with 'grand-fathered' whistle bans can maintain the quality of life they�ve become accustomed to while ensuring public safety at highway rail-grade crossings,� Rutter said.

By law, the final rule will take effect December 18, 2004, one year following the date of its publication tomorrow, but communities with existing whistle bans will have at least five years to implement the requirements. The rule will pre-empt existing State and local laws governing the sounding of locomotive horns. FRA will not require that locomotive horns be sounded at private highway-rail crossings instead leaving those decisions to the States.

DOT attempted to please all concerned here with the regulations. Leaving the establishment up to the quiet zones up to the municipality. However, the cost to the municipality is to make the required upgrades to the warning systems. I tend to feel that if local residents don't want to deal with the noise then they should be the ones required to pay for the purchaseand installation of improved warning devices to achieve that.

 

[tp49]

These laws are actually consistent with the notion that the train should not interfere with others' property rights by blanketing the community with noise. The operation of the train, like the operation of nuclear power plants or chemical plants, expose people and property nearby to risk. The various safety-related laws are in place to minimize the risk posed to others, just as I contend the railroads should work to minimize the amounts of noise that they subject others to.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I find the local train horns an annoyance, just as I dislike the airplanes taking off overhead (and I see we'll get more of them when a runway shuts down later this month), and the idiot down the block with his loud motorcycle. But that's what you get, living in a city.

I tend to agree that the analogies are very weak. Operation of nuclear power or chemical plants and their effects are not comparable to that of the operation of a railroad. Comparing railroad operations to that of an airport though would seem reasonable to me at least as it pertains to nuisance. I can see both sides of this argument. It's an argument where both sides are actually right strange as that sounds.

 

[tp49]

So why should the RR's pay for something that they can't install without permission, something that is clearly the domain of the local city/state DOT departments by law, not to mention something that they have no use for?

Simple: because these devices are intended to lessen the impact their operations have on the communities they run through.

Why should the community fit the bill for the railroad's decision to operate?

Because the community is crossing private property. Consider the following:

You own a large farm next to a small, but growing town. The town comes to you and says, we need to build another road to get to/from downtown and we'd like to build that road through part of your farm bisecting your fields in half. Ten years later that road is so busy that you can no longer drive from one section of your farm to the other, since you can't get across the road.

So you go to the town and say "please put up a traffic light, so that I can cross the road." The town now looks at you and says "we'll be happy to do that if you pay for it." Unless you were totally desperate, you would not pay for that light. You would expect the town to pay for it, especially since you were already nice enough to allow them an easement on your private land in the first place.

All the government would have to do is use eminent domain to take that property while paying the owner "just compensation." No need for an easement there especially not for a public road.

The municipality could build bridges or otherwise eliminate the offending grade crossings (possible use of stimulus dollars). Alan, I'm sure you remember the LIRR's grade crossing elimination program on the Main Line west of Mineola (Herricks Road comes to mind readily). Though this was done more to decrease the risk of idiots going around the gates then for noise abatement.

I also again, do not think the railroads should be forced to pay for the crossing upgrades. As I've explained above, the FRA is allowing localities to enact "quiet zones" so long as the locality is willing to pay for the necessary upgrades to the existing grade crossings. As it stands now the law requires the locality to pay not the railroad.

 

[the Other Mike]

These trains affect real people who just want to live in peace. The least the trains can do is cause minimal impact in their lives through steps like providing warning to minimal space, affecting the smallest number of people possible. That's not asking much, and it's not asking more than we'd ask of any dinky garage band playing in a house down the street.

Well this strikes a chord with me

As a high school band director at the same school for close to 30 years, I'm always amazed at people who buy a house next to the football field and are dumbfounded that they must endure band practice during the summer and fall. How can people this ignorant get that far in life ?

It's great when they call the police after complaining to me with no result. When the police show up they usually ask me how many kids in the band this year and if we need to get the meter out..............the neighbor can't understand that we have been through this for years and have done the testing and kept records for sound at the edge of the field near the houses and know the law pretty well.

Usually at that point I turn the band's direction so that it plays TOWARDS the house and explain via the meter that we are within legal limits. ( and we don't practice half as many hours as we used to )

I just can't believe my common sense is THAT uncommon. Too many idiots in the world today.

 

[the Other Mike]

No, the railroads don't have to blow their horns by law... they have to blow their horns if they want to operate by law. Point is, the laws are there because it's been determined that the trains can't operate safely without warning signals. They're not in place to force the trains to make noise, they're there to set the standards needed for safe operation.

Actually, they blow their horns because so many people do not STOP LOOK LISTEN.

They are not there for safe operation. They can operate fine. It's defensive move because of careless and stupid people.

How you come up with railroads can't operate safetly without warning signals is beyond me. Go railfanning in the wilderness THEM come tell me how warning signals helped them operate in a safe manner The only thing the Railroad needs is block protection and lights.

The warning signals are because of ignorant people either walking or driving.

 

[volkris]

Actually, they blow their horns because so many people do not STOP LOOK LISTEN.
They are not there for safe operation. They can operate fine. It's defensive move because of careless and stupid people.

No, you have it right: because people do not stop, look, and listen and/or are careless, stupid, or whatever, the whistles are needed to warn that a train is coming through.

Honestly, if you believe that the whistles are unnecessary for safe operation then let's get that requirement fixed ASAP. Problem solved.

 

[the Other Mike]

Actually, they blow their horns because so many people do not STOP LOOK LISTEN.
They are not there for safe operation. They can operate fine. It's defensive move because of careless and stupid people.

No, you have it right: because people do not stop, look, and listen and/or are careless, stupid, or whatever, the whistles are needed to warn that a train is coming through.

Honestly, if you believe that the whistles are unnecessary for safe operation then let's get that requirement fixed ASAP. Problem solved.

Necessary for the cars much more than the train.

Watch safety videos much ?

 

[the Other Mike]

Hey wait, I could be wrong. I've never seen warning signals for a train to stop because of cars crossing the tracks but if you have, please provise the link and I'll admit that I was wrong.

( I wonder how much freight would get moved with trains stopping for traffic )

By the way, I live 2 blocks from the CNIC and the KCS mains as they merge to come into Mays Yard in a surburb of New Orleans. I can usually tell certain engineers from others. The outbound stack that leaves about 12:15-1:00 am lightly "taps" the horn. That guy has never had a major accident at a crossing, however, the guy that usually has the inbound KCS at about 3 am has had several and he lays on the horn for the 12 or so crossings in a mile and a half ( of which, several have no lights or gates.

Of course the inbound seems to usually be louder because it's rounding the curve south of the airport and heading to a major intersection at Williams Blvd ( known well for the train that hit the idiot driving the gas truck who drove infront of train. Can't remember if the crew and or driver died but I think 7 people in the bar on the inbound side of the intersection were all roasted to death)

Little Farms crossing only got gates a few years back. A slow outbound train was clearning the crossing as an inbound came through at about 60 and nailed the teenager who decided since the train was past he could go even though the lights were still on.

To me, it's simple. Stupid people are the CAUSE, not the railroads. The railroads have been here a LONG time before the traffic.

Because Hickory was at the throat of Mays yard, people always complained about being stuck. It took years but the overpass was built at taxpayers expense.

As of the past 10 years or so, the interchange line from NS & CSX through old Metairie to Mays Yard is a quiet Zone. They no longer blow for the 3 ( ? ) crossing in the "well to do area" that VOTED for it. Killed business at a bar on Metaire Road that was right up against the tracks that used to give free shots when the horn blew.

If people don't want the horns, vote , but don't get mad if someone runs the gates ( or walks ) and gets killed from stupidity. The horns blow for the safety of the people, not the railroad.

 

[DET63]

It's easy to say that if someone doesn't like the sound of a train he shouldn't live near tracks, but in reality the trains' whistles are designed to carry long distances, so "near the tracks" could end up covering the majority of a moderately sized city.

That depends entirely on what is meant by a "moderately sized city." I seriously doubt that train horns are going to be intrusive more than 2 or 3 blocks from the track. Most "moderately sized cities" are far larger than that. Of course, if there are multiple railroad lines and/or crossing, then more of the "moderately sized city" will be affected by the sound of train horns.

Not taking sides in this debate--I just want to provide a data point. My house, as well as the house I'm currently housesitting (in a different part of town) are about 3-4 miles from the nearest tracks.

They're very faint, but I can definitely hear train horns in the quiet of the night at both places. Whenever I hear one, I'm always stunned at how well that sound carries.

I doubt that the sound of a train horn is all that intrusive once you're more than a few blocks away from the railroad tracks. For one thing, the horn is pointed toward the front of the engine (usually there are several horns, each at a different pitch, and one or more may be pointed toward the rear—but not the side—especially if the locomotive is sometimes operated in reverse, or "long-hood forward").

Yes, it is possible to hear a train a few miles away from the track, but it is one thing to hear a train whistle, it is another to be bothered by it.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Airport noise falls in along the same line, and like with the rails, in most cases they were there before most of the residences were, and yet the people that move closest to the airport seem to want to sqwauk the loudest. Where I grew up in Chicago, not only did I have trains to listen to, but we were below one of the primary ORD approach patterns, and back in the 60s and 70s when jets sounded like jets should, had traffic passing over every 30 seconds for hours on end. And where I'm at now, Tinker AFB is just a few miles away and traffic can be frequent both day and night. I still haven't gotten used to the idea of putting CFM-56s on 135s (707s), but I guess they call that progress.

Plain and simple. Since the airports and railroads came first, they rule the roost and should be allowed to make wahtever noises they need to within reason. A little research when picking where to move should reveal if you'll have any of these as a neighbor, and if they bother you, look elsewhere to pitch tent.

 

[jphjaxfl]

I live on the flight path for Naval Air Station Jacksonville. At times specially when there was more going on overseas, there would be a lot of noise from training flights and helicopters. I mentioned that I was on the flight path to one of the ranking officers at NAS JAX and he apologized. I told him not to apologize because the noise made me feel secure knowing the Navy was defending our great nation. I feel the same about train horns. The sound of a freight train horn means commerce is going on. The sound of an Amtrak horn(and I wish there were more) means that people are going places. I don't conside either noise of trains or planes annoying or poluting....they are just part of the American culture.

 

[Ryan]

(Off topic) HokieNav, I'd like to say you can't be serious about complaints about noise from Oceana Naval Air Station, but I should know better. I remember once staying in Virginia Beach and having what seemed like a whole carrier Air Wing come from the sea over the hotel to land at Oceana. F-14s, F-18s, S-3s, about the whole shebang. Quite something, and the highlight of the trip for me.

I wish I were joking. These idiots actually sued and are profiting from the deal. From the last round of BRAC, the Navy seriously considered closing the air station and moving back to Jacksonville, which would have been massively detrimental to the seven cities economy.

http://hamptonroads.com/node/266761

I really am wildly curious to see what side of the debate that Volkris is on here - in favor of his tax money being given to people that move in next to an airport and then complain about it, or in favor of the jets being allowed to operate normally. He's really backed himself into a corner on this one.

 

[volkris]

I don't find it particularly troublesome to be in the corner of protecting peoples' property rights and saying that people shouldn't be bothered when in their own homes.

The jets are a fine example: the people SHOULD be paid for the loss of value. As in the case of the trains, the significant noise from the jets interferes with the ability of the people to live peacefully in their own homes. The easements do precisely what I suggested: the noise maker purchasing the right to affect land they don't own. As for the source of the money, the US government should be paying because it's the US government's operations causing the disturbance... just as the railroads should be paying since its their operations disturbing people and property that the railroads don't own.

Now let's be clear: I'm not pushing for the rules that say trains have to sound a warning at intersections at all. If you guys want to drop that rule then fine; I can't really comment on that. However, as it stands now the Feds have asserted that the warnings are necessary for safe operation of the trains, so I'm speaking to making the warnings as targeted and unbothersome as possible. Surely that's not a disagreeable notion!

And remember, I keep using the word "minimize" intentionally. We're not talking about silent trains here, only about asking the railroads to operate in a way that minimizes their impact on the communities.