Dinah won't U blow yur horn

[Ryan]

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.

Perhaps they should have considered that when they bought the house then. I'm appalled that my tax dollars are going to support the idiocy of those people. You seem to be mighty willing to throw tax dollars at problems that *you* think should be rectified, but are quick to condemn those who think that tax dollars should be spent on items that are actually productive and worthwhile (like trains!).

 

[volkris]

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.

Perhaps they should have considered that when they bought the house then. I'm appalled that my tax dollars are going to support the idiocy of those people. You seem to be mighty willing to throw tax dollars at problems that *you* think should be rectified, but are quick to condemn those who think that tax dollars should be spent on items that are actually productive and worthwhile (like trains!).

I'm sure they did consider it when they bought the house. But that doesn't matter in the slightest. The fact remains that these people own property that's being interfered with by people with no right to the property. The organization operating the planes then purchased the right to affect these peoples' property from the people. That's how it's supposed to work!

What, exactly, is wrong with the notion that if you want to mess with someone else's stuff you have to acquire permission to do so? That's a pretty fundamental notion of justice in this country, arguably the foundation for the entire concept of property rights.

Should I be free to take your car because you knowingly parked it on a road where I've been stealing cars for years? Should I be able to have an annual party in your back yard just because you knew I'd been having my party there every year before you bought the house? Of course not because basic property rights aren't suspended by what was going on in the past. If you own a house or a car you have the right to secure that property against intrusion by others.

So yeah: if the AFB starts affecting peoples' properties the AFB should buy the right to do so. I don't think that is a particularly extreme position.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

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.

Perhaps they should have considered that when they bought the house then. I'm appalled that my tax dollars are going to support the idiocy of those people. You seem to be mighty willing to throw tax dollars at problems that *you* think should be rectified, but are quick to condemn those who think that tax dollars should be spent on items that are actually productive and worthwhile (like trains!).

I'm sure they did consider it when they bought the house. But that doesn't matter in the slightest. The fact remains that these people own property that's being interfered with by people with no right to the property. The organization operating the planes then purchased the right to affect these peoples' property from the people. That's how it's supposed to work!

Wrong.

These people bought property that is adjacent to previously developed private property. They accept the consequences therein.

 

[volkris]

These people bought property that is adjacent to previously developed private property. They accept the consequences therein.

Right. I get it. In your mind the concept of "this is my property, you can't use or intrude upon it without my permission" is but a general guideline and property rights have loopholes big enough to, well, drive a train through it.

Hope you keep that in mind next time someone dings up your car or decides they want to blare music outside your window at one in the morning. Hey, you bought a house within distance of other people; you accept the consequences therein!

 

[AlanB]

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.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument. The Feds have made no such assertion. The train is perfectly safe on the tracks. If the train had left the track and was chasing some hapless driver down the street, then blowing the horn might be needed for the safe operation of the train. But the train isn't doing that. The train is perfectly safe operating on its tracks.

The horn blowing is required because drivers and pedestrians are unable to obey the laws of this land and they are operating in an unsafe way by not stopping as required by law.

 

[Ryan]

I'm sure they did consider it when they bought the house. But that doesn't matter in the slightest. The fact remains that these people own property that's being interfered with by people with no right to the property. The organization operating the planes then purchased the right to affect these peoples' property from the people. That's how it's supposed to work!
What, exactly, is wrong with the notion that if you want to mess with someone else's stuff you have to acquire permission to do so? That's a pretty fundamental notion of justice in this country, arguably the foundation for the entire concept of property rights.

Should I be free to take your car because you knowingly parked it on a road where I've been stealing cars for years? Should I be able to have an annual party in your back yard just because you knew I'd been having my party there every year before you bought the house? Of course not because basic property rights aren't suspended by what was going on in the past. If you own a house or a car you have the right to secure that property against intrusion by others.

So yeah: if the AFB starts affecting peoples' properties the AFB should buy the right to do so. I don't think that is a particularly extreme position.

Your analogies are all flawed, still. You keep equating noise from a train with things that are illegal. Stop doing that. Also, it's a Naval Air Station, not an Air Force Base. Are you going to address the hypocrisy of advocating that we should be forced to pay taxes to compensate people for moving somewhere they find unpleasant but not that we should be forced to pay taxes for something useful, or are you going to continue to just pepper us with your false equivalencies?

 

[the Other Mike]

I don't know the laws where everyone else lives but here, it's 75 Decibils ( sp ? ) at the property line. Since trains for the most part blow the horn ON their property, USUALLY facing within their property the only place to get true reading would be in curves.

However, the direction of the wind & weather does make a huge difference in how far horns carry. If we have a wind out of the East, the inbound trains sound will carry a much shorter distance and vice versa.

If it's a foggy night you don't even notice the train horns because of the tug / push / tow boats on the river ( Mississippi ).

So, with all of this taken into consideration, we should sue the weather people ?

( rimshot )

I remember on a different railgroup, being called out for supporting the sorrow for the problems engineers go through after a crossing accident and not considering the driver of the car and his family with the remark " thinning the herd". There's a reason for the big yellow RR sign and "caution". We can't enforce the use of brain power. Turn off the horns and thin the herd would be fine with me.

I just wonder how many "silence of the horns" supporters would get upset if a family member got killed at a silent crossing, or would they accept it as "silence for the neighbors" peace and quiet ?

 

[tp49]

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.

Perhaps they should have considered that when they bought the house then. I'm appalled that my tax dollars are going to support the idiocy of those people. You seem to be mighty willing to throw tax dollars at problems that *you* think should be rectified, but are quick to condemn those who think that tax dollars should be spent on items that are actually productive and worthwhile (like trains!).

I'm sure they did consider it when they bought the house. But that doesn't matter in the slightest. The fact remains that these people own property that's being interfered with by people with no right to the property. The organization operating the planes then purchased the right to affect these peoples' property from the people. That's how it's supposed to work!

Wrong.

These people bought property that is adjacent to previously developed private property. They accept the consequences therein.

You're wrong.

Key in the law of nuisance is that there is an activity that substantially interferes with a person's use and enjoyment of their land. Just because someone "comes to the nuisance" doesn't mean that they as you say "accept the consequences" but it is but one factor to consider, it is not an absolute bar to a nuisance action. It can and has been successfully argued that jet noise and train horns are substantially and unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of a person's property. Had this not been the case then the FRA wouldn't have allowed for "quiet zones" and the FAA wouldn't allow for noise abatement procedures.

When it comes to airports in most cases when they were built it was "out in the middle of nowhere" for reasons of safety and noise. Over time though, urban growth brought inudstry and housing to the fringes of airports. What should have happened IMHO is that the localities should have made soundproofing a requirement for new construction within the "airport" area or within "x" number of feet from a rail line.

As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.

 

[the Other Mike]

As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.

Worthy !

 

[volkris]

As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.

Why should a municipality have to bear the costs of an organization or individual affecting others' properties without permission? It's like suggesting that the guy outside is perfectly right to fire a gun toward peoples' homes, and the municipality should probably get to work putting up bullet proof sheeting along the fence lines.

No: train horns are specifically designed to be jarring, piercing, and loud. The railroads then project that onto other peoples' properties, in clear violation of fundamental property rights.

 

[tp49]

As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.

Why should a municipality have to bear the costs of an organization or individual affecting others' properties without permission? It's like suggesting that the guy outside is perfectly right to fire a gun toward peoples' homes, and the municipality should probably get to work putting up bullet proof sheeting along the fence lines.

No: train horns are specifically designed to be jarring, piercing, and loud. The railroads then project that onto other peoples' properties, in clear violation of fundamental property rights.

Where do you come up with these baseless analogies? Your comparisons have absolutly no relationship to each other. On one hand you talk about chemical and nuclear plants then now you bring up shooting guns. They do not relate to each other and totally destroy your argument.

Let's start here. Constitutionally the power to regulate trains and airplanes is given to the Federal government. It's the Feds who dictate the requirement that horns be sounded by trains approaching a crossing.

The Feds if they expressly grant the power to regulate trains or certain aspects of their operation to the states is allowed to do so. Under the quiet zone law the Federal government has done just that.

That said. The municipalities or state determine simple things like where a road will go and whether or not it will cross a rail line. They then build the road and are also the one who determines if the crossing needs to be "protected" (i.e. gates, bells and lights) or "unprotected." It is at these locations where a warning horn needs to be sounded. These locations are set up by the municipality

Second, let's talk land use now. It is the municipality that determines whether something can or cannot be built on land in their locality. This is done through site plan review, planning boards or commissions and how through building codes. The locality also has a great deal of say in their urban growth pattern. To put it very simply buildings cannot be built without the knowledge or consent of local government. Local government can then require soundproofing in housing built near airports or active rail lines. This is something government has control over.

Last, since outside of an emergency train horns are sounded as warnings at railroad crossings which we have already established are placed by municipalities when they build the roads. Combine this with the fact that the federal regulation allowing "quiet zones" places the burden on the local government to establish and implement them. This is why the local government should pay for the crossing improvments as they are the ones who created the problem.

Thus, I submitted a simple solution. Don't like the noise, take steps to abate it and reduce the impact on you. In the case of train horns it means eliminating grade crossings. No crossings, no horns.

 

[the Other Mike]

As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.

Why should a municipality have to bear the costs of an organization or individual affecting others' properties without permission? It's like suggesting that the guy outside is perfectly right to fire a gun toward peoples' homes, and the municipality should probably get to work putting up bullet proof sheeting along the fence lines.

No: train horns are specifically designed to be jarring, piercing, and loud. The railroads then project that onto other peoples' properties, in clear violation of fundamental property rights.

Why not put ignorant people in prison to safeguard them from doing stupid things and we won't even need horns on cars and trucks ?

What about people who move near a large intersecton and get mad because the trucks blow their horn because the peoples kids are on the curb begging for a honk ?

I just can't understand your logic other than you're in the mood to be a PITA.

Hell, I have those days too. :lol:

 

[amamba]

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.

I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.

 

[zephyr17]

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.

I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.

Tough

 

[the Other Mike]

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.

I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.

Tough

High Five

 

[volkris]

I just can't understand your logic other than you're in the mood to be a PITA.Hell, I have those days too. :lol:

The logic's really simple so I can repeat it again quite easily: I believe it to be a fundamental part of property rights that others can't intrude into your property without your permission, whether it be through force or through piercing, intrusive sound. Therefore, when trains run by blowing their horns they are intruding into your property without your consent, violating your rights.

And no, just because the train has been doing it for a long time or just because the train was required to do it as part of its operation or just because your locality failed to require you to soundproof your house (frankly, ***?) doesn't give the railroad a right to intrude into your home. At the most fundamental level the train is still violating your property even in these cases.

I find it to be a moral issue as well: as much as I and others might like hearing the train, and as much as one might support rail travel, I find it morally questionable to support the operation that intrudes into others' houses without their consent. I find it selfish and against the notions of liberty that this country was founded upon.

And finally, I see it as a huge double standard... with the endless list of things people aren't allowed to do to each others' property without consent, why should we allow the trains to commit the same violation? Is it, again, just because we, individually, support rail so much that we try to justify it to ourselves? Certainly sounds like it.

But in the end it's about property rights, the right to be happy and peaceful in one's house, freely enjoying the fruit of one's labor. Above all other things, the unnecessary whistle encroaches upon that right. Many here have made it clear that they don't really value property rights, and I find that sad. Sort of surprising, too, in this great country.

Oh well.

 

[volkris]

I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.

Tough

Hope next time you walk out and find yourself bothered because your car has been stolen the cops respond the same way.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.

Tough

Hope next time you walk out and find yourself bothered because your car has been stolen the cops respond the same way.

Oh yes, because a stolen car and a train horn are the same thing.

Because one is a criminal behavior, and the other is just "annoying".

 

[the Other Mike]

I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.

Tough

Hope next time you walk out and find yourself bothered because your car has been stolen the cops respond the same way.

Don't move next to the thugs. I don't but yet I've had a car stolen from the modelrailroad club but I learned that back then, it was easy to steal an Olds and bought a "club" when I got the car back. Maybe Olds should have given me a new car ?

As a kid sleeping at my grandmothers house, the Westminster Chimes of her clock would wake me up every 15 minutes. I guess she should have changed her way of living for me ?

Uh huh, that makes ALOT of sense.

I'd hate to see some of the people on here face some real problems in life.

Must be a hard life to have train horns to complain about.

 

[Ryan]

I believe it to be a fundamental part of property rights that others can't intrude into your property without your permission, whether it be through force or through piercing, intrusive sound.

You can't believe what you want, but this is false. This is the root of your problem.

I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.

Tough

Hope next time you walk out and find yourself bothered because your car has been stolen the cops respond the same way.

Again with the false equivalencies. Give it a rest already!

 

[zephyr17]

I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.

Tough

Hope next time you walk out and find yourself bothered because your car has been stolen the cops respond the same way.

Huh? Are you serious? Wow...Ok, call the cops about the train whistle, and see how the cops respond. I'd love the hear about how the cops react to that. Please do it.

 

[Ryan]

I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.

Tough

Hope next time you walk out and find yourself bothered because your car has been stolen the cops respond the same way.

Huh? Are you serious? Wow...Ok, call the cops about the train whistle, and see how the cops respond. I'd love the hear about how the cops react to that. Please do it.

Make sure you record it for our entertainment research, too!

 

[the Other Mike]

I just can't understand your logic other than you're in the mood to be a PITA.Hell, I have those days too. :lol:

The logic's really simple so I can repeat it again quite easily: I believe it to be a fundamental part of property rights that others can't intrude into your property without your permission, whether it be through force or through piercing, intrusive sound. Therefore, when trains run by blowing their horns they are intruding into your property without your consent, violating your rights.

And no, just because the train has been doing it for a long time or just because the train was required to do it as part of its operation or just because your locality failed to require you to soundproof your house (frankly, ***?) doesn't give the railroad a right to intrude into your home. At the most fundamental level the train is still violating your property even in these cases.

I find it to be a moral issue as well: as much as I and others might like hearing the train, and as much as one might support rail travel, I find it morally questionable to support the operation that intrudes into others' houses without their consent. I find it selfish and against the notions of liberty that this country was founded upon.

And finally, I see it as a huge double standard... with the endless list of things people aren't allowed to do to each others' property without consent, why should we allow the trains to commit the same violation? Is it, again, just because we, individually, support rail so much that we try to justify it to ourselves? Certainly sounds like it.

But in the end it's about property rights, the right to be happy and peaceful in one's house, freely enjoying the fruit of one's labor. Above all other things, the unnecessary whistle encroaches upon that right. Many here have made it clear that they don't really value property rights, and I find that sad. Sort of surprising, too, in this great country.

Oh well.

First, let's talk about the line "this great country". Native Americans might feel infringed upon as did the Irish, Chinese and Africans. This great country was built upon infringing on others rights. If you insist on feeling that railroads are infringing on others rights, will you be the first to give your property back to the Native Americans ? Oh wait, THATS different, that hurts me !!!! :huh:

YOU, are the one with the double standard because you are blind to the facts. Your logic is not simple, it's ignorant of facts of how this country was born and how it works ( or doesn't depending on your viewpoint ). Now you want to change the way america works and yet we wonder why the rest of the world is passing us up.

Where do you think the money is to come from if you force railroads to install "stupidity" crossings ? Do you really think that cost will not be passed along to us in the bottom line price of products that are shipped by rail ? Will the railroads be able to use "slave labor" to install the idiot crossings to negate the use of horns? How much are YOU willing to pay for this "extra" ?

Do you work in Washington with the magic printing press ?

Gee, some people are so frustrated with life that they can't sleep through train horns so we should all pay for their beauty rest ? Lets just make sure everyone either gets enough sex or suppply Ambien each night and NOT pay the hugh ammount of cost for idiot proof crossings.

If you didn't write so well I would question your age and experience in the real world so I must consider the fact that you indeed are a troll. No problem, I like beating my head against the wall in hopes that just possibly you might see the light.

Ohh wait, do the headlights bother people also ? :lol:

 

[jackal]

I find it to be a moral issue as well: as much as I and others might like hearing the train, and as much as one might support rail travel, I find it morally questionable to support the operation that intrudes into others' houses without their consent. I find it selfish and against the notions of liberty that this country was founded upon.

(Bolding mine)

There's the weakness in your argument, though. Moving next to a railroad track or an airport gives implied consent.

If I move next to a quarry, I expect to hear the sounds of rocks being ground. Next to an active logging camp, I expect to hear chainsaws and cries of "Timber!" Next to a major waterway, there are foghorns. Near a port, sounds of heavy machinery. Near a school, the sounds of the marching band practicing or the Friday evening football games.

Near an airport, you'll hear air traffic. Near a railroad, you'll hear trains.

People who choose to build or buy in such an area near an established entity (not just a transient source like a neighborhood block party) creating noise do not have any right to complain about it.

 

[the Other Mike]

People who choose to build or buy in such an area near an established entity (not just a transient source like a neighborhood block party) creating noise do not have any right to complain about it.

I don't agree. They DO have the right to complain, but in doing so, exposes their ignorance of proper due diligance ( sp ? ) when buying the house.

To me it's like saying " we should outlaw guns because I shot myself in the foot" or we should ban fireworks becuse I almost blew my hand off because I'm stupid".