Dinah won't U blow yur horn

[Trainmans daughter]

Perspective:

TODAY the body of a little six-year old boy was found in a canal in Idaho

TODAY a mother was charged in the death of her 10 year old disabled daughter

TODAY 6 people were killed in a Pennsylvania health club

TODAY hundreds of people heard their doctors say "You have cancer"

TODAY some people were irritated by a train whistle

Hmm. I'm just sayin'

 

[the Other Mike]

Perspective:
TODAY the body of a little six-year old boy was found in a canal in Idaho

TODAY a mother was charged in the death of her 10 year old disabled daughter

TODAY 6 people were killed in a Pennsylvania health club

TODAY hundreds of people heard their doctors say "You have cancer"

TODAY some people were irritated by a train whistle

Hmm. I'm just sayin'

Thank you

 

[volkris]

I think everyone's said what they have to say.

You're either in favor of property rights, the ability of people to live peacefully in the house that they've bought through their own hard work, or you're not.

I am; plenty of you aren't, giving all manner of excuses that would be completely laughed off the table in any other context.

I believe the irrational, undieing support for rail is the source for the intellectual dishonesty that blinds you guys to the matter... if peoples' property rights were to be enforced it would be a little harder for the rail lines to operate, so let's just give 'em a pass, hm?

And let's just look the other way as the rights of hundreds of thousands (at least) are violated in their own homes.

As long as we get our whistles, hm?

 

[Neil_M]

And let's just look the other way as the rights of hundreds of thousands (at least) are violated in their own homes.
As long as we get our whistles, hm?

So if you drove your car past my house can I sue you because I hate car noise more than train noise? What is more important? My right to enjoy my property or your right to disturb the peace?

What you say is very simplistic. I live very near the flight path to and from Heathrow. Right now I can hear the planes coming in. Sometimes in the summer mornings when I have the bedroom window open and I am woken at 0500 I can have the right to moan, but when I can get to and from the airport in 25 minutes do I still have a right to moan?

I lived very near a railway line for about 5 years. Noisy? Yes. Lots of trains to London? Yes.

I think if you want perfect silence then cavevendorsforyou.com will have the perfect abode.

Till then, buy earplugs or quit moaning.

 

[Ryan]

You're either in favor of property rights, the ability of people to live peacefully in the house that they've bought through their own hard work, or you're not.
I am; plenty of you aren't, giving all manner of excuses that would be completely laughed off the table in any other context.

As long as you continue to falsely equate noise with things that are actually illegal, sure. Fortunately that's rather a fringe position, so the only laughing off the table is going to come from the other direction.

You also have failed to clear up this inconsistency in your positions:

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!).

 

[jis]

I think everyone's said what they have to say.
You're either in favor of property rights, the ability of people to live peacefully in the house that they've bought through their own hard work, or you're not.

I am; plenty of you aren't, giving all manner of excuses that would be completely laughed off the table in any other context.

I think you are presenting a false dichotomy here. In order to do that first you do take the trouble to define "property rights" more narrowly than the common usage of the term, to suit your purpose, and hence set up a strawman. People supporting the railroads are not per-se against property right. They are just stating the position from the perspective of a different property owner, i.e. the railroad and its shareholders. So it does not make you any more a believer in property rights than the next guy.

Thus I find your holier than though claims to the ultimate truth about property rights specious at best and obfuscatory at worst.

 

[volkris]

I don't plan on drawing this out any longer. Like I said, I think it's been fully explored. But, since you asked a specific thing, I'll answer:

You also have failed to clear up this inconsistency in your positions:

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 have cleared it up: when the US government encroaches on peoples' property it should pay the people for the right. When the railroads encroach upon peoples' property it should pay the people for that right as well. In the case of the government, the money will come from taxpayers because they fund the government. In the case of the railroads, the money will come from investors, customers, and anyone else funding the company.

It is extremely consistent and based on the, I think, easily accepted premise that if you want to interfere with someone else's property--whether you're the government or a private citizen--then you have to acquire the right to do so from the property owner, probably by paying for the right in the form of an easement.

 

[the Other Mike]

I think everyone's said what they have to say.
You're either in favor of property rights, the ability of people to live peacefully in the house that they've bought through their own hard work, or you're not.

I am; plenty of you aren't, giving all manner of excuses that would be completely laughed off the table in any other context.

I believe the irrational, undieing support for rail is the source for the intellectual dishonesty that blinds you guys to the matter... if peoples' property rights were to be enforced it would be a little harder for the rail lines to operate, so let's just give 'em a pass, hm?

And let's just look the other way as the rights of hundreds of thousands (at least) are violated in their own homes.

As long as we get our whistles, hm?

Did you beat up alot as a kid ?

To say you're either in favor of property rights or you're not goes both ways. I guess railroads property doesn't count ?

If it were in my power to do, I would close all railroad crossing within 20 miles of you and make you drive out of you way every day to make the point the hard way. See, no more horns. Are you happy now ?

Would THAT make you happy ?

I own the railroad and agree with you, crossings slow down our trade and too many people complain about horns so as of now, all crossings are closed.

How much would that impact your life ?

:lol:

 

[Ryan]

It is extremely consistent and based on the, I think, easily accepted premise that if you want to interfere with someone else's property--whether you're the government or a private citizen--then you have to acquire the right to do so from the property owner, probably by paying for the right in the form of an easement.

Got it. It's an easily accepted premise if you have a value system that nobody else subscribes to. Now take your ball and go home.

 

[the Other Mike]

When the railroads encroach upon peoples' property it should pay the people for that right as well. In the case of the government, the money will come from taxpayers because they fund the government. In the case of the railroads, the money will come from investors, customers, and anyone else funding the company.

Could this be one of the reasons it's called a "right of way" ? :unsure:

What about out west when the railroads built first then gave away land to build towns ?

Your heart might be in the right place in wishing this to be a perfect world, but I'm glad ( as someone who rode out Katrina ) the tracks are near my home since they act as one more levee against flooding from the lake. ( of course I live on high ground for a reason, not because it's beautiful.)

Instead of looking at the negative of horns, look at the problems that could happen if a trck stops on the tracks and a derailment happens. Think of all the people for MILES that could be eliminated because of some of the chemicals released.

I for one thank God for horns ( and drums and strings )

and on a different note: Bb

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

You're calling LeBlonde a "troll" ? He's been a member for months!

 

[the Other Mike]

You're calling LeBlonde a "troll" ? He's been a member for months!

Was the nicest thing I could think of................. :blink:

 

[jackal]

I believe the irrational, undieing support for rail is the source for the intellectual dishonesty that blinds you guys to the matter... if peoples' property rights were to be enforced it would be a little harder for the rail lines to operate, so let's just give 'em a pass, hm?

Actually, long before I considered train horns, I've had an opinion on this issue as it relates to airport traffic.

When I found out that my tax dollars were being used to soundproof houses built within sight of the airport (you can literally see the runway) in the mid-80s when the airport has been around since the 1930s (and there's an aerial photo chronology displayed in the airport proving this), I was absolutely incensed.

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport has existed as a major cargo hub (fifth busiest in the world) and passenger stopover point for aircraft en route to Asia (until recently, when the newest long-range 747 and 777 passenger aircraft made it possible to cross the Pacific without refueling) since the jetliner age began in the 1950s.

Yet some idiots built houses on a bog within sight of the airport runway (and right next to an air national guard base), and then some sue-happy people moved in a few years ago and promptly forced the rest of us to pay for their stupidity? Absolute balderdash.

And I also used the real-world examples of logging, quarrying, and all kinds of other noise-making industries that one can choose to live far from if one is bothered by the noise produced by them.

It is NOT a situation unique to rail, and my love and affection for rail has absolutely NOTHING to do with my opinions on this issue.

If you at all subscribe to the theory that people should take personal responsibility for their actions, then you HAVE to acknowledge that at least some of the fault in any matter whereby someone is subjected to noise by a pre-existing industry or installation lies with the person who CHOSE to buy or build in that area. Your view makes sense if you are stuck in a victim mentality, though.

I think if you want perfect silence then cavevendorsforyou.com will have the perfect abode.Till then, buy earplugs or quit moaning.

I will be fair to volkris and acknowledge that he said he was not personally disturbed by railroad noise. In fact, he admitted that he actually enjoyed the sound of train whistles, and at the least didn't usually mind the rumbling of the cars down the tracks. So let's keep our arguments straight here.

 

[Ryan]

I believe the irrational, undieing support for rail is the source for the intellectual dishonesty that blinds you guys to the matter... if peoples' property rights were to be enforced it would be a little harder for the rail lines to operate, so let's just give 'em a pass, hm?

Actually, long before I considered train horns, I've had an opinion on this issue as it relates to airport traffic.

I missed this bit on the first pass. You'd be wrong in my case too, as I'm ironically just now having this same conversation with folks on the neighborhood email list that are petitioning for a bill to have the local drag strip's hours seriously curtailed, and their noise limited (essentially forcing the track to spend lots of money to build sound walls, place noise limits on cars, or close up shop). The drag strip has been in operation since the 1950's, the houses in question were built in the late '80's / early '90's. NIMBYism in all of its forms is a cancer on this society, holding us back from getting things done. Everyone wants nice things, but nobody wants the negative effects.

Rather than pigeonhole us as rabid foamers, not wanting to listen to logic and just do anything to support our precious trains, try actually taking a look at what our arguments actually are. You do the same bloody thing in threads talking about tax funding for railroads, and it's getting tiresome.

 

[volkris]

What a lot of you seem to miss in my position is the difference between NIMBYism--refusing absolutely to have something or other located nearby--and what I propose, simply asking an organization who wants to directly and actively affect others' property to get owners' permissions to do so.

Often time this is actually the OPPOSITE of what the NIMBY crowd seeks: often the NIMBYs come out to block someone's use of his own property even when it doesn't affect anyone else. These cases range from distasteful strip clubs to nuclear plants... the operator will in no way harm other property owners but the NIMBYs seek to block it anyway.

Here, on the other hand, we have an operator directly blasting noise into other peoples' houses without their consent. Most people, I believe, would find it perfectly reasonable to tell such an organization that they can't disturb other peoples' property like that without permission, especially when they haven't taken steps to minimize the scope of their disturbance.

It's all about property rights; you either believe in them or you don't. A right that can be waived based on convenience or the attitude that "well it's been violated for a long time, so let's let the violation continue!" is not a right; it's a political convenience.

 

[MrFSS]

Here is an interesting newspaper article about this subject.

Since 2006, the Federal Railroad Administration has allowed municipalities to form quiet zones so long as they meet certain criteria.

The zone has to be at least a half-mile long, and each crossing must have flashing lights and some kind of automatic barrier before a train horn can be silenced.

 

In 1984, Florida banned the use of horns on the Florida East Coast Railroad, but federal officials noticed a major increase in train-vehicle collisions — importantly, even at gated crossings — and overruled Florida's ban nine years later.
The following year, Congress mandated that the railroad administration require trains to blow their horns at all public highway crossings, but allow communities to establish quiet zones in some cases.

It took more than 10 years for the railroad administration to finalize the new rules. As it stands now, train engineers must blow train horns for a minimum of 15 seconds and a maximum of 20 seconds in advance of all crossings.

The horn is supposed to be sounded in a standardized pattern of two long, one short and one long. The horn is supposed to continue blaring until the lead locomotive is in the crossing.

The loudest it can get is 110 decibels, and the lowest it can go is 96 decibels.

For reference, normal conversation is around 60-70 decibels; 100 decibels is equivalent to the sound of a chain saw or a jackhammer. When a sound increases by 10 decibels, the loudness roughly doubles, but the sound power increases by a factor of 10.

 

[tp49]

What a lot of you seem to miss in my position is the difference between NIMBYism--refusing absolutely to have something or other located nearby--and what I propose, simply asking an organization who wants to directly and actively affect others' property to get owners' permissions to do so.
Often time this is actually the OPPOSITE of what the NIMBY crowd seeks: often the NIMBYs come out to block someone's use of his own property even when it doesn't affect anyone else. These cases range from distasteful strip clubs to nuclear plants... the operator will in no way harm other property owners but the NIMBYs seek to block it anyway.

Here, on the other hand, we have an operator directly blasting noise into other peoples' houses without their consent. Most people, I believe, would find it perfectly reasonable to tell such an organization that they can't disturb other peoples' property like that without permission, especially when they haven't taken steps to minimize the scope of their disturbance.

It's all about property rights; you either believe in them or you don't. A right that can be waived based on convenience or the attitude that "well it's been violated for a long time, so let's let the violation continue!" is not a right; it's a political convenience.

Strip clubs and nuclear plants in no way harm other property owners? You're serious? One is a use which the US Supreme Court has recognized that cities can zone solely into industrial areas to expressly keep them out of neighborhoods and the other is an ultrahazardous activity.

I believe in property rights just fine and I am not a rabid foamer nor even a minor foamer. You appear to have a flawed view of property rights which a court of competent jurisdiction would not agree with you.

To require as you suggest for a railroad or other entitiy to obtain an easement from every landowner within "x" radius of a railroad crossing would run into the problem of being unconstitutional as what you are suggesting would have to be enacted by statute. Why you ask, well because any regulation requiring this would be unduly burdensome on interstate commerce. Simply put it would violate the Commerce Clause.

 

[the Other Mike]

Is it not a convience for the land owners near the railroad to be able to cross the tracks ?

Is that not the trade off for the horns ?

I had the chance to take a cab ride on a short line about 10 years ago. From the yard to the grain elevator was about 20 miles. There were two highway crossings but there must have been 300 "driveway" crossings which had no lights gates or bells. In some places the driveways were close enough that you could not signal for each one but just layed on the horn. In the cab the sound was a PITA but it had to be done. That property was sold to the people by the railroad. Thank God the short line did it's yard work at night and just did the mainline work during the day. I think for the most part it's a decent relationship.

When I think of the news reports everytime someone gets hit by a train, the first thing they ask is " was the horn sounded?".

I just can't see any way to change the way things are done. As far as the horns ? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Is it better to have people bothered by the sound or lose a few people crossing the tracks ?

Common sense has to come into play at some point. I say thin the herd :blink:

 

[jackal]

What a lot of you seem to miss in my position is the difference between NIMBYism--refusing absolutely to have something or other located nearby--and what I propose, simply asking an organization who wants to directly and actively affect others' property to get owners' permissions to do so.

Since the railroad was the previous tenant of the area, does that mean that each and every time a new home is built or a new owner moves into one, the railroad officials should visit the house and ask for permission to continue doing what they have always done? So what happens when a subdivision of 500 homes is built and 499 people agree to let the railroad continue to run, but then the 500th person comes in and says, "No! I don't agree!"? Should the railroad then simply stop its operations?

Here, on the other hand, we have an operator directly blasting noise into other peoples' houses without their consent. Most people, I believe, would find it perfectly reasonable to tell such an organization that they can't disturb other peoples' property like that without permission, especially when they haven't taken steps to minimize the scope of their disturbance.

For one, moving next to a railroad gives implied consent. Second, the railroad HAS taken steps to minimize the scope of their disturbance: they have built their lines in industrial areas, away from residences. It's not their fault developers build closer and closer to their land! They also, as has been mentioned countless times before, reserve the right to deny public access to their private property in the form of railroad crossings. Yet they realize that doing so (and forcing municipalities to build over/underpasses instead) would not be a good neighborly practice, and so they go ahead (against their preferences) and allow the public to cross their private property.

You could turn the tables around and say that people, as part of the permission they secure from the railroad to disturb the railroad's property in the form of public crossings, should defer to the railroad and allow them to do the business they need to do without being disturbed, which includes such safety measures as blowing the whistle at those crossings.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

so in your opinion the railroad some come to YOUR HOME and ask YOUR PERMISSION to blow there horn ON THERE PROPERTY cause you don't like it ?. hey i'm the president of CSX and I want to ask your permission if its alright for my engineers to blow there horns when approaching the crossing for safety reasons to warn other drivers that a train is approaching. the previous owner of the house didn't mind but i want your permission.

 

[volkris]

so in your opinion the railroad some come to YOUR HOME and ask YOUR PERMISSION to blow there horn ON THERE PROPERTY cause you don't like it ?. hey i'm the president of CSX and I want to ask your permission if its alright for my engineers to blow there horns when approaching the crossing for safety reasons to warn other drivers that a train is approaching. the previous owner of the house didn't mind but i want your permission.

Oh, I completely agree: sometimes respecting other peoples' property can be damn inconvenient. But what good are rights if they're only recognized when convenient?

However, some points to repeat: if the previous owner didn't mind he would be free to give permission in a legal, permanent way through an easement, at which point there would be no property rights issue at all. Also, the railroads have options to minimize their disturbance while maintaining warnings at crossing that they're not taking.

And, of course, there's always eminent domain: if it's important enough to the community that the trains disturb people, the community always has the option of using eminent domain to force the sale of easements to allow the whistling. At the moment, though, we only have devalued property without any cost to the violators.

 

[amamba]

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".

You are right, people should absolutely do due dilligence when buying a house. I live in a very urban area, and I am often awaken by people in the streets/alleys when the bars let out at 1 am. I don't complain about that, because that was to be expected when I bought a condo in the city.

But should people expect to hear a train horn when they live 1.5 to 2 miles from the tracks? Of course if you live next to the tracks, you should expect to hear it. My building actually rumbles every time the commuter rail to Boston goes through the tunnel which is about 0.2 miles from my house. I expect that, and don't complain about it, because of the proximity.

Anyway, I didn't start this argument, I am just saying that people that live quite far from the train can be bothered by it.

 

[zephyr17]

so in your opinion the railroad some come to YOUR HOME and ask YOUR PERMISSION to blow there horn ON THERE PROPERTY cause you don't like it ?. hey i'm the president of CSX and I want to ask your permission if its alright for my engineers to blow there horns when approaching the crossing for safety reasons to warn other drivers that a train is approaching. the previous owner of the house didn't mind but i want your permission.

Oh, I completely agree: sometimes respecting other peoples' property can be damn inconvenient. But what good are rights if they're only recognized when convenient?

However, some points to repeat: if the previous owner didn't mind he would be free to give permission in a legal, permanent way through an easement, at which point there would be no property rights issue at all. Also, the railroads have options to minimize their disturbance while maintaining warnings at crossing that they're not taking.

And, of course, there's always eminent domain: if it's important enough to the community that the trains disturb people, the community always has the option of using eminent domain to force the sale of easements to allow the whistling. At the moment, though, we only have devalued property without any cost to the violators.

By common law standard, if a "noise easement" was necessary that "easement" was granted long since. The railroad tracks in most cases have been there 100 years or more. Long before most of the property was developed or the current owners took possession. In the West, the original owners likely BOUGHT it from the railroad, or homesteaded there because of the very presence of the transportation opportunities afforded by the railroad. Since the previous owners did not contest the existence or noise of the railroad early in its existence, if an easement was necessary, the railroads obtained it by adverse possession, since they ran the trains for more than 10 years, 10 years usually being the term necessary for uncontested use to gain adverse possession.

They were there first. It is not a secret that railroad tracks are there, and that trains are noisy. You buy property near a railroad track, you have to expect trains to use it, and blow horns to ensure the safety of the public at crossings and adhere to Federal regulations. That needs to be part of your decision to buy.

Caveat emptor, bub. The property was not "devalued" because the conditions that would have "devalued" it existed long before the current owner purchased it, so it was built into the original value when the current owner bought it. Which was in likelihood somewhat less because the horns were blowing then, too. That owner already got or should have gotten his "horn discount" when purchasing property near a railroad track. To try to get it again is to try to get something for nothing.

 

[zephyr17]

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".

You are right, people should absolutely do due dilligence when buying a house. I live in a very urban area, and I am often awaken by people in the streets/alleys when the bars let out at 1 am. I don't complain about that, because that was to be expected when I bought a condo in the city.

But should people expect to hear a train horn when they live 1.5 to 2 miles from the tracks? Of course if you live next to the tracks, you should expect to hear it. My building actually rumbles every time the commuter rail to Boston goes through the tunnel which is about 0.2 miles from my house. I expect that, and don't complain about it, because of the proximity.

Anyway, I didn't start this argument, I am just saying that people that live quite far from the train can be bothered by it.

Yes, you should expect it hear it a couple miles away because the horn is a warning and is expected and REQUIRED to be LOUD 1/4 of a mile away to give sufficient warning. The minimum dB level is regulated by Federal law, not some foamer's whim, and train horns have ALWAYS been loud. Get your city to pony up for FRA approved quiet zone. The crossing warning devices themselves can be equipped with horns that are directed down the street they are protecting, and are do not need to be as loud because the sound is more focused. Then the trains won't blow their horns for crossings anymore. Talk to your city govenment, but expect to pay for it.

But it is nothing new and no surprise. So, yes, it is to be expected and is part of due diligence.

 

[volkris]

By common law standard

I'm from Louisiana; we laugh at your common law

Also, I'm interested in talking about what's right, not what's legal. All too often those things diverge. We should fix the law, not use a broken law to justify a conclusion.

Well, to be more precise, I'm not really interested in talking about it more. As I said before, I'm happy to let this thread die since I think all that needs to be said has been said. If you guys want to take that as some admission of defeat it won't bother me.

I just thought I'd clarify some things for a couple of new looking people who showed up late and didn't really seem to see what my position was. Again, I'm fine with someone honestly disagreeing with my position; I'd just like to for them to actually know what they're disagreeing with.