Who sets speed restrictions through towns?

[Hytec]

I can only speak for what has happened within the city limits of Gulfport, MS, but speed limits within the city were set, then eliminated by city ordinances. Prior to the mid-1990s, there were grade crossings every two blocks within two miles either side of downtown, sometimes every block. Most crossings were guarded with nothing but cross-bucks left over from when the L&N owned the line. Sometime in the 1970's the city passed an ordinance setting the speed limit at 25 mph within that four-mile area for safety due to population growth. When CSX finally purchased the line, they started negotiating with Gulfport to raise the speed limit. After several years the city agreed to let CSX close three out of four crossings if CSX would install flashing lights at most of the crossings and gates at the rest. When the work was completed, Gulfport passed an ordinance raising the speed limit to 50 mph. Other cities along the 60+ miles of populated area of the Mississippi Gulf Coast had similar ordinances, negotiations, and resolutions, though I'm not familiar with their details. I have no idea if the ordinances would have stood the test in federal courts if the railroad companies had decided to fight them. However, the railroads chose to be good neighbors and community supporters, and that spirit of cooperation seems to have worked well for all concerned.

 

[tonys96]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They tell us, as they evidently tell every city, because it is something that, by law, must be public information. The speed is based on the track conditions. UP does not travel too fast where I live, basically because they have a train yard right at the border of my city and our western neighbor that is VERY busy. They do, however (again due to that train yard) block intersections quite a lot...as one UP rep told our mayor, police chief, court prosecutor and myself...he was putting together trains over a mile long and simply did not have the space to do that without using the available track.......No, my city has not sought to make a case out of the speed limit deal. Another municipality in Texas did some years back and the case was summarily dismissed. I believe it was another city in the DFW area, and that city ordinance still remains on their books, but has been deemed unenforceable, unless they choose to appeal, which they did not do at that time, and I do not know if they can at this date. (Again, I am not any kind of lawyer)

As for the town you speak of, I am going to make a guess that it is not in Texas, which is the sole state that I know the current situation in, as stated in the link I posted above. We did have a meeting with our congresscritter and UP about the intersection blocking, and came away very aware of the AG opinion (linked above) stating the Texas Code was superseded by Federal Law, and we are working with UP to voluntarily decrease the duration of the blockages at major crossings.

 

[neroden]

If the city wants to make a federal case of it (they might have to take it to the Supreme Court), they would want to start by passing an ordinance directed at the *specific* crossing blocked by the *train yard* activities, and they would need to prove that UP's practice of assembling mile-long trains at that yard is actually hazardous to public safety (as in, there are no bridges or underpasses anywhere nearby for ambulances to use to bypass the blocked crossing).

 

[tonys96]

If the city wants to make a federal case of it (they might have to take it to the Supreme Court), they would want to start by passing an ordinance directed at the *specific* crossing blocked by the *train yard* activities, and they would need to prove that UP's practice of assembling mile-long trains at that yard is actually hazardous to public safety (as in, there are no bridges or underpasses anywhere nearby for ambulances to use to bypass the blocked crossing).

I cannot think of a single city i Texas that would spend taxpayer $$$ to do this. Perhaps a number might band together to do it, but that would likely " muddy the waters" .........now, if some lawyer would do it pro-bono, that would be different.In our case, we have 18 grade crossings on that line ( the one the TE used to take between DAL and FTW) and there are two over/under passes along the line. The trains rarely block more than 4 crossings for an extended period. Better fiscally to try to work with UP to get to a mutually agreeable point. Congresscritter's office has been a great assistance.

 

[neroden]

Yeah, you're probably right. The cities which I remember which made successful cases over crossing-blocking did not have any overpasses or underpasses, or they were waaaaay far away from the blocked crossings.