Published: July 07, 2007 03:56 pm         

Flashpoint: Train frustration should be channeled into relocation plan

Few objects in Terre Haute have the capacity to evoke road rage more readily than trains. As the Crossroads of America, we see more than our share. As the site of switchyards, we have more than our share of chances to stop at a level crossing as a train passes, or worse, blocks while it stops.

It’s not a new issue. Most of us have heard the urban legend that John Dillinger refused to rob a bank in Terre Haute because he feared being railroaded during his getaway. Relocation of railroads has been a discussion point since at least 1948.

City officials are constantly asked what can be done to remove this annoyance. Let me try to outline how complex this issue is.

Because railroads fall under law governing interstate commerce, they are not regulated nor taxed locally. They are above local control. Historically, communities 150 years ago did everything they could to lure railroad connections inside their city limits. Yet while the business of railroads in America has changed, their location hasn’t.

Meanwhile, though it is easy to criticize railroads when we’re waiting for trains to pass, they provide inexpensive freight hauling that reduces cost in every sector of our economy.

So what can Terre Haute do? City officials are constantly told we should fine them for blocking traffic until it hurts the railroad enough to goad it into moving. That has pros and cons.

The framework under which we can issue citations to trains is state code, not local ordinance — Indiana Code 8-6-7.5-1 through 8-6-7.5-3, for those who are interested.

As of the writing of this letter, community law enforcement agencies (Terre Haute police, Vigo County sheriff and Indiana State Police) have written 86 tickets this year to railroad companies for blocking county intersections. The cost for one of these infractions is $110. Of that money, about half pays court costs; another significant proportion pays for a variety of fees to cover judicial salaries, document preparation and other administrative overhead. Each city court case, for example, pays $2 per infraction to cover DNA samples. That is not a locally mandated fee, but one that comes from the state.

The infraction cost — the actual fine — for a train blocking the crossing, is $1. That amount could be raised at the discretion of the court to a fine up to $500. The court could assess anywhere from $1 to $500. Therefore, in theory, with all the other associated costs, an infraction for a train blocking a crossing could be $609.

We could cite the crew as well, though the law allows them to be exempt if they are operating under the instructions of their supervisors.

The railroad companies regularly come into the City Clerk’s office with a check for their infractions. Of that $110 infraction cost, the city is only allowed to keep between $24 and $27, depending on which agency wrote the ticket. Court costs go to the state, as do most of the fees. The entire fine goes to the state, whether we charge $1 or $500.

The court could increase the fine, but at some point the railroad will stop paying it and take the case to court. At that point, we spend local taxpayer dollars in court and attorney time to collect a fine that we turn over to Indianapolis.

We could cite and conceivably detain the crew, but what does that do other than force the company to send a replacement crew from miles away to move the train that is already the irritant? We then create a longer wait to make a point.

In all this process we lose a chance to keep a partner in what is no doubt the only lasting solution to our concern: railroad relocation.

Our best bet in the long run is to channel the frustration into finding a relocation plan that is helpful for the railroad as well as for Terre Haute. Consider how many American communities just tell the railroads daily that they should move out. Until we can give them something that will make their business stronger, however, all simple relocation means to them is disrupted service and monumental expense.

Mayor Kevin Burke’s concept of an inland port east of Terre Haute is one such idea that would accomplish our fondest wish while giving the railroad companies an incentive to go. The concept is worth pursuing, and we’re actively doing so, asking the state and the railroads to work as partners in the process.

This inland port won’t alleviate overnight the problems we endure daily at our crossings, but it, or some concept like it, will provide the long-term solution that we want.

— Peter C. Ciancone

Communications director

City of Terre Haute