Counties, cities may seek quiet rail zone

I am always amazed when people purchase a home close to railroad tracks, then have the audacity to whine about the noise of the trains, then want taxpayers to fix the problem. What petulant people live in Dublin and Hilliard.

Bunch of crybabies. The railroad track has been there for well over 100 years, you bought your dang house next to said railroad track and it's too noisy. Tough. Get used to it or move.

And to the City of Dublin and other cities: stop allowing developers to build residences right up against the tracks!!!

I agree. Why build a golf course community that backs up to a railroad track? Why buy a house there if you don't want to hear the noise?
That development could have been buffered from some of the noise by planning it so that perhaps some commercial office buildings came between it and the tracks, planning a green zone or park with plenty of trees, or adding a sound barrier at the developer's cost.
I live just south of there in another new development. I thought long and hard about the tracks and the noise before I bought, and decided that it was far enough away that it would be okay. Only THEN did I put in an offer. I rarely hear the trains anymore; it's just part of the ambient noise.

These are the same folks that buy a house next to a farm and then complain about the smell.

Really? You built and bought next to the RR and you never once thought about the repercussions? Now you elitists want to make it the RR and Counties responsibility? Whaa!! Bunch of whiners. GROW UP!! Their are plenty more serious issues in the world you could expend your time and resources on. Just one question. Will you feel guilty when someone dies because the trains no longer have to give warning of approach?

The RR crossing upgrades and any other associated costs should be paid, at least in part, by the developer.

I do have a question, though. Who paid to have the RR tracks elevated that go through Columbus? And, when? Seems to me that given enough population density and/or a city or township that wants to promote growth, maybe it would be better to elevate the rail instead of upgrading with elaborate crossings/quite zones.

I used to live near train tracks. You get used to it. Eventually, it's kind of soothing. Walk it off.

FINALLY!!!! Springfield ohio has a quite zone!!! its about time Dublin got one!

The tracks have probably been the same elevation that they always have been and it is that the roads and surrounding areas were built to accomodate the need for grade separated crossings. Raillines are built to minimise the grades they follow so they will have embankments when teh topography dips and cuts when the topography rises along the line. No body other than the rail lines themselves in the 19th and early 20th Centuries paid for the right of ways they are built upon, though early on they may have had some gov't help with land grants and such but that was more common west of the Mississippi.

If the people in those subdivisions want quiet zones they should be appraised the costs as a special taxing district so only those who most directly benefit from the zone will pay for it. They may end up seeing the values of thier properties go up...along with the property taxes that come with increased value.

It's so nice that rich folks in dublin can waste taxpayer dollars so they don't have to listen to trains. How many crossings in that 6-mile stretch at $300k a pop?

Here's an idea: If you don't want to hear trains, don't buy a house near a rail crossing.

Dead Parrot wrote:

If the people in those subdivisions want quiet zones they should be appraised the costs as a special taxing district so only those who most directly benefit from the zone will pay for it. They may end up seeing the values of thier properties go up...along with the property taxes that come with increased value.

I agree. It looks like the tab is going to be like $2.4 million for 8 crossings at $300,000 per crossing.

That Dublin, land of "wasteful spending" is the same suburb that spend millions to add stone masonry to the Emerald Parkway bridge over the Scioto River several years ago to "enhance the aesthetics." It always amazed me that some equally lovely treatment to the concrete structure couldn't have been employed to a section of a bridge that cannot be seen unless you make a special effort to do so.
As we speak, untold millions are being spent to add concrete walls covered with stone to the 33/Avery Road ramp. Why? Because two unfortunate souls lost control of their vehicles and drowned in the retaining pond in the spectacularly landscaped grounds surrounding the ramp, something I like to call "the park you can't get to."
Something definitely had to be done, but how about an inexpensive option...say, fill the pond with dirt and cover it with grass. Not only are our tax dollars being wasted on the most expensive option (again, can't something nice be done with simple concrete?), but in order to keep it uniform, the walls are being added to every side of the bridge on Avery Road that elevates it over 33.
People are losing homes in this economy, and we somehow have the money for such colossal waste...

The Dublin people are mad because they paid $$$$ to live by the tracks...just to be in Dublin. Now that thier homes are only worth half that (probably the actual value all along).
Maybe a wheel of cheese will fall off a passing train so they have something to go with their WHINE.

Let the city of Dublin home ownwers pay for it with thier taxes. Then when one of thier kids get hit by a train, there will be no bitch! I think I'd rather put up with a little noise. I have tracks a couple of blocks from me and I love listening to the whistles. It's those upity people again.

The train would still use it's horn if someone is on the tracks. It is a series of short blasts as a warning to people of the tracks.

The only way to completely remove the threat would be to fence off all rail rights of way like a limited run highway - or interstate is. This is how it is done in the UK but there the rights of way that are owned by the rails are over a undred feet wide and had been separated from surrounding properies going back to the 1800's

People just have to remember that in most cases the rail lines were here first and public roads have had to get clearance to cross THEM, not the other way around.

Dead Parrot wrote:

People just have to remember that in most cases the rail lines were here first and public roads have had to get clearance to cross THEM, not the other way around.

That's true. Rails are protected by the constitution under "intertate commerce" They get presedence over all local zoning and most local transportation laws.

I bought a house next to the fire station and when the trucks go on a run at night the sirens wake me up. Can I have a law that says the fire trucks can't turn on their sirens until they're 500 yards away from my house?

safety is first for the citizens at crossings and the horns are a part of it. we have tracks about 50 yards from our back door and we like the noise. People should move if they don't like it.

I would rather hear train whistles instead of their teenagers car boombox!

I would bet they are not happy with the "quiet zone" even if they get it. The two crossings near my house have full gates and the train crews make it a point to sound the whistles dozens of times for each crossing as they blast through at all hours of the night. It can be irritating at times, but it is not as irritating as the hobo/crackhead town that is in the woods next to the tracks.