Metro North Rail line faces fines over bridge delays

While, since we're responding to an old thread, for the record, I don't see why that should be an issue, for one thing, this particular topic still holds merit and we've been shown recently that the issue it's here to discuss has not changed since the last use of this thread. Also, when you create a new thread and fill it up with the same info that's already on an old thread, you're taking up extra space in the MySQL database, as well as cluttering the forum with redundant information, it's just easier to find an answer when there's one long thread instead of 15 short ones all about the same topic.

That being said...

abaduck wrote: Quite. I'm no boater, but I have a good friend who is. He says CG are right up there with IRS and Post Office etc. when it comes to organisations you do *not* want to piss off/mess around with. They have a *lot* of power and aren't afraid to use it - if push ever really did come to shove, the bridge would be history, and MN/CDOT could argue about it later; if the railroad simply refused to play by the rules, CG would whistle up a crane barge or the Army Engineers, and it it would be problem solved, from the CG point of view of course!

Mike

Where does the FRA fit into this equation? The coast guard may have watched over bringing stuff into this country, but the railroads are what built the country and continue to keep the commercial shippers in business. I would assume that with all the historical rights and protections given to railroads, and that the Coast guard only has authority in coastal states verses the FRA that has authority in all but one (I don't think that little railroad in Hawaii is under their authority, but I could be wrong), I would think that the FRA would at the very least be on par with the CG as far as authority goes, so it should just be a matter of who can get the best appeal to the next higher up authority.

When railroads did build these bridges , it was with clear understanding that they did do it over a navigable waterway, governed by Coast Guard, so CG overrules the FRA.
Here are some of regulatory decisions for bridges on MNCR for last few years.

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi ... n=retrieve

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi ... n=retrieve

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi ... n=retrieve

abaduck wrote: Quite. I'm no boater, but I have a good friend who is. He says CG are right up there with IRS and Post Office etc. when it comes to organisations you do *not* want to piss off/mess around with. They have a *lot* of power and aren't afraid to use it - if push ever really did come to shove, the bridge would be history, and MN/CDOT could argue about it later; if the railroad simply refused to play by the rules, CG would whistle up a crane barge or the Army Engineers, and it it would be problem solved, from the CG point of view of course!

Mike

And 30 seconds after they did that they'd have the entire Congressional delegations of CT, RI, and MA going ape***t on them for seriously disrupting the lives and business of the 1mm-odd people riding the Northeast Corridor every day.

Yes, maritime traffic has the r-o-w when the navigable waterway predates the railroad. However, I think that even the USCG would apply some cost-benefit analysis in the case of the Cos Cob bridge. After all, it's not like there's some vital powerplant or military installation on the upper Mianus River...

The clear solution is to turn the bridge tender into an operator and give him or her direct control over the signals with the theory being that an on-site operator would be more responsive than the dispatcher in downtown New York. I wonder if the CG could propose this as an alternative to whatever stack of fines build up?

CP230 wrote: I don't even have a bathroom in there.

I call BS, there is a bathroom in there. If I recall its one of those nice incinerator types...

Ridgefielder wrote: And 30 seconds after they did that they'd have the entire Congressional delegations of CT, RI, and MA going ape***t on them for seriously disrupting the lives and business of the 1mm-odd people riding the Northeast Corridor every day.

Yeah, and?

Yes, maritime traffic has the r-o-w when the navigable waterway predates the railroad. However, I think that even the USCG would apply some cost-benefit analysis in the case of the Cos Cob bridge. After all, it's not like there's some vital powerplant or military installation on the upper Mianus River...

Maybe. It's still a navigable waterway. The boats were there first. Don't like it? Move...

Nasadowsk wrote:

Ridgefielder wrote: And 30 seconds after they did that they'd have the entire Congressional delegations of CT, RI, and MA going ape***t on them for seriously disrupting the lives and business of the 1mm-odd people riding the Northeast Corridor every day.

Yeah, and?

Well, that sure wouldn't make getting funds out of Congress fun and easy...

Seriously, though, whatever the railroad did I don't think the USCG would ever just *remove* the bridge and sever the only active rail connection between Southern New England and the rest of the continental United States. The DoD for one would probably have a fit, given that plenty of sub crews use the railroad to get to and from USNS New London.

Nasadowsk wrote:

Ridgefielder wrote: Yes, maritime traffic has the r-o-w when the navigable waterway predates the railroad. However, I think that even the USCG would apply some cost-benefit analysis in the case of the Cos Cob bridge. After all, it's not like there's some vital powerplant or military installation on the upper Mianus River...

Maybe. It's still a navigable waterway. The boats were there first. Don't like it? Move...

With regard to the boats-- as stated above, as it stands right now they don't have complete carte blanche-- recreational vessels (surely 99.9% of the traffic on the Mianus these days) can wait up to 20 minutes, and need to make prior reservations for movements between 9pm and 5am: which would imply that there's already a recognition on the part of the powers-that-be that the needs of the several hundred thousand people using the railroad every day have some priority over the maybe 100 boat owners who dock on the Mianus upstream of the bridge with vessels that won't clear the closed draw span.

DutchRailnut wrote:When railroads did build these bridges , it was with clear understanding that they did do it over a navigable waterway, governed by Coast Guard...

I hope this doesn't sound like a nitpick but when most of these bridges were built they were governed by the War Department. War Department control over navigable waterways extended at least into the late 1940s.

There is a clear record that the federal regulations and restrictions take account of the relative importance of rail traffic over a given bridge versus the nature of the water traffic going under it.

Decades ago the War Department allowed the Hudson Line bridge over Annsville Creek (above Peekskill) to be converted to a closed causeway. This was because a) the railroad complained it was a financial burden to man and maintain the draw, b) the Hudson Line is a major rail route and c) the water traffic using the channel were all small recreational boats. The War Department decided recreational boat owners could make do with trailers to get around the bridge and at some point in the late 1940s or early 1950s the draw was officially closed to water traffic.

However, since boating is big bucks in Connecticut I don't think it could happen there.

Every bridge in Connecticut still has commercial shipping going through, a bit different from Ansville creek and the bridge at New Hamburg.
Connecticut still has excursion boats, fuel barges, stone barges, etc etc , not one bridge has just recreational boating.