Maine voters: Have a look at this

LD 363, An Act To Improve Safety on Railroad Rights-of-way, was sponsored by Sen. Christopher Johnson (D-Lincoln). It was cosponsored by the co-chairs of the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation. A public hearing was held on March 13, and testimony in support of the bill was given by Don Marson, General Manager of the Maine Eastern, and Nathan Moulton, Rail Director, Maine DOT Office of Freight and Business Services, as well as by Sen. Johnson. (Who worked on a railroad one summer while he was attending college.)

One week later, the Committee on Transportation unanimously voted "ONTP" (Ought Not To Pass) on the bill.


I emailed all the members of the committee to ask why they voted it down. So far, the only legislator to reply was Rep. Ann Peoples, D-Westbrook. She wrote,

I believe that the sense of the Committee after hearing all the testimony was that people know that trespassing on the rail road right of way is dangerous and that it was perhaps not the purview of the State of Maine to state the obvious in statute. I agree that education is important and would support any efforts you would like to bring forward short of making laws. Enforcement is also important but certainly constrained by lack of resources.

I didn't realize everyone knew railroad trespassing is dangerous. They know, but they go on the r-o-w anyway? And there must be some oddball explanation for the incident in Portland earlier this month. Maybe some rogue train pretending it was a velociraptor from Jurassic Park? {/close sarcasm}

So if any of the Maine readers live in one (or more) of these legislators' district, and you'd like to contact them and see if you get the courtesy of a reply about why they voted against the bill, I'd be interested in their response:
Senator Edward J. Mazurek (D-Knox), Chair
Senator Linda M. Valentino (D-York)
Senator Ronald F. Collins (R-York)
Representative Charles Kenneth Theriault (D-Madawaska), Chair
Representative Ann E. Peoples (D-Westbrook)
Representative Andrew J. McLean (D-Gorham)
Representative Christine B. Powers (D-Naples)
Representative Arthur C. "Archie" Verow (D-Brewer)
Representative R. Wayne Werts (D-Auburn)
Representative Wayne R. Parry (R-Arundel)*
Representative James S. Gillway (R-Searsport)
Representative Robert W. Nutting (R-Oakland)
Representative Beth P. Turner (R-Burlington)

Thanks.

Too difficult to enforce and RR property is already private so they can get people for trespassing. It is a redundant bill pretty much.

Part of the bill seems to make what is illegal already illegal. The other part clarifies that the trespasser is responsible for any damages or injuries that result. The latter part is probably what the railroads were interested in. It seems obvious to us, but having it expressly spelled out in the legal code might make it easier to recover damages from trespassers and/or their insurance.

It's less about recovering damages than it is about limiting liability. I'm sure the gentleman in the referenced story will be suing Pan Am as they are obviously responsible for this young man being a total idiot (and not his quoted mother).

kilroy wrote:It's less about recovering damages than it is about limiting liability. I'm sure the gentleman in the referenced story will be suing Pan Am as they are obviously responsible for this young man being a total idiot (and not his quoted mother).

ITA; the presumption of liability in the bill was probably seen as a golden ticket by the railroads, and my hunch is that the committee saw that putting that sort of thing in statute could lead to a giant can of worms at some point down the road.

Regarding the Portland incident, the slightest modicum of good taste leads me to refrain from making the first comment that comes to mind, and instead I'll simply offer one of my favorite maxims, specifically, "you can't fix stupid."

CN9634 wrote:Too difficult to enforce and RR property is already private so they can get people for trespassing. It is a redundant bill pretty much.

No, it's not.
I don't suppose you've ever calculated the cost to post a mile of track in accordance with the existing statute on criminal trespass, or seen that figure anywhere? I ask that because the statute requires that a property be "posted in accordance with subsection 4 or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders." Subsection 4 says "Signs or paint must mark the property at intervals no greater than 100 feet and at all vehicular access entries from a public road." (Use of paint markings was repealed 09/12/12.) From what I've seen, "they" don't "get" anyone for trespassing because many law enforcement officers won't charge anyone for criminal trespass unless the area is posted.

The last I knew, the cost to post one mile of track "in accordance with subsection 4" worked out to just over $5,900. That would be for signs (one for each side of the right-of-way), 8' U-channel posts, and nuts and bolts; no labor, tools, etc. For the MDOT-owned lines, us taxpayers can kick in for that. (You live in Maine too, right?)

I realize "common sense is no longer common," but in at least one state, land that is "fenced, posted, or cultivated" is supposed to be obviously someone's property. Florida's statute reads that way, and they were trying to add land with a railroad track on it as one of the places that anyone seeing it should know is private. I haven't read anything about it for awhile, but the FL legislature didn't seem to want to pass any such law, either.

Watchman318 wrote:

CN9634 wrote:Too difficult to enforce and RR property is already private so they can get people for trespassing. It is a redundant bill pretty much.

No, it's not.
I don't suppose you've ever calculated the cost to post a mile of track in accordance with the existing statute on criminal trespass, or seen that figure anywhere? I ask that because the statute requires that a property be "posted in accordance with subsection 4 or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders." Subsection 4 says "Signs or paint must mark the property at intervals no greater than 100 feet and at all vehicular access entries from a public road." (Use of paint markings was repealed 09/12/12.) From what I've seen, "they" don't "get" anyone for trespassing because many law enforcement officers won't charge anyone for criminal trespass unless the area is posted.

The last I knew, the cost to post one mile of track "in accordance with subsection 4" worked out to just over $5,900. That would be for signs (one for each side of the right-of-way), 8' U-channel posts, and nuts and bolts; no labor, tools, etc. For the MDOT-owned lines, us taxpayers can kick in for that. (You live in Maine too, right?)

I realize "common sense is no longer common," but in at least one state, land that is "fenced, posted, or cultivated" is supposed to be obviously someone's property. Florida's statute reads that way, and they were trying to add land with a railroad track on it as one of the places that anyone seeing it should know is private. I haven't read anything about it for awhile, but the FL legislature didn't seem to want to pass any such law, either.

If it was a pressing or problematic issue, RRs would be lobbying for it actively. For the most part, they really don't care. And the amount of time and money spent enforcing this would be a waste.