The Great Lakes Central Railroad and the lakefront township of Oscoda, Michigan, are having a dispute over whether the trains were required to blow their whistles at every crossing within the township. The railroad read the state statute as requiring a whistle at every street crossing. The township read the statute as requiring a whistle only when approaching the township. Because the trains operate late at night, the loud horns bother the tourists renting cabins which is the main livelihood for local businesses. The township brought action against the railroad in the local state district court to enjoin the railroad from blowing its whistle at every street crossing. The township refused mediation and other forms of ADR and selected to go to trial. After discovery, the parties proceeded to trial before the judge. The jury found the township and granted its request for an injunction. The railroad appealed the judge's decision to the state's court of appeals. At present, the dispute has been ongoing for nearly 3 years. Would the township have been better off selecting a form of ADR, and why?