July 14, 2015 Presentation to Cramahe Township Council To: Mayor - PDF document

July 14, 2015 Presentation to Cramahe Township Council To: Mayor Mark Coombs, Deputy Mayor Sandra Arthur, Councillors Donald Clark, Timothy Gilligan and Ed Van Egmond. From: Ernie Koehl and Gritt Koehl Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to request approval to pursue train whistle cessation in Cramahe Township. Our son, his wife and two children have recently moved into the Colborne Creek Subdivision. They are very excited about owning their first home and love the village of Colborne. The numerous trains with loud whistles during the day and night are however negatively impacting their quality of life and well-being in their new home. After talking with several neighbours in the subdivision, it became apparent that this noise pollution is having a negative impact on other residents as well. The reality is that Colborne residents have to contend with the noise of up to 90 trains per day on the double track CN rail lines. Background The volume of rail traffic has increased tremendously over the last 10 years especially along the Lake Ontario shoreline routes. In addition to increased traffic, whistle technology has changed to deafening bone-jarring whistle blasts that can be heard for many kilometers. Railways use several warning systems to minimize the chance of collisions with people and vehicles. This includes bright lights and loud whistles on train locomotives and warning devices at level crossings. There has been much debate (both pro and con) about the efficacy of train whistles in preventing train collisions and fatalities. The reality is that if a level crossing is protected by flashing lights, a ringing bell and gates, routine whistling adds very little to safety. Simply put train whistles cannot prevent fatalities arising from intent or stupidity. When the passage of trains becomes an around the clock occurrence which adversely affects the mental health and the well-being of residents, steps need to be taken to mitigate some of the noise. Transport Canada recognizes that there can be a problem with train whistles and had made provision for whistle cessation in Section 23.1 (1)(b) of the Railway Safety Act. To help communities with this initiative Transport Canada has published a detailed g uide “Train Whistling at Public Grade Crossings” which spells out the steps required to implement a train whistle cessation program at level crossings.

Cramahe Situation Residents have been petitioning Cramahe Council since 2006 to apply for whistle cessation in the Township. After renewed attempts in 2014, Council hired CIMA, an Engineering Consulting firm to do a detailed safety assessment at two level crossings in the Township and to document the requirements for a whistle cessation program. The level crossings chosen were at  Peters Road (Mile 246.75)  Ontario Street (Mile 249.83) The company produced a report entitled “Train Whistle Cessation Study” which was subsequently submitted to Council. The CIMA report contained detailed information regarding:  Condition of Road Approaches  Condition of Grade Crossing Surfaces  Condition of Sightlines  Road Advance Warning Signs  Pavement Markings  Warning Devices  Gates  Fencing The Consultant provided rough cost estimates for remedial measures that may be required if the Township were to proceed. CIMA did not provide the basis or detailed rationale for their cost estimates. After reviewing the Consultant’s report in 2015, Council decided not to invite CIMA to attend Council and discuss the details of the report and voted not to proceed with further steps toward whistle cessation. Concerns raised by Councillors included:  Safety (apparently there was a local youth fatality at a train level crossing)  Perceived high cost of implementation  Higher priority work  The perception that train whistles only bothered a “handful” of people who should have done their due diligence before moving near the railway corridor. In retrospect it would appear that Council did not exercise due diligence in examining the financial aspects of the project because these details were not tested in discussion with the Railway Company and Transport Canada in terms of feasibility and cost sharing. Furthermore the perception that only a handful of people were bothered by the noise is wrong. The reality

is that residents are getting better organized as a lobby group – this problem will not go away any time soon. Ultimately Council needs to come to grips with its responsibility as laid out in the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement to support the “ collective well-being ” of its residents. The simple reality is that Council has allowed the development of a large subdivision in the vicinity of a busy rail corridor without making adequate provisions for noise abatement. Cramahe Level Crossing Details The conditions at 7 level crossings were recently examined:  Peters Road (Wood)  Blyth Park Road (Rubber)  Colton Drive (Rubber)  Durham Street South (Wood)  Victoria Street (Wood)  Ontario Street (Rubber)  Town Line Road (Wood) Overall these level crossings appear to be in good shape. There are no major problems with the road approaches. The main difference in the grade crossing surfaces is the fact that three of the seven use rubber to integrate and protect the timbers around the rails. This is a good practice and should be implemented as future enhancements to the level crossings. The consultant report indicates that some sightlines were not meeting standard. My impression was that the sightlines were pretty good. In fact the railway crossing standard states, “Sightlines of approaching trains are a safety benefit at grade crossings with grade crossing warning systems and are to be provided along the rail line where practicable ” . The current sightlines may need some tweaking but the reality is that rail employees are already maintaining the sightlines. In fact while at the Durham Street Crossing, I observed a CN employee clearing brush on both sides of the track. If the sightlines are not adequate this needs to be brought to the attention of the Rail Company. Currently there are no pavement markings at any of the crossings. This is not surprising given that these are rural roads with a low volume of vehicles. It is also understood that pavement markings are poor warning tools – they may be covered by snow in the winter and they become abraded over time. If it was deemed essential to have pavement markings, it should not be a big deal to ask your contractor to paint “cross bucks” and stop bars on the pavement surfaces in the vicinity of the level crossings.

The road advance warning signs are generally adequate and would typically only require the addition of a sign indicating (No Train Whistle At This Crossing). In some cases new signs may be required to bring signage up to standard and to ensure that there were signs at the requisite distance from the tracks. If signs need to be upgraded, the added expense is minimal. Each of the level crossings is protected by Flashing Lights, a Bell and Gates (FLB&G). This is the highest level of protection for level crossings short of an overpass or an underpass. CIMA indicated that some fine tuning was required in terms of adjusting the descent and delay time of the gates. They also noted the need to correct the opened position of a gate on one of the crossings (Ontario Street) as well as the need to backfill the surrounding areas to meet RTD-10 (Railway Grade Crossing Technical Standards and Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Requirements). These items should be considered routine maintenance and should be part of the annual fees that the Township pays to the Rail Company to maintain level crossings infrastructure. You may not realize it, but Cramahe Township paid $33,929.33 to CN Rail and 22,311.90 to CP Rail in 2014. Presumably th ese monies are “user fees” and are intended to cover costs of maintaining rail level crossings in the Township. Any and all costs related to maintaining level crossings should be covered by these contracts. These contracts need to be examined closely by Township staff. Fencing is problematic. This was a major cost item in CIMA’s report and needs close scrutiny. Ultimately fencing is an attempt to find a solution to trespassing. We know from experience in other municipalities that fencing is a poor solution. People who trespass are basically lazy and will continue to trespass until they are charged by the OPP or Rail Police Constables. Even then this is unlikely to deter the hardened scofflaws. The CIMA report was ambiguous on the topic and suggested that both sides of the tracks may need to be fenced for a ¼ mile in each direction if there were evidence of trespassing. The reality is that Transport Canada agrees that there is no need for fencing where there is no evidence of trespassing. Fences should not be required in Cramahe Township in order to implement whistle cessation given that there was no reported evidence of trespassing. Summary Cramahe Township should be able to implement a whistle cessation program at the 7 CN level crossings without incurring excessive costs. In fact a lot of the countermeasures suggested by the consultant should be carried out regardless of a whistle cessation program being implemented because they pertain to the safety of the level crossings. It is entirely possible that these costs may already be covered by the contracts currently in place with the rail companies.