Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEGD-014-17 Engineering Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: May 29, 2017 Report Number: EGD-014-17 Resolution: File Number: n/a By-law Number: Report Subject: Train Whistling at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road Recommendations: 1. That Report EGD-014-17 be received; 2. That, in the interest of public safety, the request for an anti-whistling By-law be denied; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report EGD-014-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report EGD-014-17 Report Overview At the May 9, 2017 General Government Committee meeting Council requested that staff report back to them with a cost estimate to complete a study of the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road level crossings to meet Transport Canada’s requirements for whistle cessation. Council also asked that staff report back with any changes to Federal legislation and/or guidelines since the last staff report on whistle cessation, as well as any opportunities for financial assistance available for level crossing upgrades to allow for whistle cessation. This report is in response to Council’s request and provides the information requested. 1. Background 1.1 Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road Resident Concerns In response to concerns that have been raised recently by residents in the area of Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road, along the Canadian National Railway, Council passed the following resolution at the May 9, 2017 General Government Committee meeting: That Staff report back to the General Government Committee meeting of May 29, 2017, providing costs estimates for the study of level crossings, at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road, to meet Transport Canada requirements for whistle cessation; That Staff report back on any Federal legislative requirements and/or guidelines since the last staff report about level crossing train whistle cessation; and That Staff report back on any financial assistance provided by upper levels of government towards level crossing upgrades towards train whistle cessation. 1.2 The Municipality’s Current Position The Municipality’s current position on train whistling in Clarington received Council support in 2012 after extensive research was provided in two separate reports EGD-001- 12 (see Attachment 1) and EGD-013-12 (see Attachment 2). The first report provided explanation about train whistling protocols and the importance of them and then went on to explain the process involved in having Transport Canada consider whistle cessation. Staff then provided a detailed review and analysis of all of the safety concerns that prevented them from being able to recommend anti-whistling and concluded with a discussion about risk management and liability. Our second report, EGD-013-17, looked specifically at feasibility and implementation and also at the unique features of rail within Clarington. We provided a broad overview of potential costs and upgrades required to protect public safety and took the position, in consultation with the railways, that the Kingston subdivision line is a high speed line with Municipality of Clarington Report EGD-014-17 Page 3 a large volume of rail traffic involving twenty different level crossings and that a whistle cessation study could only be considered across the system as a whole and not at individual crossings. We took this position for several reasons but highest among those was the concern that: a.Resident expectations and behavior can only be safely managed if there is consistency across the Municipality. A resident who has come to rely on a whistle to warn that a train is approaching the crossing cannot be protected if there is inconsistency and confusion about what the expectations are at different crossings. b.The railways have also made it clear that train operators would also find it very difficult to conduct their operations safely if they had to try treat each location differently within Clarington. Railway executives explained that the chance of an accident would go up, especially at night time if a high speed train operator were required to treat various locations within Clarington differently. The report talked about the cost of a system wide cessation study rather than one that looked at separate crossings for the reasons listed above. We also looked at the operating costs and annual capital cost implications that would need to be considered if we had to upgrade our crossings enough to protect both our residents and the Municipality in the face of substantially increased risk and liability. It was explained that the Municipality would be required to enter into a liability agreement with the railway and obtain liability insurance to protect the municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling at affected crossings because the likelihood of both increases when anti-whistling is implemented in the absence of grade separations. 2. An Update and the Recent Resolution The May 9th resolution asked us to look at three separate questions: •The cost of a study which looks at whistle cessation for two crossings one at Bennett Road and the other at Cobbledick Road •An update on Federal guidelines and legislation with regards to train whistling •The possibility of financial assistance programs to assist with upgrades that would allow for whistle cessation at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road specifically Municipality of Clarington Report EGD-014-17 Page 4 3. The Cost of a Study The cost of a study that would look at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road in isolation conducted by qualified professionals would be approximately $15,000. The purpose of the study would be to identify any non-conformities and deficiencies at the subject crossings in order to ensure that potential safety concerns are identified and removed or mitigated. In addition to confirming the requirements for the cessation of routine whistling the consultant would review the subject crossings for compliance with all relevant requirements. The review would be carried out according to the guidelines provided in the Canadian Road/Railway Grade Crossing Detailed Safety Assessment Field Guide using the new regulations and standards. However staff’s position is that the review would be incomplete unless a system wide study of the 20 crossings in proximity to the urban areas is undertaken to ensure consistency and to protect public safety. 4. Federal Legislative Requirement Updates In July of 2014 Transport Canada developed new Grade Crossings Regulations (GCR) under the Railway Safety Act to “improve safety by establishing comprehensive and enforceable safety standards for grade crossings, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of railway companies and road authorities and ensuring that they share key safety information”. These new regulations came into effect on November 27, 2014 and “were intended to help reduce the frequency and severity of accidents at Canada's federally- regulated grade crossings, therefore saving lives and preventing injuries and derailments” by introducing enhanced safety standards. Two years after the Grade Crossings Regulations came into force, or by November 27, 2016, railway companies and road authorities were required to have shared safety information about their existing public grade crossings with each other. Seven years after the Grade Crossings Regulations came into force, or by November 27, 2021, railway companies and road authorities must meet all requirements to upgrade existing grade crossings, including signage, crossing surface specifications, sightlines and warning systems. This phased in approach, which has budget implications for the Municipality, requires immediate safety improvements at grade crossings across Canada, while allowing railway companies and road authorities’ sufficient time to comply with all of the requirements in the Grade Crossings Regulations. Municipality of Clarington Report EGD-014-17 Page 5 5. Funding Programs and Whistle Cessation Transport Canada does offer funding through the Rail Safety Improvement Program but the funding is “intended to improve rail safety, contribute to the reduction of injuries and fatalities, and increase public confidence in Canada's rail transportation system”. This funding program is specific in terms of its intended targets which are to enhance current safety standards. Improvements related to meeting safety standards required for whistle cessation are seen as a responsibility that a municipality elects to assume and will not be eligible as part of the program. 6. Concurrence This report has been reviewed by the Director of Finance/Treasurer and the Director of Operations who concur with the recommendations. 7. Conclusion Rail safety is a Transport Canada priority and it is for that reason that new guidelines were introduced in July of 2014 to help reduce the frequency and severity of accidents at Canada's federally-regulated grade crossings, therefore saving lives and preventing injuries and derailments by introducing enhanced safety standards. Staff continue to maintain their position that public safety is our highest priority despite our respect for and recognition of the quality of life issues that residents face when living in close proximity to a railway. Staff have been in discussions with both CP and CN Rail and both have again expressed that for safety and liability reasons whistle cessation reduces the safety at a level crossing. If the Municipality chooses to proceed it must do so in full recognition of the increased liability and risk to public safety we will be required to assume. It is therefore staff’s recommendation that whistle cessation not be considered for Clarington but if it is Council’s wish to do so then we strongly urge that a detailed safety assessment of all twenty level crossings in proximity to urban areas be conducted looking at system wide impacts, consistency, safety and costs rather than a study that would look at individual crossings in isolation. 8. Strategic Plan Application Not applicable. Submitted by: Reviewed by: Anthony Cannella, Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO Director of Engineering Services Interim CAO Municipality of Clarington Report EGD-014-17 Page 6 Staff Contact: Ron Albright, Assistant Director, Engineering Services, (905) 623-3379, Ext. 2305 or ralbright@clarington.net AC/ra/jb Attachments: Attachment 1 - Report EGD-001-12 Attachment 2 - Report EGD-013-12 Attachment 3 - Grade Crossings Regulations: what you need to know The following is a list of interested parties: Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association Clariiwn REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: January 09, 2012 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: EGD-001-12 File#: Subject: TRAIN WHISTLE CESSATION RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD-001-12 be received; 2. THAT in the interest of public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not proceed with an anti-whistling by-law as a means of reducing "nuisance noise"; 4. THAT all interested parties listed in Report EGD-001- 12 be given a copy of this report. Submitted b y:Reviewed by: A.S. Cannella, C.E.T. Franklin Wu, Director of Engineering Chief Administrative Officer Services ASC/U B/j b/jo II CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 I Attachment 1 to EGD-014-17 REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 2 1. INTRODUCTION The Municipality of Clarington receives requests (approximately one official request every two years) from residents asking that the municipality approach the Canadian National Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway to request train whistle cessation at public crossings because of the impact this practice has on the quality of life for those living in close proximity to a rail line. In Canada trains are required under the Railway Safety Act of 1988 to whistle at all level (grade) public crossings and difficulties arise from the fact that "most rail yards and many railway lines were built many years ago in undeveloped areas, far from homes and businesses. As towns and cities grew, many new neighbourhoods were built near pre-existing rail operations". The interesting paradox arises from the fact that as the number of residents increases in the area the discomfort and quality of life issues caused by train whistles grows at precisely the same time as the rising risk caused by increasing traffic volumes on roadways adjacent to the rail lines. 2. BACKGROUND In 2001, Council considered a request for whistle cessation in the vicinity of residential areas (Attachment #1). Council concluded "THAT in the interest of public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not proceed with an anti- whistling by-law as a means of reducing `nuisance noise'." Since the issue of anti- whistling has not been considered by Council since that time, staff participated in an updated research study of the matter to provide Council with an update on the status of the muncipality's anti-whistling policy as it pertains to the elimination of train whistling when approaching level grade crossings. The municipality is serviced with two main railway lines. The Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) provides two (2) railway subdivision lines, the Belleville Subdivision Line running along the lakeshore and the Havelock Subdivision Line running along the northern extreme running through Burketon. The Canadian National Railway REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 3 CN) has the Kingston Subdivision Line running along the lakeshore. The different types of road/railway crossing for each railway are identified on attachment#2. 3. TRAIN WHISTLING PROTOCOL Train whistling protocols are strictly regulated and enforced by Transport Canada. The Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) state that the train whistles will be sounded (long-long-short-long). Train whistles are safety devices that alert motorists and pedestrians to the presence of an approaching train. They also warn trespassers away from the rails right-of-way. Locomotive engineers follow a detailed set of instructions in the Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) that outline when a whistle must be sounded and the whistling sequence to be used. The CROR were developed jointly by the railways and their unions, and approved by Transport Canada. Every at grade crossing is protected by a warning system consisting of either flashing lights and bells or flashing lights, bells and gates. The CROR specifies that all trains must sound their whistle at least 400 metres before all public level crossings for trains exceeding 70 kilometres per hour or at least 20 seconds in advance of the crossing for trains travelling under 70 kilometres per hour until the train has occupied the crossing. The whistle must be sounded while approaching the crossing and until the train has fully occupied the crossing. Train operators can sound the whistle any time that visibility is impaired (eg. weather, curvature) or in the event of a safety issue where sounding the train whistle is appropriate. Locomotive whistles are manufactured to meet sound level and tone requirements recommended by Transport Canada. The whistles on all locomotives manufactured since 1982 are push button controlled to provide a consistent sound level. However, local weather conditions and wind direction can affect the noise a whistle makes. REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 4 4. WHISTLE CESSATION In order for whistle cessation to be considered, the municipality must follow the requirements outlined in the Transport Canada — Procedure & Conditions for Eliminating Whistling at Public Crossings — Guideline No. 1 (Attachment #3). In short: The municipality must contact the pertinent railway company to discuss the matter. The municipality must notify the general public and all relevant organizations of its intent to forbid whistling in the municipality. A detailed safety assessment of each crossing at the crossing and recommend upgrades which would meet the requirements of Schedule `A' of the above referenced Guidelines. A Public Information Centre is recommended. The municipality must pass a resolution of its intent to pass a by-law forbidding the use of whistles at certain crossings. The municipality must implement the upgrades where required to meet the Guidelines. The municipality must enter into an agreement with each railway with respect to the roles and responsibilities under Section 11 of the Railway Safety Act. The railway will then enter into a liability agreement with the municipality and will obtain additional liability insurance with a recognized commercial insurer to protect the Municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage arising out of or resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling at this crossing. It must be understood that the municipality becomes liable for collisions on the tracks if the automatic gate system fails. This has been a deciding factor against implementing the ban for many municipalities. REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 5 The process to eliminate train whistles can take three to four years to complete, depending on the number of crossings and the required upgrades to those crossings. 5. STAFF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Staff does not recommend the implementation of anti-whistling primarily due to reasons that are-related to safety.---Every year some-350____-rebut 50 fatalities take place at railway crossings in Canada. Removing whistling at a safety device cannot be taken lightly as public safety is deemed to be paramount and so we consider the following: The high speed of most trains through Clarington, particularly on the CN line. A motorist is 40 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train than in a collision involving another motor vehicle. Risk to the community if there is a collision with cars containing hazardous materials. Proximity to Highway 401 in the event of an accident. A typical locomotive with 100 cars attached can weigh approximately 6,000 tons. The weight ratio of an automobile to a train is compared to a pop can and an automobile. Trains require one mile to stop and modern trains are much quieter than their predecessors, in fact approaching trains will always be closer and moving faster than people think. Approximately 50% of vehicle/train collisions occur at crossings with active warning devices (gates, lights, bells). Motorists and pedestrians are distracted by different technological devices (cell phones, blackberries, (pods, MP3 players, etc.) and are not always paying attention to their surroundings, we can understand how important train whistles, which can be heard over iPods and MP3 players, really are. The risk of cars weaving through the barricades when they occasionally get stuck in the "down" position. Lack of upgrades that effectively protect pedestrians and cyclists. REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 6 In 1999 the City of Brockville implemented whistle cessation in its municipality. In 2005, a tragic accident involving two young pedestrians resulted in the death of one youngster and serious injury to the other. The teens noted the gates, bells and flashing lights at the railway crossing and understood that this meant a train was coming. What they could not and tragically did not understand was that while a first train had passed in one direction they were proceeding directly into the oncoming direction. The railway immediately restored whistling at this crossing. 6. RISK MANAGEMENT AND LIABILITY As mentioned earlier, if a whistle cessation by-law is put in place the railway must enter into a liability agreement with the municipality and obtain additional liability insurance with a recognized commercial insurer to protect the municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage arising out of or resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling at this crossing. The cost of this additional liability coverage will be passed along to the municipality along with the cost of upgrades (such as fencing), continual monitoring, inspection, repairs maintenance and more. The Director of Risk Management Services at Frank Cowan Company had this to say about the possibility of passing whistle cessation by-laws in Clarington: From a risk management perspective, we do not recommend the cessation of rail whistles at rail crossings. According to the Railway Association of Canada, train whistles are vital safety features that protect motorists and pedestrians from collisions at public road and pedestrian rail crossings. We believe as does the association, that train whistles save lives". We must also consider the importance of a uniform train whistle protocol across Clarington. Imagine if whistle cessation by-laws were passed for select locations, but not all, the risk that might arise if a youngster from one area were visiting a friend in another and relying upon the fact that everywhere else across Clarington one REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 7 could count upon the sound of a whistle to act as the final alert that an oncoming train is approaching. Any loss of life is irreplaceable. Railways are unlikely to consider whistle cessation at individual crossings and CN has advised that they would not likely support the inconsistent application of whistle cessation as it can be confusing to the train crews. As well, whistling at one crossing can lead to a false sense of security at the oss-i_pg_Mth nowhistle 7. CONCURRENCE — Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance. 8. CONCLUSION A current study of whistle cessation has led staff to recommend that the municipality not pursue anti-whistling on either the CN or CP rail lines due to significant concerns for public safety (particularly in the presence of reported pedestrian trespass) and for increased liability exposure. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Leslie J. Benson, P.Eng., Manager, Transportation and Design Attachments: Attachment 1 — Report WD-33-01, Train Whistling and Flat Spots Attachment 2 — Canadian Railway Network Key Map Attachment 3 — Procedure & Conditions for Eliminating Whistling at Public Crossings Transport Canada) i i I I ATTACHMENT NO.:1 REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 THE I i CORPORATION*OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON PORT Meeting:GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File# Date: JUNE 18,2001 Res.# oo.— --3-01 OurFiIeNo.: _ BY-Law Subject:TRAIN VMISTL,ING AND FIAT SPOTS Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1.THAT Report WD-33-01 be received; 2.THAT in the interest of public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not proceed with an anti-whistling by-law as a means of reducing"nuisance noise"; 3.THAT staff not proceed with a formal request and pay subsequent inspection costs of approximately $400.00 to the rail authority to consider an anti-whistling policy at the Scugog Street,Bowmanville crossing; 4.THAT staff not proceed with a formal request(s) and pay subsequent inspection costs of approximately $400.00 per crossing to the rail authority(s) to consider an anti-whistling policy at the following.locations which already have the minimum protection of railway gates or where gates are approved for 2001: Port Darlington Road,Bowmanville, C.N.R. Toronto Street,Newcastle, C.N.R. Metcalf Street,Newcastle, C.N.R. Riley Road,Newcastle, C.N.R. East Townline Road,Former Clarke Township, C.N.R. 714 I REPORT NO.: WD-33.01 PAGE 2 Darlington Park Road, Courtice, C.N.R. Bennett Road,Bowmanville, C.N.R. Cobbledick Road,Newcastle, C.N.R Baseline Road(McKight Road), Courtice, C.P.R e Trulls Road, Courtice, C.P.R.; and 5.THAT Mr.Doug Hately be provided with a copy of this report. REPORT 1.0 ATTACHMENTS No. 1: Correspondence dated October 1, 1999 from C.P.R. No. 2: Correspondence dated October 5, 1999 from C.N.R. No. 3: Correspondence received October 25, 1999 from Mr.D. Hately No.4: Transport Canada Railway Safety Directorate Guideline No. 1, Procedure and conditions for eliminating whistling at public crossings dated August 13, 1999 received June 2000 No. 5: Key map showing level railway crossings which have protective crossing gates or are approved for 2001, which is a minimum requirement before anti-whistling can be considered. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 At a meeting held October 25, 1999, Couricil passed the following resolution: THAT Correspondence Item I-10 and Item I-11 be received for information; and THAT Correspondence Item I-10 and Item I-11 be referred. to the By-law and Works Departments in order to meet with C.P.R. and C.N.R. staff in order to mediate excessive noise from train whistling and also review the warrants for protective crossing gates and report back to Council." 715 i i POINT NO.: ®33-01 PAGE 3 I 2.2 At a meeting held on November 8, 1999, Council passed the following resolution: THAT Correspondence dated October 20, .1.999 from Mr. D. Hately be referred to the By-law and Works Departments in order to meet with C.P.R. and C.N.R. staff in order to mediate excessive noise from train whistling and Council," 3<0 REVIEW AND CO NT 3.1 Protective Gates at Scugog Street,Bowmanville Staff met with representatives of Transport Canada and C.P.R. during June of 2000 and all Parties agreed that with existing and future traffic volumes that the addition of gates would improve public safety. This budget item in the amount of$21,000.00 was approved in the 2001 budget. 3.2 Other At-Grade Crossing Locations Requiring Protective Gates Transport Canada,.C.P.R. and Public Works have also identified the following locations where upgrades to provide gates are approved in the 2001 budget: Trulls Road north of Baseline Road Baseline Road east of McKnight Road 3.3 Flat Spots i Residents occasionally complain of excessive train noises, which they believe to be "flat spots" on train wheels. -Such wheel abnormalities are the focus of rigorous inspection and repair programs and are rare occurrences. All railway crossings are posted with a 24-hour toll free phone number and a crossing identification number for anyone to call if they are aware of an urgent safety problem. t 7.1 REPORT NO.: WD-33-01 PAGE 4 I 3.4 Train Whistling Regulations Whistling in Canada is governed by Transport Canada— Railway Operating Rules, which state that: Long—long-short—long At least one-quarter of a mile from every public crossing at grade (except within limits as may be prescribed in special instructions),to be prolonged or repeated according to the speed of the movement until the crossing is fully occupied by the engine or cars. At frequent intervals when view is restricted by weather, curvature or other conditions." The train engineer has the right and is obligated to sound a whistle at any time hazardous conditions are encountered or perceived and may do so notwithstanding the existence of an anti-whistling by-law. The whistles on all trains manufactured since 1982 are push button controlled to provide a consistent sound level. However, local weather conditions and wind direction can affect the noise a whistle makes. 3.5 Anti-Whistling By-Laws The railways and Transport Canada both recognize that precautionary whistling can be a nuisance for occupants of dwellings close to the railway. In this regard, the parties are prepared to work with municipal governments to establish exemptions from the whistling rule, providing that to do so, does not compromise public safety. The Municipality must meet Transport Canada's guidelines for eliminating whistling at a public crossing. The guideline is neither a regulation, nor an order. Therefore, it does not have the force law. If an accident were to occur, the Municipality who made the change would-be'under a stricter duty of care. 717 REPORT ICI®.: WD-33-01 PAGE 5 An anti-whistling by-law establishes a methodology for removing the use of train whistles at at7-grade crossings, provided that other safety elements including flashing lights, bells and gates are in place. Additional safety requirements may include chainlink fencing, signing, brushing or even consideration of a pedestrian overpass to resolve trespassing problems. This location cannot be considered for inclusion in an anti-whistling by-law until after the gates have been installed. After the gates are installed, this location should be reviewed for other safety concerns before any consideration is given to an anti-whistling by-law. There is a trespassing concern in this area where pedestrians have climbed or cut the chain link fencing near the north end,of Waverley Road and walk along the tracks over King Street. A fatality also occurred a number of years ago when a pedestrian was killed while trespassing on the tracks at the Liberty Street Bridge. 3.7 Insurance I The Municipality would be required to execute an insurance agreement with the rail authority, .whereby the parties equally share the cost of the annual insurance premium per crossing. Approximate annual municipal cost would range from$1,000.00 to $1,300.00 per crossing (11 (eleven) crossings in total) with a$10,000.00 deductible. These costs are also subject to escalation and would be in perpetuity. The premiums would be subject to significant increase depending upon the number and extent of claims at a given crossing. An initial inspection fee would also apply, which must be paid for solely by the Municipality. At this point it is uncertain whether the municipal insurance pool would require separate policies outside of the pool. It should also'be noted that the liability may reside entirely with the Municipality if it proceeds with the no whistling policy. 3.8 Risk Management The Railway and the Municipality are the only authorities responsible for anti-whistling;this gives individuals who suffer damage as a result of a crossing accident the right to question the decision to cease whistling in court. The thought of removing whistling as a safety device cannot be taken lightly, as a collision with a freight train loaded with chemicals could 7 1G REPORT NO.: -33-01 PAGE 6 impact the entire community. Poor sight lines at railway crossings are an area of municipal exposure that is on the increase. Without the train whistle,proper sight lines become critical for safety and the courts in recent case law have demonstrated no reluctance to imI)ose liability when vision was a factor. 4 c cc place at railway crossings in Canada". There is a concern that removal of train whistling may affect the current insurance pool. As well, in case law, anti-whistling by-laws place an additional liability with respect to repair of level crossing safety equipment. The road authority is frequently found primarily responsible for property damage claims by third parties(i.e.vehicle damage). The same is also true for bodily injury. 3.9 Future Anti-Whistling Requests If anti-whistling is introduced at one crossing.in Clarington, additional requests are sure t^ follow. In fact, if Staff and Council are prepared to support anti-whistling at any one urban crossing, then a proactive approach to the other Clarington crossings should be consik-__d. Due to the costs and increased risk of accidents if whistling is removed,such policies should only apply in urban areas,where"nuisance whistling"affects thousands of residents. Anti-whistling by-laws cannot be introduced at a crossing unless other safety devices including railway gates are in place. Railway gate systems cost approximately$175,000.uO, with Transport Canada funding 80% and the railway contributing 8%, leaving 12% for the road authority. Neither Transport Canada nor the rail authority will contribute their share just to introduce anti-whistling. To justify the expenditure of gates, there must be a real safety concern such as a double track, a siding adjacent to a track, high accident exposure factors based on automotive/train volumes and speeds,or accident history. 719. . ... REPORT NO.: 4D-33-01 PAGE 7 3.10 Costs The introduction of anti-whistling policies will add to municipal budgets in a number of ways. Staff time, fencing inspections Additional insurance with costs subject to increases from liability claims 10,000.00 deductible) Cost of safety protection upgrades to meet anti-whistling guidelines Additional annual maintenance costs for fencing and other safety devices 3.11 Other Municipalities The City of Oshawa introduced anti-whistling at three crossings during July 2000 but still receive complaints.because the by-law only removes the legal obligation for the train engineer to sound the whistle. Many train engineers still sound the whistle because they feel it is a necessary safety feature while others sound the whistle anytime they see motorists or pedestrians near the crossing or along the tracks. The Town of Cobourg is funding a safety review to determine what upgrades and costs would be involved to reduce whistling to benefit tourism. The Town of Port Hope has rejected the anti-whistling requests to maintain a higher level of safety while avoiding costly upgrades and liability concerns. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The removal of whistling as a safety device cannot be taken lightly,as the additional costs of insurance, accident claims, annual maintenance and staff time will impact the entire community. From a staff perspective, the removal of the whistling safety device cannot be supported. In other areas where anti-whistling by-laws have been approved, it has been a Council decision when the community feels the benefit of stopping"nuisance whistling" for nearby residents outweighs the costs involved and increased risks to residents, pedestrians and motorists. 71) i PORE'NO.: -33-01 PAGE $ I Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, i tep en A.Vokes,P. Eng., Franklin Wu, Director of Public Works Chief Administrative Officer RDB*SAV*ce 11/06/01 Pc: Mr. Doug Hately 3 First Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 2A2 711 C:AN AD 8 N Paul Thurston Suite 200 Tel (4 16i 595-3032 J RAIC i F 1 C Manager 40 Universrty Avenue LWAY Public Affairs and Medio Relations Toronto Ontano a._.. M51 ITI October 1, 1999 John Mutton Regional Councillor Municipality of Clarington Regional Municipality of Durham 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON, L 1 C 3A6 Dear Mr. Mutton, In response to your September 24'letter regarding complaints.of excessive whistling in Bowmanville and noise from railway equipment, please refer to the following-excerpts from Transport-Canada-approved Canadian Railway OperatingRules: 14 (1) long- long- short - long ii)At least one-quarter of a mile from every public crossing at grade (exceptwithinlimitsasmaybeprescribedinspecialinstructions), to be prolonged or repeated according to the speed of the movement until the crossing is fullyoccupiedbytheengineorcars. iii)At frequent intervals when view is restricted by weather, curvature or otherconditions. While we are required to adhere to procedures which have the weight of federal regulations, the Canadian Pacific Railway and its eastern subsidiary, the St.Lawrence & Hudson Railway, recognize that precautionary whistling can be anuisanceforoccupantsofdwellingsclosetotherailway. In this regard. we are prepared to work with municipal governments wishing to establish exemptions from the whistling rule, providing that to do so would not compromise public safety. For further information, please contact Gerry McKechnie, Public AffairsOfficer, St.*Lawrence & Hudson Railway, 416 595-3010. ATTACHMENT NO.: 1 v.nn n!r ATn . 11m Z2.nt i i 7 In regard to reports of flat-spots on train wheels, please understand that a varietyofnoisesmadebytrainsinthenormalcourseofdailyoperationscansound- - similar to those that would be produced by wheel abnormalities, Such abnormalities are the focus of rigorous inspection and repair programs. and are infactrareoccurrences. However, should evidence of such a condition(or any other hated) becomea aware Mat a toll-free telephone number ispostedateverySt. Lawrence& Hudson public railway crossing. For your records,the number is 800 716-9132. Any responsible person who may become aware of an urgent safety problem should be encouraged to telephone that number at anyhourofthedayornight. Yours truly, Paul Thurston Manager, Public Affairs & Media Relations Canadian Pacific Railway, TORONTO cc G.D. McKechnie, Public Affairs Officer St. Lawrence& Hudson Railway 7 ? I®il I I COUKCI- cj\j If i E October 5, 1999 Her Worship Mayor Diane Ham re Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville,ON L1C 3A6 Noise from train operations-including train whistling-is a fact of life for manCanadianswholivenearrailwayfacilities. In fact, train whistling is often considered anuisancethat"someone"should remove. However most people don't fully understand that train whistles, together w'protection,are a key element in ensuring with crossing any change in their use requires careful consideration by at road/rail both the railway coons. As such, regulator,Transport Canada. y nd its The accompanying pamphlet explains-in clear terms-the re latoreasonsbehindtrainwhistling,who regulates train whistling,andtheprroccessforimplementingananti-whistling bylaw should a community desire that option. We trust that this information will prove useful to you and to those of your constituentswithquestionsabouttrainwhistling'-.contacting our toll-free public enquiriesAdditional copies of this pamphlet are available by available to handle yourrequest durig core busing 8hou 09' where an operator is Thank you. Ian Thomson Director'-Public Affairs- Enclosure ATTACHMENT Nn.!-7- COUNCIL DIRECTION D®5 OCT 25 2 p 3 First Street Bowmanville t9C2a2 October 29,1999 Mayor and Council Members Municipality of ClartIgton 40 Temperance Street Bomanville ON L1 C 3,45 Madam Mayor and Members of Council: Quality of life in central BOWnanville would be improved if the horn blowing for the CPRcrossingatScugogStreetWered'ued. Cro g gates would have to be installed.and insurance add The City of Oshawa has been successful in eliminates horn blowkV at a number oflord' ns,but the proms is time consuming ar,: -,votves the Canadian TitOssmiion,the ra"and the municipality. Peter Stevenson at the City of OshawaPhone436-5608 Ext.281)can promde details. Will councA support a mot on to study and implement the elimination of horn blowing at theStreetcrossing? ScuKjog Sincerely A x,15 1 U Tlt'N . CLERK Doug W. Hatefy ACK. BY 905697-4275 0RMIGQfl COPIES I_ 725 ATTACHMENT NO.: 3 i i TRANSPORT CANADA RAILWAY SAFETY DIRECTORATE GUIDELINE NO. 1 PROCEDURE AND CONDITIONS FOR ELIMINATING WHISTLING AT PUBLIC CROSSINGS Background Engine whaling requirements are controlled through the Canadian Rail. Operating Rules (CROR). Rule 14(L)(ii) requires whistling for public crossings at grade except as may be prescribed in special instructions". The railway company can initiate an exemption by issuing an instruction which eliminates the application of rule 14(L)(i)i . Procedure Municipalities seeking relief from whistling at public crossings must now contact the pertinent railway company directly to discuss the matter. At the same time, the municipality must also notify the general public and all relevant organizations of its intention to pass a resolution forbidding the use of whistles in the area. The organizations are shown in Schedule D. For any crossings where the road authority is not the municipality itself, then the road authority must also be contacted. If the municipality and the railway company, and the road authority where the road authority is not the municipality itself, are in agreement; and the crossings meet the requirements outlined in Schedule A attached, the municipality should pass a motion prohibiting whistling. If a dispute arises, one or the other party may contact the pertinent regional director of the Surface Group in order to mediate (addresses listed in Schedule C). T r n . .. August 13,1999 ATTACHMENT NO.: 4 i 2 Where an agreement has been reached between the railway and the municipality and the road authority, in the above-mentioned case) that whistling may be discontinued, the railway should arrange to have the crossings inspected by a Transport Canada railway 1.4th"irmei is of the opinion that the crossings meet the conditions contained in Schedule "A"of this guideline, Transport Canada's Director General Railway Safety will confirm this opinion by letter {sample letter attached as Schedule "B") to the railway involved, following which, the railway may issue special instructions eliminating the application of CROR Rule 14(L)(ii)at the crossings. If the crossing meets the conditions contained in Schedule "A" of the guideline but the officer has some safety concerns, the correction of which is a straightforward matter (for example: brush clearing, signal circuit shortening), they will be identified in the letter. They should be addressed prior to the elimination of whistling at the crossing. If the crossing does not meet the general conditions set out in S chedule 'Wor if there is a serious safety concern, the parties will be advised by letter that the whistling should be retained. Once the corrective measures have been carried out, the officer may be invited to reinspect the locations. Examples of such problems are trespassing, the absence of necessary automatic waming devices, and so forth. Ordinarily, the officer will visit the site after the railway's request: however, he or she may become involved sooner. August 13,1999 717 i i In the case where the railway does not agree to a prohibition of whistling, it should inform the municipality of its reasons and also advise Transport Canada.. Conditions The following outlines suggested conditions for crossings where relief from whistling isbeingsought: 1. Crossing warning systems should be as indicated on the attached Schedule A. 2. Generally, whistling restrictions should be on a 24 hour basis. Under exceptional circumstances, and following consultation with Transport Canada, relief froth whistling may be permitted between the hours of 2200 and 0700, local time. However the protection requirements should be the same as those required for a 24 hourwhistling relief. 3. Rules, respecting the sounding of locomotive bells, should still apply. 4. Where a crossing has experienced two or more accidents in fie past five years, even if the requirements laid out in Schedule A are met, the railway should refer the matter to the appropriate regional director of the Surface Group for a thorough safety review before whistling is discontinued. August 13,1999 Q i I I SCHEDULE A GUIDELINE NO. 1 TRANSPORT CA DA RAILWAY SAFETY DIRECTORATE WARNING SYSTEMS REQUIRED WHERE WHISTLING IS TO BE ELIMINATED Motor Vehicle Crossings Pedestrian/Bikewav Crossings rat adjacent to motor vehicle Maximum Train crossings) Seed at Crossing No of Tracks No of Tracks 1 2 or more 1 2 or more Stop&proceed Flagging Flagging RCS RCSorFLBI. or FLB lsbta 2) 2) Up to 15 m.p.h. FLB-FLB& G° Flagging, or Flagging, 9,or maze barriers maze barriers gtide gdde fencing fencing Nola 5) Mote 5) 16-65 m.p.h. FLB FLB& G FLB,maze FLB&'G barriers& guide lancing Note 5) Over 65 m.p.h. FLB& G FLB & G FLB&G FLB& G Except in rases where there is no possibility of a second train occurrence. Notes: Railway advance warning signs9 (Type VVC-4, 4L or 4R) should be installed on all vehicular approaches as per clause A.3.71 of the manual on Uniform TrafficControlDevicesforCanada. 2 o August 13,1999 I it 2 2. RCS is pictogram type reflectorized crossing sign. `these are mandatory at all public crossings. 3. FL® is flashing lights and bell. 4. FL6&G is flashing lights, bell and gates. 5. Guide fencing is for the purse of preventing detours around'the maze barriers. The design should be site specific. 6. Additional signs, signals, or a combination thereof maybe required if specif ic safety problems exist at a particular crossing or if requirements, as outlined in the grade crossing regulations, exist for a higher form of protection. 7. Normal railway operations shall not result in approach warning times of an automatic warning system of more than 13 seconds longer than the"Approach Waming Time". B. Traffic signals within 30m of a crossing with automatic warning systems shall be interconnected. Traffic signals over 30m from a crossing with automatic waming systems shall be interconnected if queued traffic reaches the crossing. 9. Notwithstanding the above, there may be other safety factors such as a high level of trespassing,and frequently poor environmental conditions, including fog or blowing snow,which may require a higher level of crossing protection or else the retention of whistling. i I i August 13,19% SCHEDULES DRAFT The items in brackets(.....J should be used only if necessary. Place de Ville,Tower r 10'' Floor 330, Sparks Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON5 7 September 1990 Dear Mr. As requested in your letter of............ ...... a railway safety officer on .. (date)has inspected the crossing[s]at m ileage[s] of your subdivision. At the time of his inspection the railway safety officer was of the view that the crossings]met the'conditions contained in Transport Canada Railway SafetyDirectorateGuidelineNo. 1. However the officer noted the following deficiencies which should be corrected regardless of any plans to cease whistling at the crossings: Under the circumstances there would appear to be no reason why(railway company)may not issue a special instruction which would prohibit the application ofCRORrule14(1)(ii)at the above crossings] [once the above-noted deficiencieshavebeenrectified]. At the same time I would ask you to bring the provisions ofCRORrule14(f)to the attention of train crews operating in this area. Yours sincerely, Director General Railway Safety T^c[•'T T c c c....a:.c•coac.vm,• August 13,1999 7 -9 4 i i SCHEDULE C REGIONAL OFFICES TY Regional Director Regional'DirectorAtlanticRegionQuebecRegionTransportCanadaTransportCanadaHeritageCourt, Suite 418 Suite 63895FoundryStreetSuite Rene Levesque Blvd. WestMoncton, N.B. E1 C 5H7 Montreal, Quebec H38 1X9Tel. 506-851-2298 Tel. 514-283-5722Fax.506-851-7042 Fax. 514283-8234 Regional Director Regional DirectorOntarioRegionPrairLeandNorthern RegionTransportCanadaTransportCanada20TorontoStreet, Suite 600 344 Edmonton Street, Room 402Toronto, Ontario Winnipeg, ManitobaM5C2B8 R38 21-4Tel. 416-973-9820 Tel. 204-983-5969Fax. 416-973-9907 Fax. 204-983-8992 Regional Director Pacific Region Transport Canada 225 -625 Agnes Street New Westminster, B.C. V3M 5Y4 Tel. 604-666-2955 Fax. 604-666-7747 August 13,1999 i 2 i SCHEDULED I RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS Mr.Tim Secord Mr. George Hucker Canadian Legislative Director Vice PMiet-and-National-Legislative nits ransPortation _Union Representative 1595 Telesat Court Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers GLOUCESTER, Ontario 150 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1401 K1 B 5R3 OTTAWA, Ontario K2P 1 P 1 Tel. (613)747-7979 Tel. (613)235-1828 Mr.Gary Housch Vice President Brotherhood of Maintenance of vty Employees 2775 Lancaster Road#1 OTTAWA, Ontario K1 B 4V8 Tel. (613)731-7356 Y.................. August 13,19N 733 L i Cdr ., _•® C4 na iin 3acifid kal Iwa Z.n 7Rid existing gates proposed gates in 2001 Note Gates are a minimum requirement to introduce anti-whistling by-laws. KEY MA D' 2001 REPORT NA. 6 eii,6,6 0 77 n BU ETO lNi4M'IL-LEN YD 01 srr IEN,W 1 N4 INEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CLARINGTON RAILWAY NETWORK Legend C.P.Belleville Subdivision Railway Line C.N.Kingston Subdivision Railway Line I**C.P.Havelock Subdivision Railway Line Regional Roads Provincial Highways REPORT No.EGD-001-12 ATTACHMENT No.2 REVISED:January 3,2012 85x11-d ATTACHMENT NO.:3 REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 I i i e e M, ® i qW r Procedure ii Eliminating i li At Public Crossings Guideline II i Background Engine whistling requirements are controlled through the Canadian Rail Operating Rules CROR). Rule 14(L)(ii) requires whistling for public crossings at grade "except as may be prescribed in special instructions". The railway company can initiate an exemption by issuing an instruction, which eliminates the application of rule 14(L)(ii). Procedure Municipalities seeking relief from whistling at public crossings must now contact the pertinent railway company directly to discuss the matter. At the same time,the municipality must also notify the general public and all relevant organizations of its intention to pass a resolution forbidding the use of whistles in the area. The organizations are shown in Schedule C. For any crossings where the road authority is not the municipality itself, then the road authority must also be contacted. The responsible authorities, which are the municipality and the railway company, and the road authority where the road authority is not the municipality, shall jointly conduct a detailed safety assessment of the grade crossings. If the responsible authorities are in agreement, and the crossings meet the requirements of this Guideline,the municipality should pass a motion prohibiting whistling. Where an agreement has been reached between the railway and the municipality (and the road authority, in the above-mentioned case) that whistling may be discontinued,the railway can arrange to have the whistling discontinued. The parties may request a Transport Canada railway safety inspector to inspect the crossing to confirm their assessment that the crossing meets the requirements of the guideline. If the inspector is of the opinion that the crossings meet the conditions contained in Schedule "A" of this guideline, Transport Canada's Director General Railway Safety will confirm this opinion by letter to the railway involved, following which,the railway may issue special instructions eliminating the application of CROR Rule 14(L)(ii) at the crossings. If the crossing meets the conditions contained in Schedule "A" of this guideline but the inspector has some safety concerns, the correction of which is a straightforward matter(for example: brush clearing, simple signal circuit shortening),they will be identified in the letter. They should be addressed prior to the elimination of whistling at the crossing. If the crossing does not meet the general conditions set out in Schedule "A" or if there is a serious safety concern, the parties will be advised by letter of the safety concerns and that the whistling should be retained. Once the corrective measures have been carried out,the inspector may again be invited to re-inspect the locations. Examples of such problems are trespassing, queuing,the.absence of necessary automatic warning devices, and so forth. Ordinarily,the inspector will visit the site after the railway request; however,he or she may become involved sooner. In the case where the railway does not agree to a prohibition of whistling, it should inform the municipality of its reasons and also advise Transport Canada. All parties involved in this whistling elimination process must remain aware of their roles and responsibilities under Section 11 of the Railway Safety Act(RSA). Further information on these roles and responsibilities can be found in section 1.3 of the Guideline - Engineering Work Related to Railway Works (Section 11 -Railway Safety Act). Conditions The following outlines suggested conditions for crossings where relief from whistling is being sought: 1.Crossing warning systems should be as indicated on the attached Schedule A. 2.Generally, whistling restrictions should be on a 24 hour basis. Under exceptional circumstances, and following consultation with Transport Canada,relief from whistling may be permitted between the hours of 2200 and 0700, local time. However the protection requirements should be the same as those required for a 24 hour whistling relief. 3.Rules, respecting the sounding of locomotive bells, should still apply. 4. Where a crossing has experienced two or more accidents in the past five years, even if the requirements laid out in Schedule A are met, the responsible authorities should undertake a thorough safety review. Schedule A Warning Systems Required Where Whistling Is To Be Eliminated Maximum Train Motor Vehicle Pedestrian/Bikeway Crossings (not Speed at Crossings (No. of adjacent to motor vehicle crossings) (No. of Crossing Tracks)Tracks) F1 2 or more I 1 2 or more Stop &proceed 013gging or Flagging or [RCS (Note 2) RCS (Note 2) F Flagging, or maze Flagging, or maze Up to 15 m.p.h. FLB FLB &G* barriers &guide barriers & guide fencing (Note 5) fencing(Note 5) rFLB, maze barriers & 16 - 50 m.p.h.FLB FLB &G de fencing (Note 5); FLB &Gl Over 50 m.p.h. JFLB & G FLB &G JFL13 &G IFLB & G Except in cases where there is no possibility of a second train occurrence. p Notes: 1. Railway advance warning signs (Type WA-18, 18L, 18R, 19R,20R) should be installed on all vehicular approaches as per clause A.3.4.2 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada. 2. RCS is pictogram type reflectorized crossing sign. These are mandatory at all public crossings. 3. FLB i hts-and-brAI. 4. FLB & G is flashing lights,bell and gates. 5. Guide fencing is for the purpose of preventing detours around the maze barriers. The design should be site specific. 6. Additional signs, signals, or a combination thereof may be required if specific safety problems exist at a particular crossing or if requirements, as outlined in the grade crossing regulations, exist for a higher form of protection. 7. Normal railway operations shall not result in approach warning times of an automatic warning system of more than 13 seconds longerthan the "Approach Warning Time". 8. Traffic signals within 30m of a crossing with automatic warning systems shall be interconnected. Traffic signals over 30m from a crossing with automatic warning systems shall be interconnected if queued traffic reaches the crossing. 9. Notwithstanding the above,there may be other safety factors such as a high level of trespassing, queuing, and frequently poor environmental conditions, including fog or blowing snow, which may require a higher level of crossing protection or else the retention of whistling. Schedule B - National headquarters and Regional offices Transport Canada-Rail Safety Rail Safety Branch 427 Laurier Street West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A ONS Telephone: 613-998-2985 TTY: 1-888-675-6863 Email: rail safetygtc.gc.ca Website: http://www.te. cgca/eng/railsafety/iuenu.htm 1,1 0 Regional offices The following regional sites provide information on services and activities as well as local contacts. Atlantic Region-http://www.te.go.ca/eng/atlantic/menu.htm Ontario Region -http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ontario/rail-menu-1360.htm aoiiRgisn -tr 7)v ca/n - .htn Prairie &Northern Region-http://www.tc.ge.ca/eng/Trairieandnortherli/inenu.htm Quebec Region -http://www.te.gc.ca/eng/Auebee/rail-menu-1453.htm Schedule C - Relevant Organizations Mr. B, McDonagh Mr. Rob Smith National Representative National Legislative Director CAW Teamsters Rail Conference Canada 326-12th Street, 12th Floor 130 Albert Street, Suite 1710 New Westminster, B.C. Ottawa, Ontario V3M 4H6 K1P 5G4 Mr. Brehl Mr. K. Depuck President National Advisor Teamsters Rail Conference Canada(MWED) Teamsters Rail Conference Canada(MWED) 2775 Lancaster Road, Suite 1 2775 Lancaster Road, Suite 1 Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario K1B 4V8 K1B 4V8 ZEN I l' I I Clajrftmn REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 19, 2012 Resolution #: 40 -1 By -law#: Report#: EGD- 013 -12 File #: Subject: WHISTLE CESSATION — FEASIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD- 013 -12 be received; 2. THAT in the interest of public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not proceed with an anti - whistling by -law; and 3. THAT a copy of this report and Council's decision be forwarded to the interested parties listed in report EGD- 013 -12. Submitted by: ASC /Ib /jb F Reviewed by: A.S. Cannella, C.E.T. Director of Engineering Services Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 Attachment 2 to EGD-014-17 REPORT NO.: EGD-013-12 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND On January 16, 2012 Council approved the following resolution with respect to our report EGD-001-12: THAT Staff report to Council with the detailed information regarding the cost and feasibility of potentially implementing whistle cessation at all urban area crossings, including but not limited to Mearns Avenue, Lambs Road, Cobbledick Road and Bennett Road crossings, and THAT staff describe the steps that would need to be taken to implement said cessations. While our whistle cessation report, EGD-001-12, outlined the technical process that municipalities must observe in order to implement an anti-whistling by-law see page 4, item 4 Whistle Cessation), what Council needed was a very clear sense of the specific steps that Clarington would need to take, before further consideration can be given. To further support Council in the decision making process, staff attempted not only to detail the facts but also to understand what the implications might be if we were to consider moving forward. This report will discuss feasibility and implementation as well as clarify the unique features of rail within Clarington. We will present the information and recommendations we were able to obtain through consultation with the railways, and provide a broad overview of potential costs and upgrades that would be required to protect public safety. And to conclude we will once again put forward our own recommendation that while whistling can no doubt be considered an intrusion by some there are many who support the notion that whistling may in fact save lives. REPORT NO.: EGD-013-12 PAGE 3 2. RAIL IN CLARINGTON In consideration of the resolution staff reviewed the Canadian Pacific (CP) and the Canadian National (CN) rail lines passing through the urban areas of Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle Village, including the Mearns Avenue, Lambs Road, Cobbledick Road and Bennett Road crossings. Staff determined that the study area limits should commence in the east, near Stephenson Road, at mileage 155.66 C.P. Rail — Belleville Subdivision Line and C.N. Rail at mileage 284.30 — Kingston Subdivision line, westerly to the western Clarington Boundary (Oshawa). In this study area there are twenty (20) level crossings within Clarington, thirteen 13) are on the CP line and seven are on the CN line (refer to attachment #1). Train operating speeds on the CN line are 60 mph for freight trains and 100 mph for passenger trains. On the CP line throughout Clarington the operating speeds are approximately 60 mph. Train whistles are regulated by Transport Canada under the Railway Safety Act, the Railway Locomotive Inspection and Safety Rules. Under these rules, Section 11 (a), a train whistle must be, "(a) a horn capable of producing a minimum sound level of 96 decibels at any location on an arc of 30 meters (100 feet) radius subtended forward of the locomotive by angles 45 degrees to the left and to the right of the centerline of the track in the direction of travel". While we are not experts in train safety we have tremendous respect for the science, research, experience and testing that must have informed this precise definition of safety which is mandated by those who are. When we look at the distance and radius that a train whistle is specifically designed to cover the need to assess an entire study area becomes clear, particularly in locations where one level crossing is in close proximity to others see attachment #1). If we were to eliminate whistling at one specific crossing with the intent to minimize disruption within a defined area we would need to be sure that whistles at nearby crossings do not radiate into the intended area, negating the desired effect. REPORT NO.: EGD-013-12 PAGE 4 3. CONSULTATION WITH THE RAILWAYS Staff met separately with representatives from both railways and each made clear the fact that while they could not openly oppose an anti-whistling by-law, neither would they actively support it. Both railways made clear the fact that in order to implement whistle cessation a by-law would need to be passed by the municipality instructing the railway to deviate from their normal operational practice. The representative from the Canadian National Railway stated, "While CN strives to assist municipalities in safely implementing whistle cessation, we only wish to do so in the safest locations. The Kingston subdivision line is a high speed line, with large volume for all rail traffic, which increases the risk factors associated with whistle cessation". The railway has also explained that whistling consistency tends to minimize risk because a scattered, "whistling here, no whistling there", may complicate things. Issues of trespass were also discussed and a review of CP Police records has shown that since October, 2009 there were nineteen reported cases of trespass within Clarington. Of these nineteen cases, fourteen were in the area of the Scugog Street crossing, and tragically, one included a pedestrian fatality. Pedestrian fatalities involving trains, is unfortunately a growing concern, particularly amongst young, adolescent males. This risk rises in urban areas, during the school year near crossings that are in relative proximity to schools. 4. AN OVERVIEW OF COSTS 4.1. CESSATION STUDY AND LEVEL CROSSING IMPROVEMENT COSTS As has been made clear, in order for whistle cessation to be considered, the municipality must follow the requirements outlined by Transport Canada, which includes the need for a detailed safety assessment of each crossing and the recommended upgrades which would be required. In Clarington's case a cessation study which looks at each of our twenty (20) level crossings, would carry REPORT NO.: EGD-013-12 PAGE 5 a price tag of$4,000 to $5,000 per crossing, with the total cost expected to be approximately $80,000 to $100,000 for the cessation study alone. The improvements that would need to be undertaken would be based on the number of tracks at each level crossing, operating speeds of the trains, horizontal track geometry and the protection from conflicts with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Electric gates with flashing lights and bells will be necessary in many locations, the installation of fencing to prevent trespass will be needed, sight line improvements may be required and even barriers to prevent pedestrian/train conflicts may be appropriate when considering a whistle cessation by-law. On the subject of fencing it should be noted that in order to deal with the significant issue that trespass presents, fencing is an essential feature that implies significant cost even though it is difficult to determine the extent of fencing necessary at this point. The specific and detailed costs for the necessary improvements will be determined through the cessation study but for conceptual purposes we have identified the preliminary costs as being significant and would of course need to be funded entirely through the tax levy. 4.2. OPERATING COSTS AND ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS IMPLICATIONS In addition to the costs associated with upgrading our Operations Department would be required to inspect both the crossings and all fencing existing and required fencing on an ongoing basis. In our discussions with the railways we were cautioned that in areas where trespass is an issue they have observed a high level of vandalism by those who use the tracks as a short cut. Our Operations Department have experienced ongoing maintenance costs for repairs to existing railway fencing under the Municipality's ownership. Dependent on the extent of fencing necessary to address any trespass issues prior to the passing of an anti- whistling, annual maintenance costs could increase significantly. REPORT NO.: EGD-013-12 PAGE 6 Of particular concern is the fact that the use of short cuts is particularly common the closer you get to schools. Naturally then, it will be no surprise to suggest that in these situations those who may be most at risk are students and younger people. It should not be surprising then to understand that fence maintenance to discourage trespass will be an ongoing, onerous and costly endeavor. CN stated that whistles would be restored if fencing was not maintained. CP said that whistle cessation "makes the crossings less safe". 4.3. COSTS OF ADDITIONAL INSURANCE COVERAGE The municipality will be required to enter into a liability agreement with the railway and obtain additional liability insurance to protect the municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage arising out of or resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling at affected crossings. The estimated cost of additional insurance coverage would be in the order of approximately $400 per crossing, per year. 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF WHISTLE CESSATION Should the Municipality wish to pursue whistle cessation the following steps are necessary: 1. Contact the pertinent railways 2. Notify the public and all relevant organizations of our intent to forbid whistling in the municipality. 3. Arrange for a detailed whistle cessation study of each crossing at the crossing and recommend upgrades which would meet all relevant requirements. 4. Conduct a Public Information Centre. 5. Pass a resolution of our intent to pass a by-law forbidding the use of whistles at certain crossings. 6. Implement the required upgrades to meet the guidelines. REPORT NO.: EGD-013-12 PAGE 7 7. Enter into an agreement with each railway with respect to the roles and responsibilities under Section 11 of the Railway Safety Act. 8. Enter into a liability agreement with the railway and obtain additional liability insurance to protect the Municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage arising out of or resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling. 9. Where an agreement has been reached between the railway and the municipality and all required improvements made, the parties may request a Transport Canada railway safety inspection, after which the municipality can make sure the public is aware of the intended changes through a public education campaign, after which they can pass a motion to prohibit whistling. It is anticipated that this process may take as much as three years to complete. 6. CONCURRENCE — Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance; Fred Horvath, Director of Operations. 7. CONCLUSION The issue of train whistling in urban areas has and always will be a quality of life issue for some in adjacent neighborhoods, while many simply become accustomed to their presence. Looking at quality of life issues is an important part of the work we do and so it is on rare occasion that we might look at other issues as having more importance. Public safety is most certainly one. Staff have looked in detail at this very complex issue and the deeper we go in our review; the more convinced we are that the risks need to be appraised. Trespass continues to be a significant issue particularly because those at risk are, more often than not, likely to be younger pedestrians, particularly in areas closer to schools. REPORT NO.: EGD-013-12 PAGE 8 We have explained that in passing a whistle cessation by-law, we are in effect, asking the railway to suspend usual operational practice. If we were in fact to do this we would be required to give serious thought to the complexity of the liability the municipality would be likely to assume. If we were to proceed, a comprehensive whistle cessation study would need to be conducted in the study area, looking at each of the twenty (20) level crossings in Clarington. The cost of this study is currently expected to cost approximately 80,000 to $100,000 for the safety assessment alone. The cost for making any of the recommended improvements suggested by the study would need to be borne by the Municipality and the cost implications of these improvements, while significant, would be in addition to the ongoing costs of fencing, maintenance and increased liability insurance. It is therefore our continued position that the municipality not pursue anti-whistling on either the CN or CP rail lines within Clarington because of the potential risk to public safety. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Leslie J. Benson, Manager, Transportation and Design Attachments: Attachment 1 - Key Map List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Anne Black 6 K a oO J a o m m CONCES NR D6 OK U O O K Z Z F O 291 ROAD) Jiof pRZONALROAD9 (C K S 11:O m K a. O Ur CONCESSI NASH ROAD ROA 4 F BEWET O ROAD Z 3 p 3 og p o 3 5' 162:39 a 161.84 p 161.29 N/ph p p ROAC p rc Yz m w m m o o O o C CESSION REET 165:36 CONCESSIONAD3 U W ICE W O 1 ; OO m 165.98 159:•11 p170 07 169.31 168.79 158.60 w MIGI{ y AYZ168!22 166.92 156.07 m p a ASELINE 167:62AD 166.55 a° 0 VEK( N 296.22 HIGHWAY 1I rc RGpO z p 504T{{ER VICE 62 156.93 m rc AO STUDY 296.19 6 289.08 287.26 286.75156'40 0ao LIMITS 293.80 z TYPE OF CROSSING Closed/Blocked Grade Separation rr Level crossing with lights and gates Level crossing with lights Level crossing with no automatic protection RAILWAY SUBDIVISION LINES C.P. Rail-Belleville Subdivision Line C.P. Rail-Havelock Subdivision Line C.N. Rail-Kingston Subdivision Line 291 ROAD) J iof p R ZONAL ROAD 9 (C K S 11:O m K a. O CONCESSI a p ROAD 3 p O CONCESSION ROA 4 F BEWET O ROAD Z 3p3 og p o 3 5' 162:39 a 161.84 p 161.29@o ° ROAC i610.82O m o o Oo C CESSION REET CONCESSIONAD3 0 1 ; NEWCSTILE 159:•111. 158.60w MIGI{y AYZ BROWVIEW ROAD 156.07 m p a 157.4. 9,aW a° 0 VEK(N rc RGpOoQ 62 156.93 4 288.70286.16 289.08 287.26 286.75156'40 0ao C y285:05 w155.66 z rr Grade Crossings Regulations: what you need to know There are about 14,000 public and 9,000 private grade crossings along more than 40,000 kilometres of federally regulated railway track in Canada. Transport Canada’s Grade Crossings Regulations (the Regulations) help to improve safety at these crossings by: •establishing comprehensive and enforceable safety standards for both new and existing crossings in Canada; •clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of railway companies and road authorities; and •ensuring that railway companies and road authorities share key safety information with each other. What is a grade crossing? A grade crossing is an intersection where a road or path crosses railway tracks at the same level. Grade crossings are also known as level crossings, railway crossings, or train crossings. What is a public grade crossing? A public grade crossing is where railway tracks intersect with a road that is owned by a public authority, such as a province, municipality or band council, and is used by the general public. What is a private grade crossing? A private grade crossing is where railway tracks intersect with a road that is owned and used by private parties, such as farmers, commercial businesses or private individuals. Attachment 3 to EGD-014-17 Did you know that you may have responsibilities under the Regulations? Railway companies, road authorities (provinces, municipalities and band councils) and private crossing owners are each responsible for managing the safety at grade crossings. The Regulations identify the roles and responsibilities of railway companies and road authorities that relate to: • Information sharing • Crossing surfaces • Sightlines • Roadway and railway signs • Traffic signals • Warning systems Do you know what’s expected of you? Greater Collaboration Through Information Sharing Transport Canada has developed forms that may be used by the railway company or the road authority to facilitate information sharing. These forms can be found at www.Canada.ca/grade-crossings. The Regulations require that railway companies and road authorities share safety-related information on their grade crossings. Sharing this information with each other will allow them to determine what they need to do to make their crossings safer. What’s happening when? • Immediately: When constructing a new grade crossing or making a change to an existing grade crossing. • By November 28, 2016: To share safety information with each other for existing public grade crossings. Enforceable Grade Crossings Standards The Regulations incorporate standards based on the best engineering practices known today and make them law. This requires all federally regulated grade crossings in Canada to meet the same standard. Railway companies and road authorities will continue to apply the best options, building on the existing guidelines, for making their crossings safe.* What’s happening when? • Immediately: The standards will apply to new grade crossings; or when making a change to an existing grade crossing – widening the road, for example. • By the end of 2021: The standards will apply to surfaces, signs, sightlines and warning systems for existing grade crossings. *Note: Immediate action can and will be taken by Transport Canada where a serious safety deficiency is identified. Effective Sightlines A safe crossing is a visible crossing — so the Regulations contain formulas for defining the area that road authorities, railway companies and private land owners must keep clear of anything that could block a road user’s view of an oncoming train. What’s happening when? The Regulations prescribe customizable requirements for your crossings. • Immediately: When constructing new grade crossings, or making a change to an existing grade crossing. • By the end of 2021: To existing grade crossings. Available funding for grade crossings Transport Canada can provide funding for eligible costs related to a grade crossing improvement project. To learn more visit: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/transport/rail.html Working Together to Safeguard Public Grade Crossings The Regulations and standards require road authorities and railway companies to work together on: Blocked public crossings Under the Grade Crossings Regulations: • Railway equipment cannot block a public grade crossing for more than five minutes when a road user requires passage, unless the railway equipment is moving. • When emergency vehicles require passage, railway companies must immediately clear any grade crossing. If the municipality has a safety concern relating to a crossing that is blocked, both parties must work together to find a solution to the safety concern. After 90 days, if they find no solution, the municipality can inform Transport Canada. Activity on/near a crossing The requirements are that if a railway company or road authority performs any activity, such as rail or road repair at or near a crossing, they must: • Share information about the activity with each other, and • Take temporary protection measures (e.g. detours) to address any threat to the safety of railway operations. Train whistling cessation Train whistling is an important way to keep drivers, cyclists and pedestrians safe when using public grade crossings. Whistling cessation • Section 23.1 of the Railway Safety Act provides a process for whistling cessation at a public grade crossing subject to certain requirements outlined in the Regulations. • Crossings must be equipped with an appropriate warning system based on railway speed design, vehicle and pedestrian use, and the number of railway tracks going through the crossing. • The municipality must also pass a resolution agreeing that the whistle should not be used at that crossing. Transport Canada encourages railway companies and municipalities to work together to ensure that all the requirements have been met. Should these two parties disagree that the requirements have been met, they may approach Transport Canada for a final decision. Should a road authority wish to pursue whistling cessation, the procedure for train whistling at public crossings can be found at www.canada.ca/grade-crossings. Complaint and Dispute Resolution Who can help when complaints or issues become disputes that railway companies and road authorities cannot resolve? If the complaint or dispute is about grade crossing safety, contact Transport Canada. Learn more at www.Canada.ca/grade-crossings. If a railway company and a road authority disagree on who should pay for railway work at a crossing, either party can ask the Canadian Transportation Agency to apportion the costs of the project. Learn more at the Canadian Transportation Agency at www.otc-cta.gc.ca. Need help? For general inquiries: Email: RailSafety@tc.gc.ca Phone: 613-998-2985 Toll-free: 1-844-897-RAIL (1-844-897-7245) Fax: 613-990-7767 Transport Canada Rail Safety Branch Mailstop: ASR 427 Laurier Street West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 Pacific: 604-666-0011 Prairie and Northern: 1-888-463-0521 Ontario: 416-973-9820 Quebec: 514-283-5722 Atlantic: 506-851-7040 www.canada.ca/grade-crossings 20152014201720162018201920202021Timelines As of November 28, 2014Railway companies and road authorities were required to:• Meet surface condition design and railway signage requirements• Test and inspect warning systems• Meet new construction requirements for new crossings• Respect new provisions for preventing blocked crossings• Follow new train whistling cessation process• Apply new and existing protection measures• Keep recordsAs of November 28, 2016Railway companies and road authorities must share the following safety information:• Point of contact (regular, emergency)• Location of grade crossing• Details on the road approach and rail configuration (number of lanes, gradient, tracks, whistling, signage, etc.)• Road/rail volumes and speeds• Crossing user details (vehicles, pedestrians, assistive devices, etc.) As of November 28, 2021Crossings must meet certain requirements defined in the Regulations such as: • Sightlines• Crossing surface design• Road and railway signs• Crossing Warning Systems• Traffic Signals timing with warning systems© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Transport, 2016Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre Règlement sur les passages à niveau : ce que vous devez savoir. Catalogue No. T86-19/2016E-PDF ISBN: 978-0-660-06039-2