HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-303-90 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
�•� �'' -' REPORT
File #
Res. #
By-Law #
hEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, October 1, 1990
REPORT #: PD-303-90 FILE #:
SIJ&ECT: PETITION BY RESIDENTS
FOR ANTI-WHISTLING BY-LAW
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1 . THAT Report PD-303-90 be received for information;
2 . THAT Ms . Cindy Atkinson, 202 Andrew Street, Newcastle Village,
lead petitioner be advised that the Town is not prepared to
pass an Anti-Whistling By-law for the reasons cited in the
Staff Report and that a copy of Report PD-303-90 be forwarded
to Ms . Atkinson.
1. BACKGROUND:
1. 1 By correspondence dated August 3, 1990, Cindy Atkinson and
Jean Wilson of Andrew Street in Newcastle Village submitted
a petition from area residents requesting the Town to pass an
anti-whistling by-law between the hour 10:00 p.m. and 6 :00
a.m. in relation to the C.P. Rail level crossing at
Arthur/Andrew Street in Newcastle Village.
1.2 Said correspondence was dealt with by Council on September 10,
1990 and was referred to the Director for investigation and
. . .2
REPORT NO. : PD-303-90 PAGE 2
report back to the General Purpose and Administration
Committee.
2 . COMMENTS:
2 . 1 Trains are presently required to sound whistles at railway
crossings in Newcastle, as per Section 248 of the Railway Act
under the Federal Regulation of Railways.
2 .2 Staff contacted Transport Canada and was provided with a copy
of Guideline No. 1 procedure and conditions for eliminating
whistling at public crossings .
2 . 3 In summary, the procedure indicates that municipality seeking
relief from whistling must contact the railway company
directly to discuss this matter. IF THE PARTIES ARE IN
AGREEMENT and meet the requirements set out by Transport
Canada, then the municipality can pass a by-law prohibiting
whistling.
2 .4 Staff subsequently contacted Canadian Pacific Railway and was
advised that train whistling at crossing is a necessity under
the Railway Act and that failure to do so may place the
company in severe liability in the event of an occurrence of
accident. They also indicated that Transport Canada guideline
has not been concurred with by Canadian Pacific Railway. It
appears to be a futile exercise to have Canadian Pacific
Railway to stop whistling at rail crossing given the Federal
Legislative requirement and liability.
2 .5 The Town may proceed to pass an anti-whistling by-law,
however, such a by-law would be unforceable and is unlikely
to have the authority to override the Railway Act.
. . . 3
J 9 1i
REPORT NO. : PD-303-90 PAGE 3
2 . 6 In the event of the remote possibility that Canadian Pacific
Railway agrees to stop whistling, such action is unlikely to
negate the Town's liability in the unfortunate event of an
accident at the crossing since it was the Town which initiated
the Anti-Whistling By-law. In the present day where every
accident is a potential cause of litigation, the removal of
a safety feature would certainly place the municipality in a
very vulnerable position with possible substantial increase
in liability insurance premium.
2 . 7 Public safety and the municipality's liability are two
paramount concerns that Staff advise that the Town not pass
any Anti-Whistling By-law.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
0"V
I\_x) ,,,
;j
1
Franklin Wu, M.C. I .P. Lawrence Kotseff
Director of Planning Chief A i istrative
and Development Officer
FW*jip
*Attach
20 September 1990
59 % 1 1