Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-033-01 'or-:,~ ~ r* ~ ! ~ THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Date: REPORT GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File #!lI.f!i.. Res. # 6/fl-- 58!-O/ Meeting: JUNE 18,2001 Report No.: WD-33-0l OurFileNo.: RR10.10 By-Law # Subject: TRAIN WHISTLING AND FLAT SPOTS Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report WD-33-0l 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 , ' ",r..~ r< ,"'" o 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 . 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, Council passed the following resolution: "THAT Correspondence Item 1-10 and Item 1-11 be received for information; and THAT Correspondence Item 1-10 and Item 1-11 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 ; (4/ - . REPORT NO.: WD-33-01 PAGE 3 2.2 At a meeting held on November 8,1999, Council passed the following resolution: "THAT Correspondence dated October 20, 1999 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 also review the warrants for protective crossing gates and report back to Council. " 3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT 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 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 occurreoces. 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. 716 ,+ ,.'''' , REPORT NO.: WD-33-01 PAGE 4 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 oflaw. If an accident were to occur, the Municipality who made the change would be under a stricter duty of care. 717 ,~> '0< , REPORT NO.: WD-33-01 PAGES An anti-whistling by-law establishes a methodology for removing the use of train whistles at at-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. 3.6 Whistling at ScugOg Street At-Grade Crossing 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 concem in this area where pedestrians have climbed or cut the chain link fencing near the north end of Waver ley 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 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 ifit 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 718 ,J.,,' ....J , REPORT NO.: WD-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 impose liability when vision was a factor. According to C.N. Rail: "Every year some 350 accidents resulting in over 50 fatalities take 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 eqnipment. 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-Whistlinl!; Requests If anti-whistling is introduced at one crossing in Clarington, additional requests are sure to follow. In fact, if Staff and Council are prepared to support anti-whistling at anyone urban crossing, then a proactive approach to the other Clarington crossings should be considered. Due to the costs and increased risk of accidents if whistling is removed, such policies should only apply in urban areas, where "nnisance 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 $175,000.00, 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.: WD-33-0l 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 . Railway Safety Inspections . Additional insurance with costs subject to mcreases 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 r~ected 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. Prom 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. ., 720 . .~~. ,. ,.., - REPORT NO.: WD-33-01 PAGES Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, ~c/~ Stephen A Vokes, P. Eng., Director of Public Works cJ,~,p~~iv~ Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer RDB*SA V*ce 11/06/01 Pc: Mr. Doug Hately 3 First Street Bowmanville, ON LlC 2A2 721 i, ~ 1..':" ":"~:'.J( CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY Paul Thurston Manager Public Affairs and MedIa RelotJOns Suite 200 40 University Avenue T oroma Ontano MSIITO Tel (416) 595-3032 October 1, 1999 John Mutton Regional Councillor Municipality of Clarington Regional Municipality of Durham 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON, LlC 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 Operating Rules: 14 (I) long - long - short - long (ii) 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. (iii) At frequent intervals when view is restricted by weather. curvature or other conditions, 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 a nuisance for occupants of dwellings close to the railway. 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 Affairs Officer, St. Lawrence & Hudson Railway, 416 595-3010. 722 ./2 ATTACHMENT NO.: 1 REPORT NO.: WD-33-01 COUNCIL 1NPORKAITON 1-11 CN i3 !! '~t):-,i '.~-~--~.-t.,.,.._ ,"". '.J ,:"1';-- ..__...~ / :~ i 1;) " I' ~; . -.J ",7.9:7 October 5, 1999 , \ --\ -~.!I -". . .....,., . V'''ji'Ir;!,'')[~ :; ;"'~~i(.t Her Worship Mayor Diane Hamre Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON LIC 3A6 Noise from train operations - including train whistling - is a fact of life for many Canadians who live near railway facilities. In fact, train whistling is often considered a nuisance that "someone" should remove. However most people don't fully understand that train whistles, together with crossing protection, are a key element in ensuring public safety at road/rail intersections. As such, any change in their use requires careful consideration by both the railway and its regulator, Transport Canada. The accompanying pamphlet explains - in clear terms - the regulatory and safety reasons behind train whistling, who regulates train whistling, and the process for implementing an anti-whistling bylaw should a community desire that option. We trust that this information will prove useful to you and to those of your constituents with questions about train whistling. Additional copies of this pamphlet are available by contacting our toll-free public enquiries line at 1-888-888-5909, where an operator is available to handle your request during core business hours. Thank you. ~ . :-);mUTIC)N- . ---- ~-- ",' Ian Thomson Director - Public Affairs , '(\j;. :~,-",",,-.\ .J~{'o -----. ".::: "- '-'..- .~ Enclosure 724 - ATTACHMENT NO.:-Z- , _;_,,~,R~ WD~l - -.. - ~:.::.--:-:"~=--. ~ '. 'I, COUNCIL DIRECTION D-5 " Ocr 25 2 18 PH '99 3 FIfSl Street Bowmanville ON L1C 2A2 October 20, 1999 ,.".I....l.. .~~ - '. ....\..\. I . .;~~ ~ ~,.i ~ . Mayor and Council Members Municipality of Oaringlon 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville ON L 1C 3A6 Madam Mayor and Members of Council: Quality of life in central Bowmanville would be improlll!d if the hom blowing for the CPR crossing at Scugog Street were discontinued. Crossing gates would haw to be inslaJled and insurance issues addressed. The City of Oshawa has been suoc: : 5 sfu1 in eliminating horn b1ov.ring at a number of 1ocatioI1S, but the pi iX [ 5] is time lXXlSUming and i1volves the Canadian TrallSpOrt Commission, the raiway and the municipality. Peter SteIIenson at the City of Oshawa TranspOl1ation DepaI1ment (Phone 436-5608 Ext. 281) can provide delails. Will council support a motion to study and implement the elimination of horn blowing at the Scugog Street crossing? Sincerely " Doug W. Hately 905-697-0275 , DI61~unON i CLERK I~ I ! ACK. BY ORlGHfAl COPIES TO: - , " '?oL.u..O .- ----~~---_..~ 725 ATTACHMENT NO.: 3 REPORT NO.: WD-33-01 TRANSPORT CANADA RAILWAY SAFETY DIRECTORATE GUIDELINE NO.1 PROCEDURE AND CONDITIONS FOR ELIMINATING WHISTLING AT PUBLIC CROSSINGS Backllround 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 ilstruction 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 10 discuss the mat1er. At the same time, the municipality must also notify the general public and all relevant organizati:>ns 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). 11II::::,.- -;,:;:;,;:,.,,;:,:.;,..,.;, .. -....,.... ...,.. .~.....~~,~...,~...www.. .. ---_.. .~". . -- . -. -...-.._.~-~- - August 13, 1999 726 ATTACHMENT NO.: 4 REPORT NO.: WD-33-01 '.' " 2 \fv'here 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 safety offICer. If the offICer 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 atlached 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 this 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 meei the general conditions set out in Schedule "A" or if there is a serious safety concem, 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. ---., --:,":"'''''~''''---.,.,.:::::-:'' ~'A .. . 'A~~'_'W,,-.v....vw,v_..,.w.,~.v,~..... , _A'_~A"_"V"_W~'"_''' ........ " . .. ... .. .~........ . . . .- . ,..-- ~,~.~.... .."'.......A........AV_.AVA...V..'~ A~'''' . ... .... . . . .. .. ~A~......,..."....,..v~~___.A..A'A~~...~.V~..~~.~.......... Augu.. 13. 1999 ,. Fl.? .' ., 3 In the case where the railway does not agree to a prohibitDn 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 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. \/\/here a crossing has experienced two or more accidents in he past five years, even if the requirements lac out in Schedule A are met, the railway should refer the matter to the appropriate regional direc10r of the Surface Group for a thorough safety review before whistling is discontinued. .. 'W'" .~~......~.. , . .....~ ::::::::::::' -- .:. . 'V~~, .~ Augusl13, 1999 7'28 " ',; SCHEDULEA GUIDELINE NO.1 TRANSPORT CANADA RAILWAY SAFETY DIRECTORATE WARNING SYSTEMS REQUIRED WHERE WHISTLING IS TO BE EUMINA TED Motor Vehicle CrossillQs Pedestrian/Bikeway Crossin~s (rot adjacent 10 molor vehicle crossings) Maximum Train Speed at Crossina NO.ofTracks No. of Tracks 1 2 or more 1 20rmore Stop & proceed Aagging Flagging RCS Res orFLB orFLB (Nom 2) (Nom 2) Up to 15 m.p.h. FLB. FLB & G' Flagging, or Flaggi ng, or maze barriers maze barriers & glide & glide fencing fencing (Nom 5) (Nom 5) 16-65m.p.h. FLB FLB & G FLB, maze FLB & G barriers & guide mncing (Nom 5) Over 65 m.p.h. FLB & G FLB & G FLB & G FLB & G . Except in cases where there is no possibility of a second train occurrence. Notes: 1. Railway advance warning signs (Type \o\C-4, 4L or 4R) should be installed on all vehicular approaches as per clause A.3.71 of the Manual on Unifonn Traffic Control Devices for Canada. ...2 . ^ ~~. ..' . '. .' r_v'._. ^ --.^.~ "., ... v_~w_". Augusl.13,1999 729 >.' 'r; 2 2. Res is pictogram type refleclorized crossing sign. These are mandalory at all public crossilgs. 3. FLB is flashing lights and bell. 4. FLB & G is flashing lights, bell and gates. 5. Guide fencing is for the purpose of preventing delours around the maze barriers. The design should be site specifi:. 6. Additional signs, signals, or a combination thereof may be required if specWic 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 bnger than 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 satety tactors 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. _ _ _ . "^ , ...., ^_^_.W^,. .~.,_~ ,. . " . ._^. ,^,.. , m= ::~:~:~.~^~~~:':::.~~:~:.~~~:~:~=~::~=~:~~~~~:~~::.:~::::=-~~:~~~=:-:~=~V~^~-=~::::'~~".~"~~:~.=~~::.~_.~::'~::~~~ 730 " - "'" .' . ~^v._~ Augusl13,1999 ..... '~', seHEDULE B DRAFT The items in brackets [.....J should be used only if necessary. Place de Ville, Tower e 10lh Floor 330, Sparks Street Ottawa, Ontario K1AONS 7 September 1990 Dear Mr. As requested in your letter of ........... a railway safety officer on .. (date) has inspected the crossing[s] at mileage[s) .............. of your ...............subdivision. At the time of his inspection the railway safety offcer was of the view that the crossing[s] met the conditions contained in Transport eanada Railway Safety Directorate Guideline NO.1. [However the officer noted the following defbencies 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 of eROR rule 14 (I)(ii) at the above crossing[s] [once the above-noted deficiencies have been rectified]. At the same time I would ask you to bring the provisions of CROR rule 14 (f) to the attention of train crews operating in this area. Yours sincerely, Direclor General Railway Safety :a:a= b"..,~......,. _ =w~ .' wA....."'''''"W'''A...'''"''' ___~x._~....."",_ .... ^~ ^~ ---. ...........-. - . <-- """", _,. . ^,..'W_,_, , 'M ^",'~"-~,," Augusl13,1999 731 ~ '~'. . , SCHEDULE C REGIONAL OFFICES RAILWAY SAFETY Regional Director Atlantic Region Transport eanada Heritage Court, Suite 418 95 Foundry Street Moncton, N.B. E1C5H7 Tel. 506-851-2298 Fax. 506-851-7042 Regional Director Ontario Region Transport Canada 20 Toronto Street, Suite 600 Toronto, Ontario M5C 2B8 Tel. 416-973-9820 Fax. 416-973-9907 Regional Director Pacific Region Transport Canada #225 - 625 Agnes Street New \^kstminster, B. C. V3M 5Y4 Tel. 604-666-2955 Fax. 604-666-7747 Regional Director Quebec Region Transport Canada Suite 638 800 Rene Levesque Blvd. \^kst Montreal, Quebec H3B 1X9 Tel. 514-283-5722 Fax. 514-283-8234 Regional Director Prai"ie and Northern Region Transport Canada 344 Edmonton Street, Room 402 Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2L4 Tel. 204-983-5969 Fax. 204-983-8992 Y, . "":" 732 ....', -, 2 SCHEDULE D RELEVANT ORGANIZAllONS Mr. Tim Secord Canadian Legislative Director United Transportation Union 1595 Telesat Court GLOUeESTER, Ontario K1 B 5R3 Mr. George Hucker Vice President and National Legislative Representative Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 150 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1401 OTTAWA, Ontario K2P 1P1 Tel. (613)747~7979 Tel. (613)235-1828 Mr. Gary Housch Vice President Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees 2775 Lancaster Road #1 OTTAWA, Ontario K1 B 4V8 Tel. (613)731-7356 ---..-...,.. " .,... -.. ..~.~~.u ^,>."".~" .~ . ~""'''''~'''-''''''''''''''''''~''''''' ....... . M'" , ~'W~__' ,~,~,~~~^'_"~~_.~,~. _, . _W^'~~~~~ ,~. ^ Augusl13. 1999 733 ',.,.....; u ~ 0: ....~ c c ~ "' . -. --~. -~_~r-~____".\ . "~ -------..:.... u ~ 0: . ". ~ l~_ Ii >~:>~< ~c_~;:I" .-\;~ ,- EBJ "'<\, L~"---_~ ~~~-~......---- LEVEL RAILWAY CROSSINGS (!J existing gates Ji. proposed gates in 2001 * Note: Gates are a minimum requirement to introduce anti.whistling by-laws. i KEY MAP I DRAWN BY: J.R.M II DATE:JUNE 20~ --1- :~~;:MNE~;:~~~-01 ~ " . . '