RICIION OF YORK OI. ... K'I OfFICE Pll.l No.· fl~ ~RKHAM OCT - 8 Z015
October 2, 2015
Mr. Denis Kelly Regional Clerk Regional Municipality of York 17250 Y onge Street Newmarket, On L3Y 6Z1
RE: ANTI-\VHISTLING ON STOUFFVILLE GO LINE AND ANTI-WHISTLING BY-LAWS & ASSOCIATED LIABILITY (5.12) Presentation
Dear Mr. Kelly:
This will contl.rm that at a meeting held on September 28, 2015 , Councii of the City of Markham adopted the following resolution:
"1) That the written submission and petition with 2,300 signatures from Shanta Sundarason and Margaret Wilson regarding anti-whistling be received; and.
2) That the deputations by Shanta Sundarason and Margaret Wilson, Philip Blachier, Bryan Allen, Michelle Sukul-Chan, Masood Mohajer, Peter Miasek representing the Unionville Ratepayers Association, Mira Jug, Lene Ergir, and Doug Denby regarding anti-whistling be received; and,
3) That the September 22,2015 presentations from staff and Jardine Lloyd Thompson be received; and,
4) That staff finalize the safety audit, cost estimates, cost assessment and Regional Express Rail (RER) requirements for the road/rail crossings in consultation with the Regional Municipality ofYork and Metrolinx; and,
5) That staff undertake a safety audit on the Green Lane and Langstaff Road crossings on the CN Bala Subdivision (Richmond Hill Line) and report back to Council as to required safety improvements and cost to continue anti-whistling; and,
...... 21
The Corporation of the City of Markham • Clerk's Department Anthony Roman Centre, 101 Town Centre Boulevard, Markham, ON L3R 9W3 • Tel: 905.475.4744 • Fax: 905.479.7771 • www.markham.ca 21 2-
6) That the City of Markham reaffirms its commitment to safety measures for at grade rail crossings in collaboration with Metrolinx and the Regional Municipality of York to achieve whistle cessation at those crossings and to improve the quality oflife for residents adjacent to those crossings; and,
7) That staff be directed to hire a rail safety expert to determine if safety measures beyond the Grade Crossing Regulations are required, and provide a report by January, 2016; and,
8) That the Budget Sub-committee be requested to include an additional $500,000 in the Capital Budget to begin a grade crossing safety program; and,
9) That the Regional Municipality ofYork be requested to confirm 100% funding and liability for grade rail safety on regional road crossings; and,
10) That the Mayor's Office arrange a meeting with Metrolinx to confirm the timing of implementation for safety measures in the RER initiative; and,
11) That staff confirm with Metrolinx their approved funding to implement such measures; and,
12) That staff collaborate with Metrolinx to advance, where feasible, the implementation of the safety measures in the City of Markham; and,
13) That the City of Markham strongly request Metrolinx to implement the safety measures that achieve whistle cessation prior to the implementation of all day train service; and,
14) That staff provide an update to Development Services Committee by November 30, 2015 on progress reiated to all ofthe issues; and
15) That the City of Markham, in conjunction with the Anti-Whistling Working Group, hold public information meetings to keep the public apprised of the progress; and,
16) That staff develop a work plan and implementation plan for the grade crossing safety program and report back to Council on that plan no later than January 30, 2016; and,
...... 3/
22 3-
17) That staff report back on the above issues for Council's direction; and further,
18) That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
If you have any questions, please contact Brian Lee, Deputy Director, Engineering, at 905-477- 7000 ext.4838.
Yours sincerely,
Kimberley Kitteringham r; tu rl a ..lr ~J.t,J '-".1\..l.l.n..
KK.:mbp Encl.
23 ·- ,'• Anti-Whis1tli1ng in Dev49lopment t~1e f:>roject September City on Services of Stou·ffville Upd«:ite 22, Markham 2015 Committee GO Lir1e
24 "' 2. ContE~nts 3. 1. f;fflll!l ; j Train Cost Crossing Future Experience Elinnination Issues Public Uunmarv I Safety, to Whistling Grade to Service Upgrade Safety consider & of from Risk Next Crossings Train Plans at Assessment & other Grade Steps Public for Liabilitie~s Whiistling for Anti- ()ntario Crossings on Grade the 1 whistling the StouffVillle - by under presentation Municipalities Stouffville Crossings AECOM the Line RailwaJI Line by in Jardine Safety Markharn Lloyd Act, 1985 Thompson
25 · Train • .. The Train safe railways nearby residents https://www. Whistling .. Canadian ire In whistling and all some in with trains Canada municipalities tc.gc. cases, relief Rail is to an ca/enq/rai/safetvlrai/safetv-976. whistlE~ at Op~erating pursuant from irr1portant these Public the may whenever whistle noise. to Rules way wish the~ C~rade can to Rail to (CROAt) (Sourct~: they keep end be Satety approach botherson1e the drivers, Crossings is Transport whistling Act, a htrnj) set cyclists 1985. a of public to operatin~1 Canada to people The provide and grade CROR pedestrian 'website: living rules local for
26 Elimir1ation • • Canada's The The the step at (GCR) Rail1way Public (3rade CROR "Procedure process . -inx which Safety Crossings, follows Guideline Crossing has that came lated of Act, a for the Train is provision raillwa.y. Eli1minating into se~ction consistent Standards. No. and h~detral-regulated effect II: the Whistling Procedure for 1 It Metrolinx's 04 is on with the Whistling of The re1gulated November the elimination the GCR & new Procedure requirements Guidelines Conditions At u1nder by (2014) Grade Public 27, the of 2014, train Ontario supersedes although Crossing Grade tlhe for tor of whistle. and Whistle Eliminating section Act Ministe1r Crossings" Appendix it Regulations is Transport c:essation., not ~~3.1 of Whistling a of . D is of a B- .
27 Elimi11ation • • ,elimination The elimination Metrolinx sounded, Whistling are le . other ~CN· ringing discretion ~\~'.:.,,..,.n Bala situations has elimination e.g. whistles of of of Subdivision Subdivision of train train advised alarm the Tra.in Engine whistling whistling under are for is that lirnited not p~ersons has (Richmond Bell Whis1tling Section whistles sounded is train (CROR impllemented, to or vvhistling 14 whistling animals are at Hill of Section sounded Gre~en CROR G<)) under at on at based the currently Lane 13) the or that public in near is 14th tlhe n1unicipalities on require and not part the track the Avenue. crossings. has an Act Langstaffr:u- train the of {c:ont'd) anti-whist1 ~ihistle the e~ngineers' where There to be
28 8-Ste1) • • • • . the Step Step Step Step the Step Step in thBlt IQ!itiOJ'lS Grade Grade .. :2 4 :3 5- 6- ·1 ·has area, -Municipality - -Interest - - - Procedure Municipality Railway Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality arranged thatsupport Crossing Crossing thereby for company to Regulations Regulations whistlin~J prohibitiing consults passes and and and issues have the railway railway railway cessation notifies whistling noti1fication a f~•r cessation with nesolution train and and assess agree share Transpo11 railway Elim1inatio1n whistling Grade Standards of ceased train the that is and the~ de~claring e>epressed- company responsibili1ty Crossing the public whistling crossing(s) at Canada the crossing(s) - underway notice that crossing(s) - Standards- completed and at completed it the against for agrees informs of meets crossing(s). monit()ring Tr·ain thE~ that the substantially the prescribed whistles municipality prescribed and.maintaining Whh:;tling should completed requirements nequirementf; within not thQ 30 be ··· dc:w~ U$ed ·· in .. of ,
29 At-Grade Rail .:: * 0 ~ :•sh.d, Cc:nridor lowr TorontoJ Pn.tlllt' RII~IO(' H~~rade '" Ar~a •t Cl'fi•&Jng et •*'II: 4 :-irar1• Gf'ade Crossings 1..ro.1~ 11 CrOMI"'C Crn"'"f ) _! ~~ f... __ (jJ and ~~~~~.._L (7\ 11 ,,..'< " ·~-· Background 11th --A!~l' , .... Awe f ...... d ..,._do 0 ...... ' 71-~- .~ ! _ ...... OrE . .q :t • •... • I : I ···············~lZ alii' t I ~ :~;-;;;;.~;~:: Uxbridge ,1 ·< .• z .• ,r)::r ••••••• 7 .• • J ~· ..--. • . • • t Train ...... f f . ·• 1 Limt • 111 • •• •" - ~ ···";:, ··'"~ • I• ., ..... I ...... : ,14 : t : 1 : . • •• • • r..;s-: /, • : • 18 /-.1). • : • 17 ~· . • . r ,. ••••• '1: 1s,( }J. 1-l'..!'/ • • • • • : I I s ' f , " . I I i Crossing: (at City York Crossing: City No. No. location of of of of Region: Toronto: Private Markham: Public #4) 1 17 7 1 9
30 f'f Futur~e • • ; IIIII i! service from1 minute billion Stouffville Regional Scarborough investment Service service with Express Corridor 2-way, from over Rail Junction Phans Rail 15-minute Union (RER) th~e Service next to to for Lincolnville. study service Unionville 1 Expansion 0 the years is from underway Stc:J~uffvill~e G() for 1-his Class Union transit station) is to EA. part to projects provide Unionville, - (16 of completed Line the km electrified in Province improvement th~e and GTHA. 20- $16;
31 Futur~e • . $eparation City As CJ CJ CJ CJ part Future Electric Electrification Bail/road of.Toronto Service of station Equipment RER, . grade Class Metrolinx EAs locations is Metrollinx separation undertal 32 Futur~e nal {RER) Express Metrolinx Service Rail Average location Weekday 5 • • D :I: 3: 0 (/) X: :I: :::> :::> a: a: Q w w ~ Statton afternoon: Lmcolnvtll•e morntng Lmcolnvill<2 between 20-minute 1 and times -minute, Pl~:tns departure rush between Unionville and evenmg servtce to m two-way + hour from the Union time trains .. ~ Union from and are Statton service for Union shown_ Statton m Actu,•l the tlhe to times Midday, • • may H (!' :io!J ow 03: Giffi z WQ ~ffi z between between Statton Statton 60-rmnute, 1 Sto,uffvill~e 5-minute, be shorter evening Unionville Mount +~ or two-way two-way longer joy and and and depending weekt~nd servrce service Union Umon on Line (c:ont'd) 33 Crossing • '):~}:COM · for AEC:QM whistling. crossings requirements (July elimination - - 2014). also was with The Safety Crossing retained made stipulated of respect scope train certain J3~s~sessm1ent Standards of 'Whiistling. by to in vvork the Grade the recomrnendations City is GCFI because to Crossing The of identify and Markham assessment b~r the of Flegulations conditions Metrolinx's Grade AEC()M above to review is c:rossing based and that for and the beyond require elimination on industry safety Standards th1e mitigation the of best· the GCFI of train 34 .. Cross•ing • The and Under 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 The INew Existing The AECOM it · requires g identifies the implementation change crossings of Safety these crossings new Assessment further in Grade mitigations or the mitigations. major have1 regulations of Assessment disc:ussions anti-whistling Crossing to changes comply report are to with required existing RE3gulations, was 'Nith new substantially Regulations Metnolinx crossings due byr to: AECC>M the need within on timiing ce>mpleted to the comply 7 years. extent for (con1:'d) with implementation in and new J~ugust Regulatiotns cost 2015, is:• 35 I . Cross•ing • • safety There The grade important Ped~~strian :.~,ptomati~ new . separation, are is features gate a Grade issues. two Safety range safety pedestrian (or common "Z' are Crossing of gates) at physical requinad sa1:ety grad~e A~s!;essment arm types gate Standards measun~s crossings barriers, . of pe~destrian warnin~J specify that and b~r can tnaspassin~~ barriers: what AECC)M system, be implemented minimum etc. along (con1t'd) pede1strian the from line full are 36 -Cross•ing • 'f !'f1 ·,(generally II total Automatic Safetty and Estirnated Road Stre~et Gates: costs = and Markham, $400,000 Assessment = Safety Eureka requires cost: Pedestrian currently $400,000 $200,000 per recornm1ended Stre!et 2 for A~s!;essment crossing) used per Lights, (Eureka McCowan crossing, each at Main Bells, Stneet) in the i.e. b~r AECC)M (con1t'd) 37 Cross•ing • • Estinnated there Assessment auto1matic Oak Recommended Maz,e ~::t~>tal t~\,;1010 Avenue, are Gates: ly cost no = pedestrian Safety requires cost: $160 exiting for = currently Castlemore $40,000 in $10,000 all '000 the crossings 4 or A~s!;essment p~er arm Saf:ety recommended us1ed p~er E~ach crossings, Avenue gates crossing) at whene Bur b~r AECC)M {con1t'd) 38 lssue~s • • • >.liability Jarcfine Existing Existing SafE~ty, share to M risk Lloyd Insurance and and cost consider and of Future Future estimate, Thompson the liability- Agreen1ent Capital train NoiSE3 and f:or traffic see costs impact ongoing Anti-whis~tling presentation with on to 1to rail mitigate Metrolinx residents operating line by conditions and the living & maintenance Yo1rk City's nearby identified Region insurance · costs in broker, the 39 · lssue:s • • As The local! night-time York: requesting February ~,"risk per Region's Region's municipalities .resoonsible to the .. and aze 2008 consider anti-whistling Regional anti-whistling gates liability policy Anti-Whistling crossings and if for witlh at updated thjare states policy, the train different 1:or only 1=or on cost are that crossings Region all City 2009 Policy (1 Anti-whis•tling pede~strians of trains. 0:00 it roads hours vvill all - is for the pm mitigations entertain on responsible Trains (9) of to current Regional re~strictions in €~:00 the at anti-whistling am). Regional measures, Road/Rail area for roads (cont'd) the The of the (7) costs policy residents Crossings, and crossing, by-laws of· the provides pedestrian. u;:;J'\~~ are from and fbr the ·~···'· 40 Cost • The As provided Cl Cl a. 1to whistling Standards Upgrades Minimum safety separate Upgrade a cost upgrades upgrades recommende~d exercisE~ estimate required can c;r4ade from by on be AECOM by what the divide~d the Cr·ossin!QS Grade AlE based safety COM into Crossin!~ on UP!~rades Metrolinx two safety Regulations categories: audit, and are industry AECOM and required. Grade best practices Crossing also for anti 41 ,Cost • • ·· " :Toronto), 'Ql~y The Avenue The crossing $3.96 impl1ement In a ''"''~rrent 1to previous current estimate previous are · million '"~~contingencies. Upgrade which in improvements. i.e. ~ anti-whistling rural .... estimate '"'':""~"\ Elgin which report estimate are area. outside~ Mills estimate included to does not Gr4ade includes DSC did R:oad, rneasures Staff the not dated design/construction estirnated urban include 14 include 9th Crossin!QS crossings Line DecembE~r for boundary. Elgin design/construction the and this 13 ·19th (6 Mills component 6, crossings Regional, Avenue (cont'd) 20111, fees, Road, AECOM Metrolinx 9th are in 7 will the City fees, Line not be urban estimated and included OLLIUUI. and IMetrolinx' ·fees 1 19th area and City as to .. is of 42 Cost • crossings Current completed. Property 9 Cl Cl Cl 1to Toronto= TOTAL= Markham= !Region= ~~-the at erence Upgrade Estimate certain impact are; use $2.54 $0.98 N/A $1.56 of in (1 crossings million million and crossing)·~ the the (including million costs previous nnaze <:Jr4ade (6 -7 (7 crossings) crossings) $5.2 as cannot gates 30°/o Grade rec0111mended million cost C•·ossin!QS -7 soft rather -7 be separation estimatE~ -depending $3.2 $2.0 costs confin11ed tha.n million million but and in pedestrian on } the no {cont'd) finali2~ing until current Assuming property previOUS detailed works lights, cost gates costs) estinnatE). and estimate design bells costs for and is 14 i,s :. · ·-'n·, 0 ·-;;.,-, 43 ,Cost • The impact 0 0 0 0 0 ; ,i(i'i'OSts 1to irnprovements si,ght \Nhat The \'Vhat Clarification York following to Safety Upgrade Region line upgrades upgrades and the insurance but responsibility Assessment City: with financial items no (road will are cost the Metrolinx premium associated an:~ authority Region es1timate commitment <~r4ade identified of re~quired anti-whistlinn regarding increase be vs. was with responsible rail certaiin provided Ct·ossin!QS whistling authority) in the order works rail night to for crossing cessation rectiify needs between to time as fully part anti-whistling this to control only of {cont'd) Markham, be und1erstand issue•. the confirmed boxes f~ER Responsibility• policy York initative (bungalows) Region the 1financial of and impact the 44 45 Cl In' ~ ~· Ill 0 ':3' 0 ~· Nw 46 • I ntro~ductions - - Bartn·a Management Vioe 25+ years President. Anne speciali2~in~~ Vaspo,ri Acc:ount in Executive. Municipal Public ln~surance Sector and Risk ~JLT 24 47 ______, ______• • • • • • I ntro 49 ~----·------·------~------~------·------·------·------4 • Rail Exannples City· crossing l'"ransportation Slidewalks pedestrians" lc•cations Findings of s.afety Investigation Crossings of the Brockville danger Advisories protection; "the and ... of decreas43 Report remov;:31 the to Rt3c~ent Safe1y ped,estrian 2(}05 implementc:stion (1) (2) addressed the Board of addn~ssed the level !:)erioLIS traffic ..... of whistle of Cana~da identification safety of on obstructecl 43nhanced adjacent .... has I afforded with1out nc:idents issued sightlines of pedestria1n high-risk considE~ration to a the Railway --4JLT at 27 50 • Exannples Rail Cit}' J'edestrians implement c;oroners t~vith ~Safety ~crossings • • • • • • of Posting Pedestrian Police Safety/education Stop Signs pedestrian Brockville Board lines posted patrolling of of Inquest a painted crossing at gates prof.1ra.m - Rtac:ent stating' aU Action s.afe·ty of 2C~05 events & multi-track resulted on rail ~7uards railway that sidewalk-s lines to at Required: for whistle mitigate railway in fencing school-age !:)erioLIS in school main-line 19 bans recommendrations cro~ssings, zones risk Assess are children in crossings effect I nc:idents the~ including: risk and to dealing ~JLT at 28 51 ~----~------·------~---·------~------·------·------· Sa.,ety • This Rail Exannples City· in(~ident The \lia down 22:00 C:ity Siignal Siix 4Crossings l:Joard of people Rail crash by-law Ottawa and lights o., is train still of Canada. occurrE~d 12:00 were restricted were! collided 2013~ R~ec:ent un,der ... •ciiiE~d , ____ flc::.shing , ______at whistle~s with investigation with 8:45 Ottawa !:)erioLJS and dozens c::..m. and vehicle City hcJrns of by others bus crossiing the I be~Neen nc:idents 1rransportation .. , ______injured ------·------·------gates the hours vvere ~JLT , ______at of 29 __ 52 I • Seric,us • • • There The that fees in indi'vidual hundreds liability Def~ending lncitdents a multi-million have quantum are against I ncider1t~; lead occurred is of many claims, killedl thousands of to the suc:h C)ther c::lolllar ~clc:•ims ----~------·------·------·------·------or a•lone, (~ity ;at severely at a rail exa1mples settlement of or cla~im Rail e=ven c~rossin~)s. dollars Rail is inju1red Crossir1gs AtJthority, if h1uge 1there c:>f in serio~us lega•llinvestigation and wt1en is no could could incidents an findir'g re~sult rE~sult ~JLT of in 30 53 I • • No Liability The a municipal liability City responsible invo1lving It B~r-law trc:•in wcluld into Rail or due be a Authority the rail road. I civil rnpliccatiions difficult to for crossing rail a action any cras,h crO!SSing. woulld tc:> claiims ----~------~------·------·------·------·------fclr bring ()n involving be a the ( By-lc:tw Anti-Whis·Uing • • tr,ain Authority Tlhe whistle The ccJuld lirnited (indemnity· rc>ad, should utilized. City lic~bilities a~greement to City City crash if vs. hav·e assume had an cessation. it 'Jvould 'JVill \Mas of that accident clause) on with train been the none) be would determ1ined a Rail certain sign the liablE~ By-llaw municipal whis•tles avo1ided due ~JLT nesult )~uthority F~ail ;an require for to a bee1n or the' it the 31 54 The can able Based road, City Joint awarded. an Anti-,Whistling be at abillity to is on l~east 1Found prove not & the for difficult. Several 1% that responsibl~e doctrine the at By-la'V\Ir the Rail fault City Authority of 1For within Joint L.iability t1o iis an pay at accident and leas~t Ci~r or up the Several to limits, 1 °/o 1 lnjurled (1 beciause 00~~ at ~tO relating fault Liability, of Third rule~) any (liable), the•y to judgement Party if a implemented the municipal then plaintiff to find the ~JLT the City is 32 55 I • • Liability • JL prerr1ium impa1ct certc:•inly crossing Clairns law Som1e T':s ;31pplies program Insurers on arising impact involving I the nsurar1c~e future from is impo~~e the not a rail C~ity's 1municipal ---~------·------·------·------~ ne~~otiation:s currently ,a crossing1s surcha1rge claim:s & f=-inanc~ial underwritten r1oad experh~nce of due where the in p1remium tc1 1City's the the on by-law anc:l Liability I anti-whistlin~l this rnplications ·for have basis each would Insurance a raiilway ne~gative ~JLT by 33 56 ~------~------~------·------·------·------~ Liabillity • • • the these the that to contract The Be lmpllementing d~:=fend c:~ware (:;ity jCity's the City contracts by-law would with would I Liability allegations. that nsurar1c:e the a broadly othentVise applh:.s be often whistle Rail Insurance incurring o1r Authority extend 'Norded to. cessatic>n liability not & additional policy. be1 bE~yond F:inan<~ial indemnity· results for involved. by-la-vv all th•a incidents costs in coverage increased clauses and (within entering I rnplicati~ons c::tt contained rail provided liability its crossings into deductible) AJLT a where in within 34 57 I ~----·------·------~----~------~------~------·------·------·------• • J • L T To that thorc•ugh We considered We cessation of of our our our d;::~te, clients C~lient cannot 21re have clients liability also we audits had at currently currently anti-whistlin~;J are specific aware have questionn~aire; Date:• an and not acciident imlpiE~mented that a1ware have ~~tudies provide rail ------·------·------·------·------·------1 -- a crossin1gs by-laws, Anti-Whi~;tling this numbE:!r at of although any any any by-law a statistics of of of rejectted by-lavv their our our in w•3 place clients clients rail are relatinu regarding the cros•sings aware as s;~me vvith that it By-la\1\f to is this had whistle that how not following by-1law yet a many ~JLT number part of 35 .. 58 • • • • • • • Risk cons•idered cros~sing crossings crOS!Sings rail Consider Consider Elimiinate including lnst2111 Con~;ider Con~sider HavE~ crossing Managern~er1t a all safety being appropriate whether the which flashing road trespass and unique audit surface considered rail surrounding lights., or locations crossings per1Formed ch~aracteristics not railway and bells, a 24 in Conside~ratior1s visibility to crclssing th~~ environme,nt hour the a1nd by rail by-law by-lav..r a gates line whistle improvements con~sultant that protection 'JVhere exist would at cess21tion all at by-law applicable fclr c~pply each systems each at is is all to propclsed necessary being proposed applicable ~JLT 36 59 ~----·------·------·----·------·------·------·------·------·------• • • • • • • Risk the cros!~ings cros~~ing public Consider Consider Consider Con!~ider Con!~ider Con!~ider Con!~ider public, Managern~er1t of train is erecting introducing increasing posting painting installing removing especially within whistle cro:ssing school sto1p sig1ns pE~dE•strian all police sa·fety school-agE~ ba1ns obstructic•ns liines at zone guards all Conside~ratior1s in patrc•ls and on eftrect im,pacted g.ates :sidewalk.s awarenless children beforE:! of within ancl raill rail lines railway and pedes1trian approc!31ching cross~ings campaigns afl:er and fencing crossings school sightlines to rail to advise ~JLT i1~ e~ducate rail the 37 60 • • • • Risk that frequency An expotsure safety Be City available By liabiliity Should auth1orities contract A.nti-Whistling a~ware iit to Managern~er1t otherwise audit take against the to (adhere that and (i.e. City with all reasonably as eliminating appropric::.te severity well the Trans;port proceed would the By--la'Jv to Ciity as f~ail all follow not t:lf reasonable minimizte with Authoriity, significantly Canada}} accidE!nts train be risk & all this exposed !:)urnrrlary c;ontrol 'JVhistles requirernents the by-law~. the recommendc::.tions impact in<::reases and c:ity to 1may we safety is of increase would assuming of this the the measure!) additional expect potentic:tl governing both of liability th1e AJLT the the of 38 61 I liabilit}r City's Eliminating JL Traint resultir1g Ts l::>oundaries & against Whistles Insurers in death, train the whistlles Ot.>inion: vic:J in1jury C~ity· ----~------·------·------·------·------·------S4ave rnunicip1al in or at the hc:1rm. L.ives public event by-lc:.w crossing1s of an causes i11cident within increased .4JLT the 39 62 , 'Sumn1ary • • The trains residents' Residents [J [J r,,~u --nsultant ~~,.~,..~If". between between and bO•·•Qring number ... uv~ per Weekend. 30°/o day concerns This near Unionville Union preliminary of between (7 soft trains estimate ± railway and southbound 40 costs, and trains Unionviille: re~garding vvill Markham, Lincolnville: estimate tracks needs increase but 15-minute and not anti-·whistling havE~ to 20-minute for '{ark property B be on works ongoin£1 northbound) frequency; confirrned. the Region frequency, Stouffville as acquisition) will concerns $2.54 ± and 50 intensify: and trains Mletrolinx rnillion Line hourly for with under overall service to train nee~gsJp $5.:2 the for \IVhistles .. crossing - million Midday, RER -;, •. ~- ' and for .. ;.."ontn 15 63 - Sumn1ary • • time There York City's liabilities staff cessation Region insurance is currently on is (cont'd) concerned Regional has vs. agent an no diffetrent Anti-\lvhistling funding road with has crossin!~S. identifie~d hours risk, for liability irnplementation of Policy restriction safety, Clarincation and which risk capital will and of is assume anti-whistling cost liability required implications certain concerns re!~arding costs night and 64 >Sumnr~ary • exposure Markham impliications, part Fron1 Metrolinx staff of a the public mitigation will will and Regional (cont'd) which wait be safety the required for Region opt1ion:s would Expn3ss the and outcome risk to to reduce address continue Rail management the project, of the grade Region's with ne~~otiation including current separation perspective, and whistling ~1arkham's capital 'Nith and it Metrolinx appears costs safet)r measures financial and measun3s and prudent risk at tl1i.S,J~ as,,,:~ 65 Next · • • whistling the Negotiate Finallize !)teps F~egional rm ~':Metrolinx's safety with road with York Express crossin~~s Metrolinx audit Region Liability and IRail on capital regarding project Insurance partnership costs 1to funding! fund AgreE~ment for and anti-whistling costs financial and of assumption with upgrades contribution the City's and of liabilities Legat: anti as part at of 66 <:Next • design The Staff: maintenance Reviiew conform ~3teps draft review report ings of with •. 2016 safety on to back safety Operations (cont'c:J) the at the capital the featur~es to Richrnond Fedetrai/Provincial measures Council maze budget [)apartment to barriers, suppo11 on Hill at includes the linE~, th~3 above etc.) Green whistle regulatiions and regarding a advice $300,000 issues. Lane elimination increased of and safety allowance Langstaff if directed measures costs to Road (~e.g. undertak~~ by and Council wintetr . · 67