Report to: Development Services Committee Report Date: December 4, 2007
SUBJECT: Guidelines
for the Resolution of Railway Noise and Vibration Complaints Under the
PREPARED BY: Sabbir Saiyed, Manager of Transportation
David Porretta, Engineering Technician
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report entitled “Guidelines
for the Resolution of Railway Noise and Vibration Complaints Under the Canada
Transportation Act”,
be received;
And that staff provide comments to
the Canadian Transportation Agency on the draft guidelines for resolving
complaints related to railway noise and vibration as outlined in this report;
And that staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Not applicable.
1.
Purpose 2. Background 3. Discussion 4. Financial
5. Others
(Environmental, Accessibility,
Engage 21st, Affected Units) 6.
Attachment(s)
PURPOSE:
This report summarizes the draft
guidelines for resolving complaints related to railway noise and vibration, set
out by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
As part of the consultation process, the Agency is seeking input from
interested parties regarding the draft guidelines by
BACKGROUND:
Amendment of the
Canada Transportation Act
In December 2000, the Federal Court of Appeal determined that the Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency) had no jurisdiction under Section 95 of the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) to rule on complaints related to noise, vibration or fumes emanating from the operations of a federally-regulated railway company (CN, CP) or urban transit authority. Agency staff could only mediate the numerous noise and vibration disputes between railway companies and communities.
On
Resolving Noise and Vibration Complaints
The draft guidelines have been developed by the Agency to assist persons, municipal governments, and railway companies to resolve disputes over railway noise and vibrations. The guidelines set out specific measures that parties must apply before the Agency conducts an investigation or hearing into a complaint regarding railway noise and vibration. These measures include:
- Direct communications must be established between the complainant (persons, municipal governments) and the receiver of the complaint (rail authority);
- An open dialogue must be engaged;
- Both parties must propose constructive and feasible solutions and be receptive to the solutions proposed by the other party.
Once collaborative measures between the complainant and receiver of the complaint have been exhausted, a formal complaint may be filed with the Agency requesting a determination whether the railway company has caused noise or vibration as is deemed to be reasonable, given the railway company’s obligations, its operational requirements, and the surrounding area.
OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:
Summary of the Guidelines
The guidelines have been developed to assist persons,
municipal governments, and railway companies to resolve disputes over railway
noise and vibration. They apply to the
activities of railway companies that operate under federal jurisdiction (Canadian
Pacific and Canadian National Railways).
They also apply to the activities of public passenger service providers
such as urban transit rail authorities.
The guidelines apply to all forms of railway noise and vibration produced during the construction and operation of a railway. This can be noise from passing trains, idling of locomotives, or shunting noise from trains. As reflected in section 95.1 of the CTA, a railway shall cause only such noise and vibration as is reasonable, taking into account its statutory obligations regarding the level of service it must provide to its customers, its operational requirements, and the area where the operation is taking place.
To resolve disputes, the Agency has proposed the following guidelines:
- Direct communications must be established between the complainant and the receiver of the complaint, in this case the railway company. The complainant should have the opportunity to express its concerns clearly and describe the impact of the noise or vibration. The railway company should have the opportunity to be adequately informed of the situation, to receive the information necessary to understand the noise or vibration issue and to explore solutions.
- An open dialogue must be engaged. For this dialogue to be productive, each party’s representative must have a mandate to negotiate and decide on the solutions proposed.
- Both parties must propose constructive and feasible solutions and be receptive to the solutions proposed by the other party. The proposed solutions will need to reflect elements of noise or vibration that is considered reasonable, as provided in the CTA, to resolve noise and vibration complaints. They must also be assessed by both parties in good faith.
Should the parties be unsuccessful in their attempts to resolve an issue through collaborative measures, they may, on agreement, request the mediation services of the Agency. The parties are jointly or individually liable to reimburse the Agency its costs arising from the mediation or arbitration.
The parties are expected to act expeditiously, without undue
delay, toward the resolution of issues.
If a party does not respond in a timely fashion or there has been no
significant progress in the resolution of the issue, a complaint may then be
filed with the Agency. The Agency will
only conduct an investigation or hear a complaint once it is satisfied that the
parties have tried and exhausted the collaborative measures set out above.
Agency’s Request for
Feedback
As part of the consultation process, the Agency has requested responses to the guidelines and a specific list of questions (see Attachment B, page 5), including:
- Applicability of the guidelines and the provisions of the CTA regarding noise and vibration;
- The collaborative resolution of noise and vibration complaints;
- Determining what is a reasonable level of railway noise or vibration;
- Procedures regarding complaints and Agency decisions.
Comments from Town
Staff
The Agency requires that all comments from interested parties be submitted by December 12, 2007. Staff has prepared the following preliminary comments:
- The definition of noise and vibration is not clear. Although the Agency proposes to determine what is “reasonable” based on the circumstances specific to a complaint, a maximum acceptable level of noise or vibration is needed to effectively resolve disputes between parties. These levels may differ, depending on adjacent land uses or surroundings.
- As outlined in the Railway Safety Act, railway authorities are legally required to blow a train whistle to warn of a train’s passage. Regardless, noise generated by trains has increasingly become a concern of local residents residing near rail lines in older areas constructed without noise attenuation. The draft resolution guidelines, while acknowledging train whistling is a concern, do not provide any guidance or procedure to mitigate these concerns, such as implementing alternative technologies that have less impact to the quality of life of residents. The Agency should consider including train anti-whistling or alternative measures, such as Automated Horn Systems (AHS), in the resolution guidelines.
- The draft guidelines are focused primarily on resolving issues between public agencies and railway authority. Although applicable, the guidelines may be too complex for use by individual citizens and/or landowners who may lack sufficient resources to address their grievance with a railway authority. Simplified and user friendly guidelines should be considered for individual citizens and landowners so they can address their concerns to railway companies.
- Guidelines require both parties to act expeditiously and without delay toward the resolution of the issue. Including a clear, focused timeline with benchmarks is needed to ensure collaborative efforts of both parties are being exercised.
- Clarity as to jurisdiction over urban transit authorities (GO Transit, Viva, etc.) is required.
- In situations where urban transit authorities operate services on tracks owned by a railway authority (CN, CP), clarification is needed for which authority the complaints should be directed to.
- Costs associated with the implementation of necessary mitigating measures to address noise or vibration complaints are not clear. The guidelines should explicitly state who will bear the cost of such measures.
- Likewise the potential for private landowners to be responsible for the Agency’s costs associated with mediation or arbitration may hinder residents from pursuing such.
Engineering, Planning and Legal Departments will finalize
their review of the draft guidelines and forward comments, to the Agency by
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The Planning Department has reviewed this report and their comments have been incorporated.
RECOMMENDED BY:
________________________
________________________
Alan Brown, C.E.T. Jim Baird, M.C.I.P., R.P.P
Director of Engineering Commissioner, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Draft Guidelines For The Resolution of Railway Noise and Vibration
Complaints Under the
Attachment B – Consultation Guide
for the Guidelines for the Resolution of Complaints Related to Railway Noise
and Vibration Under the