Consultation Meeting for the Development of the Railway-Roadway Grade Crossings Regulations Ottawa, Ontario November 15, :30-12:30

Transcription

1 Consultation Meeting for the Development of the Railway-Roadway Grade Crossings Regulations Ottawa, Ontario November 15, :30-12:30 Summary of Proceedings

2 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Purpose of Presentation... 3 Consultations Summary... 3 Areas of Contention... 3 Modifications from what we heard... 4 Responsibilities... 5 Sharing of Information... 7 Grade Crossing Safety documentation... 8 Safety Reviews... 8 Grade Crossing Standards - General... 9 Grade Crossing Standards - Crossing Surface Grade Crossing Standards - Sightlines Grade Crossing Standards - Signage Grade Crossing Standards - Active Warning Systems Train Whistling Maintenance, Testing and Inspection Temporary Protection Measures Timelines Train Operations General Discussion Next Steps Closing Remarks Page 2 of 22

3 This report summarizes input and discussions from the consultation meeting regarding the development of the Railway-Roadway Grade Crossings Regulations (RRGCR) held on November 15, 2012 with grade crossing owners representatives (railway companies and road authorities). The presentation shown at this meeting can be found at: Introduction Mr. Luc Bourdon, Director General of Rail Safety, welcomed everyone to the final meeting to be held with all stakeholders before publishing the Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I. He noted that Transport Canada has considered every comment received and has done its best to accommodate the conflicting views that stakeholders have with respect to the Railway-Roadway Grade Crossings Regulations. Mr. Bourdon explained that following the 2007 Review of the Railway Safety Act (RSA), the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) was concerned that the Regulations were not yet completed. In 2010, the need for grade crossings regulations was added to the TSB Watchlist. The development of these Regulations became a priority for Transport Canada (TC) with the ultimate goal of promoting a higher level of safety at crossings across Canada. Purpose of Presentation Ms. Marie-Josée Goulet, Chief Engineer, Rail Safety Operations, stated that the main focus of the meeting would be to discuss modifications made to the policy from comments received during the consultation process. She also stated that the objective is to present those key modifications to the regulatory approach and attempt to minimize surprises when the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Consultations Summary Ms. Goulet continued by giving a brief summary of the consultation results. On June 21, 2012, TC completed a series of targeted national consultation meetings regarding the development of Railway-Roadway Grade Crossings Regulations held with grade crossing owners (railway companies, road authorities and beneficiaries). The consultation meetings constituted the second phase of a two-phase process that began with a 60-day online consultation conducted from January 30, 2012 through April 24, During the initial on-line phase, which was open to the public, over 40 written submissions were received. Altogether, over 670 comments were received throughout the consultation process. As a result of comments received, TC extended its consultation process and met with various stakeholders including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Railway Association of Canada (RAC) to discuss specific issues and provide more clarity on the policy. Areas of Contention Overarching comments: Costs: Over the past 20 years, cost has always been an overarching comment from all stakeholders. The modifications presented today have been made to minimize the financial impact on both road and rail authorities, while maintaining TC s objective for safer grade crossings. Page 3 of 22

4 Timelines: Both the railways and road authorities mentioned that the proposed timelines were an issue. Many stakeholders felt that more time was required for the grandfathering of certain engineering criteria that needed to be met with this policy. Priorities: Risk management and flexibility is required as each stakeholder has their own priorities. Road Authorities A FCM resolution came forward in June 2012 that stated more time was required and guidelines be proposed instead of standards to alleviate liability issues. Railway Companies Contentious issue on blocked crossings (which will be discussed at another meeting with stakeholders) Crossing surface (flangeway dimensions) Responsibilities Sightlines (general clearing requirements) Modifications from what we heard Bruce Kavanagh - Regional Manager, Railway Engineering Ryan Phillips - Project Officer, Rail Safety TC is proposing significant changes to the policy but not many changes to the Railway-Roadway Grade Crossings Standards. The Standards refer mostly to new crossings and TC understands that not all existing crossings can be upgraded to meet the new standards. There are very few sections in the Standards that will apply to existing crossings. The sections that do apply are considered to be absolutely essential for the safety of the crossing. Railway companies and road authorities need to communicate and understand what is required at each crossing to ensure its safety. For the past 25 years, a guideline approach has been used (i.e. the Minimum Railway/Road Crossing Sightline Requirements for All Grade Crossings Without Automatic Warning Devices [G4-A]) but indications from the industry show that the minimum guidelines for sightlines are not being met at potentially 20% of public crossings. This represents a serious problem that needs to be addressed for TC as a safety regulator. With the RRGCR, TC intends to establish what needs to be done to promote safety at crossings across Canada and let the responsible authorities determine how that will be achieved. Through the consultations, industry representatives expressed concern that agreements filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) would not be respected under the new Regulations. It is TC s intent to include a clause in the Regulations that states that if a negotiated agreement for a grade crossing exists, and is filed with the CTA, then this agreement would supersede the responsibilities sections of the Regulations. Interpretation (The definition section of the policy) The definition of restricted and unrestricted grade crossings has been removed. There will be two types of crossings: public or private. Definitions for crossings on aboriginal lands (reserves) were removed. To remove the complexity and ambiguity and to clarify and simplify the Regulations as a whole. There was some confusion over this definition and it was deemed redundant. Crossings on aboriginal lands would be treated as public or private crossings. Page 4 of 22

5 Questions/Comments Q1: A railway currently has an exemption in the draft standards for a modified warning system that is used at restricted private crossings. Will this now be allowed at all private crossings? A1: It will still be allowed at restricted crossings only; there just won t be a general description. Within the exemption or one of the appendices, it will still be allowed at crossings that meet those criteria (the criteria that previously existed for restricted private crossings). Q2: Are all crossings on aboriginal lands considered public? A2: No, there could still be private and public crossings on aboriginal lands. There is just no longer a distinction between private restricted and private unrestricted. Responsibilities Orders of the Agency are agreements filed with the CTA. These orders would supersede responsibilities in the RRGCR. Prescribed requirements for snow removal were removed. Notification of land owners of sightline requirements on private lands has been removed. At private crossings, the railways responsibilities have been reduced to the edge of the railway right-of-way. Responsibilities have changed regarding the crossing surface. Road authorities will be able to select the type of crossing surface. If there is a cost dispute the CTA would determine the cost allocation as required. Although it is preferable that they be installed on the same sign post, TC is permitting stop signs to be installed on separate sign posts. During consultations, TC was informed that there could potentially be a legal conflict between these orders and what would be prescribed in the RRGCR. Stakeholders felt that if there is an agreement, TC does not need to regulate how and what type of responsibilities they have. Both the road authorities and railway companies have stated that this is not an issue and there is no requirement for regulation. This is due to cost issues. Meeting sightlines is the end result and TC will not try to regulate the how to meet those sightline requirements. This has allocated a bit more responsibility on the beneficiaries but also alleviates the railways concern about entering private land to complete work. Road authority s were concerned that railway companies would have 100% responsibility for selecting the crossing surface. TC understands that there are some instances where road authorities may be in a better position to make that decision. TC is trying to relax the general requirements for signage requirements. Page 5 of 22

6 Questions/Comments: Q1: Would the term Orders or Agreements be used in the Regulations? A1: The term Orders is being used in the draft Policy. Ultimately, the decision on all the wording will be left up to the legal services group when drafting the Regulations. An Agreement becomes an Order when filed with the CTA. Q2: At private crossings, railways are responsible up to the edge of the railway right of way. What is the situation for public crossings? A2: Responsibilities didn t change much at public crossings. The definition states that the railways are responsible for their right-of-ways and road authorities are responsible for their right-of-ways. Each party is responsible for the sightlines over private property and each need to be aware of what is required. How it is accomplished is the responsibility of the road authority and the railway company. Q3: Is this specific only to sightlines or does it deal with crossing surface maintenance or crossing maintenance issues? A3: Relative to public crossings: Railway companies would be responsible for: The warning system, as applicable; Crossing surface construction and maintenance; and Sightlines along the railway right-of-way. Road Authorities would be responsible for: The road approach up to the crossing surface; Traffic control devices (active or passive signage); and Sightlines along the road right-of-way. Each is responsible for sightlines over land, that are not in their right-of-way. There are three aspects of the sightline triangle. 1. Railway responsibility; 2. Road authority responsibility; and 3. Each is responsible for the middle triangle, over adjacent lands. Q4: With respect to the CTA orders, would the RRGCR drive the requirement to renegotiate orders? Relating to cost and responsibility? A4: One of the first clauses of the RRGCR would identify that responsibility is not meant to reflect financial responsibility. It simply reflects who undertakes the work. This has currently been in place for years, and the CTA understands this process. The CTA has a number of different rules and ways of determining what costs are applied and who receives the benefits and who pays according to the benefits received. TC does not foresee this process changing, or any existing agreements/orders required to be renegotiated. TC reiterated that how the work is accomplished is up to the railways and the road authorities and that TC is trying to step away from telling them what to do. Q5: Railways are responsible up to the edge of the right-of-way. What are they responsible for? A5: Railways are responsible for: Private Crossings: All aspects of the grade crossing up to the edge of the railway right-of-way. Public Crossings: The crossing surface definition has not changed from the previous version which states that it is up to the railway ties. Page 6 of 22

7 Q6: The previous policy talked about a change in elevation. Could you clarify what this means? A6: The crossing surface is up to the railway ties. The elevation part of it was just to account for the rails that are inside of this width, which is also a part of the crossing surface. ACTION: Transport Canada will provide further clarification on the definition of a change in elevation with the legal drafters for the drafting instructions. Comment from the railway industry: Under the new proposal, it states that road authorities may select the type of crossing surface. The railway industry expressed that they would have a serious concern with this and said they would like to get the chance to see what that wording will be. Transport Canada s response: This currently exists with the CTA, where a road authority can select the crossing surface. The road crossing is for the road user and road authorities should have control over the design. Retaining some level of control does not mean financial responsibility. Comment from the railway industry: The railway industry stated that it is aware that it does not mean financial responsibility, but depending on how it is worded, it could have significant financial liability. Q7: Pertaining to the modification of the stop sign that will be allowed to be installed on separate sign posts, are there provisions for increased use of stop signs at crossings that don t have warning systems? The railway industry believes that having provisions of that nature would have significant impacts on safety. A7: The Regulations would dictate when a stop sign is required. TC recognizes that there are many locations where stop signs are placed on separate sign posts and not exactly in the ideal location for various reasons. This is the road authorities responsibility. They understand sign placement and how this affects drivers. TC is simply saying that if you don t have sightlines, for instance, there should be a stop sign. TC endorses that Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) guidelines be followed because there could be legitimate reasons why they shouldn t be put on the same sign post. In no way does it prevent the use of the stop sign and by allowing flexibility with the placement, it will encourage its use, where there are sightline deficiencies. Q8: The modifications don t pertain to any requirements or increase use of stop signs? A8: No, the use of the stop sign would be a decision made by the railways and the road authorities in determining whether or not they have adequate sightlines. It is one option that can be pursued. If there is no requirement for the stop sign because sightlines are adequate then it can still be installed if the road authority felt it was necessary due to angles, volume of traffic etc. but it is not explicitly required. Sharing of Information TC has increased timelines The requirement to share the RRGCS Appendix D tables has been removed for private crossings. This requirement remains for public crossings. Also, the general sharing of information clause still remains for all crossings. Replaced reported speed with posted speed. This is due to costs, human resources issues, risk prioritization and capital planning. This specific sharing of information requirement was removed for private crossings due to costs. Reported speed would require a traffic study at each and every crossing which would be costly. It is easier for field engineers to utilize the posted speed rather than conducting a traffic study. Page 7 of 22

8 Questions/Comments Q1: Is the posted speed the speed on the road or railway train speed? A1: It is the road speed; railways would generally use time table speed. TC has revamped both definitions of speed for both railways and road authorities. Specifically for sharing of information, it applies to the trigger so if there is a significant change that would be called an operational change in maximum railway/road speed. Q2: Is this for the purpose of the sharing of information and not necessarily for safety analysis studies? A2: The road authority designates the speed on the approaches and would allow the use of different definitions of what the approach speed is. It could be posted speed or observed speed etc. Therefore, it is strictly for the sharing of information and not for analysis reasons. TC is only asking for information if it s required for the analysis. It would be used for evaluations. Grade Crossing Safety documentation The requirement for periodic safety evaluations has been removed. With the sharing of information, each party can independently or jointly reach the same conclusion of what is required for safety at the crossing. With that in place, there is no longer a need for periodic safety evaluations. Safety reviews, which are simplified, are still prescribed in the RRGCR. Safety Reviews The trigger for safety reviews has been changed to collisions resulting in serious injury. Reports of vehicles instead of circumstances occurring are used as triggers for a safety review. The trigger will occur when reports of an incident come in or have caused a serious injury. This would reduce costs and is a simplified approach. The intent is to make it a broader requirement to provide clarity. Questions/Comments Q1: Is it reports of an incident or recurrent incident? A1: The word recurrent still exists but TC will clarify with the legal drafters what word is more appropriate for the intent in a manner that it is clear. The intent is that a safety review will not be triggered every single time an incident occurs. Q2: Are we going to adopt the definition of a serious injury from the Transportation Safety Board (TSB)? A2: At this time, TC has not clarified what a serious injury is. The definitions will be left up to the legal drafters but it will most likely be similar. Page 8 of 22

9 Comment from the railway industry: The TSB definition would provide clarity and would be consistent. ACTION: Transport Canada will clarify the definition of a serious injury with the legal drafters. Q3: Were the safety evaluations removed? A3: Yes, they have been removed. There will only be a requirement for safety reviews. Grade Crossing Standards - General Timelines have been extended for basic standards at public crossings and will remain the same for private crossings. Grade separation requirement increased from 80 mph to 110 mph for new crossings. Throughout the consultation process, there has been confusion over the definitions and the different levels of standards that apply. To not inhibit the development of high speed rail corridors and also to harmonize with the United States. In the U.S., their recommendation was that train speeds over 110 mph should be grade separated. At year zero (coming into force) the technical components of the regulations that exist today will still apply as per RRGCS Appendix E. They will continue to apply until the basic standards timeline begins. Basic standards are the most essential safety standards for the minimum level of safety required at a crossing. The entire Standards or larger portions of the Standards would apply at a new crossing, an altered crossing, or a crossing that undergoes significant changes in attributes, etc. Year 0 (CIF)-Base Level (existing guidelines) Year 7-Basic Standards (minimum safety level) A new or altered crossing, etc.-highest level Questions and Comments Q1: There has been confusion regarding the basic standards, partly due to how it was laid out in the last version of the policy. How do you intend to clarify the distinction between basic standards and the rest within the policy? A1: It was a common remark amongst all stakeholders and TC recognized the need to consolidate certain sections. TC tried to simplify the basic standards but ultimately, it will be up to the legal drafters to determine legally sound and clear wording. Q2: Many communities are experiencing tremendous rates of growth. These communities have questions about how they will be affected beyond the basic standards? There is confusion between the trigger for safety reviews and operational changes. How do you see that impacting that type of municipality? How would a municipality know when they fall under another part of the Regulations? A2: If a municipality experiences a large amount of growth, one could expect that the traffic volume would significantly increase, which would be considered an operational change. For example, if a sub-division population is built and traffic increases significantly, this would trigger or be defined as an operational change. At this point, the municipality would have to go beyond the basic standards because that crossing no longer meets the minimum requirements for safety. Page 9 of 22

10 There was a consideration of possibly putting it in a guidance document that would provide more clarity without going into the regulation. This would provide examples of what would be considered a significant change. Also, as part of the implementation phase, The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat has requested that we have an implementation plan with tools to help clarify what is meant in the regulatory document. Comment from a road authority: They would like to review the definition of significant operational change as this could have major implications in terms of cost for municipalities. They would need to understand the cost implications before the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Q3: Once the need for improvement as required within the Regulations is determined, who would be responsible to ensure the improvements are done and who would fund the works? If the need for enhancement is identified but there is no funding available from TC through the Grade Crossing Improvement Program (GCIP) in terms of the priority list, it could be years before its implementation. How would the Regulations impact this situation in terms of caused or authorized operational changes/alterations? A3: They are two very distinct situations. If a significant change is caused or authorized, it is going to directly impact the crossing with a close proximity to it (i.e. it would substantially change the traffic on the road). As part of that plan, the costs to upgrade the crossing should be included. The GCIP is not linked to the Regulations. As we move further away from situations where general growth causes or authorizes, TC is trying to find the appropriate wording. This has been identified by the Township of Langley and the Province of Alberta recently so TC is looking at those definitions and those clauses that affect operational changes and alterations. Q4: So timelines are of the essence there in terms of the legal wording? A4: TC lawyers will advise of the legal wording, however the intent is that alterations of grade crossing components will be undertaken within a reasonable time when a crossing undergoes a significant change. Comment from a road authority: If normal growth triggered the need for protection, trying to get funding from TC could be on the list for decades. We understand that the definition of gradual growth comes down to clarification in the definition and what we are requiring in those instances. Once a need for enhancement has been identified but there is no funding available and then a collision occurs, would the Regulations point fingers? The speaker noted a case where an upgrade was eligible for funding and put on a list which causes a potentially large delay until the warning system is actually installed. This situation has to be considered from an implementation phase and perspective. Grade Crossing Standards - Crossing Surface Crossing surface dimensional tolerances no longer apply at year-7 after CIF. Added a top-of-rail requirement for private crossings at year-7 after CIF. The trigger for a change in crossing surface is upon first renewal of the crossing surface. TC feels that it mirrors what exists today at a large majority of crossings. There will be no requirement to change all flangeway dimensions or other crossing surface standards at year 7. The trigger to change the crossing surface will be upon first renewal. For example, repaving a crossing or performing significant work at a crossing could constitute first renewal. Page 10 of 22

11 Until that point, crossings are grandfathered in such a way that the dimensional tolerances mirror what exists today. Surface flangeway tolerances will be specifically prescribed for cyclists and persons using assistive devices. Comment/Questions Q1: Is this with respect to all crossings that will be renewed no matter where they are or what the risks are? A1: No, the first renewal trigger is for public surface crossings. The top of the rail requirement will apply at private crossings at year 7. This removal of the basic standards applies to public crossings. Previously, the wording was At year 7 you shall meet these flangeway tolerances at all public crossings. This has been removed to a first renewal standard. For private crossings it would be to maintain a top of rail such that the crossing is smooth and continuous. The different standards for public and private crossings mirrors what already exists today more closely. Q2: Meeting the standard with respect to responsibility in terms of cost. Does the Order dictate responsibility? A2: Yes, but the Regulations do not deal with cost. Comment from a road authority: Raising the point that going forward, if there is a safety improvement it s a newer standard but the junior party would still be responsible. Transport Canada s response: Transport Canada cannot comment on when you decide to take things to the CTA and try to re-negotiate. It will be a decision made by the railway or the road authority. Q5: Just to clarify, the only time the cost apportionment would be clear is in the case where the upgrade is done under the GCIP. Is that correct? A5: Yes Q6: Would the GCIP cover this aspect/change in standard since it is a significant cost? A6: The Regulations and the GCIP will not be linked. It is up to the road authorities and railway companies to provide priorities to TC s regional managers and TC would prioritize the projects. As part of the implementation of these Regulations, TC would make every effort to try and ensure that projects that need to be completed as per the requirements under the Regulations would be accepted as a priority or be in the queue for funding. Comment from a road authority: A representative from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) stated that FCM agrees with the comment from the road authority. They would like to see how the proposal addresses concerns from their members on cost implications. From their position they say it is inappropriate to say that the GCIP and the Regulations would not be linked. Safety enhancements should be tied into the funding program at least based on the current situation. FCM feels that the program should be linked with the Regulations because it is a safety enhancement. Q7: Regarding the narrow flangeway crossings, what are the criteria for those particular crossings? RAC is looking to get a sense of how many will need to be upgraded to get an idea of cost. A7: At the sharing of information stage, the road authority would specify the crossing users as follows: 1) Whether the crossing is used by vehicles; 2) Whether it is used by pedestrians; 3) Whether it is used by cyclists; and/or 4) Whether it is used by persons using assistive devices. Page 11 of 22

12 Grade Crossing Standards - Sightlines The general clearing requirement for sightlines was removed At crossings with flashing lights and bells (FLB) or flashing lights, bells and gates (FLBG), vegetation and non-permanent obstructions would be required to be cleared from a stopped position. The area to be cleared would be a triangle which extends out 3-8 meters from the nearest rail down the DStopped distance along the rail line. To reduce costs and it was determined not to be a minimum safety requirement. TC is more concerned with enforcing the sightline triangles and not general clearing requirements. To clarify what types of sightlines apply and what are the triggers. Comments/Questions Q1: Does the general clearing requirement refer to the requirement in the policy where the first 100 feet would have to be cleared for a 50 feet width? Has this been taken out? A1: Yes, that was removed. Q2: Has there been any change for crossings with warning systems? Even though a warning system is present, the vegetation still had to be cleared up to the first obstruction. A2: There was confusion with whether it only applied to vegetation and non-permanent obstructions. It has been clarified and the diagrams have been simplified. There is already an existing sightline requirement for crossings with FLB/FLBG. It is now on a triangle basis out to 8 meters. A portion of that is already covered by the railways normal operations and normal maintenance programs and the other portion is the removal of vegetation. Q3: Would that also apply on private property? A3: Yes. Under the RSA, railway companies and road authorities have certain authorities to enter private lands to clear sightlines. Q4: On vegetation yes, but non-permanent obstructions could interfere with the private use of the property. For example, would a gravel pit obstructing the sightlines be considered as non-permanent? A4: The intent is for the clearing of vegetation (trees, brush, stored materials and piled snow). As per Section 25 of the RSA, where through regulation, requirements are prescribed to have access to land adjacent to the railway right-of-way. TC will verify with legal with respect to the definition of non-permanent obstructions. Q5: What if there is a situation where a crossing is equipped with FLBG and there is a curve down the track and the sightline requirement now encompasses a farmer s field that is growing corn. Would the railway have to get the farmer to cut down his corn? A5: This was a big discussion and TC has requested that the railway provide some written documentation or anything that could help address this point. Page 12 of 22

13 Q6: Could you clarify the road authorities responsibility for sightlines? A6: The road authority s responsibility for sightlines at a public crossing is along the road right-of-way up to the crossing surface, signage, Standard Reflectorized Crossing Sign (SRCS) and warning systems. Comment from the railway industry: The railway industry is clear with respect to the railway right-of-way but they feel that if there are gates there should be no requirements for vegetation clearing. If there are no gates, railways recognize that there would be an occasional risk. Comment from a road authority: The FCM supports the comment made by the railway about the implications of clearing sightlines on private property and the need to clarify the definition of non-permanent obstructions. Action: TC has noted that further clarification will be required for sightlines with warning systems with gates and also further clarification on the definition of non-permanent obstructions. Grade Crossing Standards - Signage The Railway Crossing Ahead Sign (Yellow diamond sign) was required at every crossing with an AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) over 100. It has been switched to a visibility approach. Removed: - Railway Crossing Ahead Supplementary Tab Sign - Sign for No Stored or Standing Railway Equipment The stop sign is now permitted on the same or separate sign posts Emergency Notification Sign: It is still a requirement and must have the emergency number and the relevant location information but TC will not prescribe the look and feel of the sign. Many road authorities felt that they should be entitled to use more engineering judgement when applying the standards. TC provided a broader requirement allowing for flexibility relating to sightlines of signage from DSSD -TAC does not have this sign in their recommended practices -It is unnecessary when a stop sign governs and is visible, and -It is not used in all jurisdictions Deemed unnecessary for minimum safety requirements. The use of this sign is a managerial issue when determining where to instruct train crews to park trains. To allow for flexibility and engineering judgement. To reduce cost and to reach minimum safety standards. Comments/Questions Q1: Are there any requirements for the size, colour etc. of the Emergency Notification Sign? A1: It will be up to the railway company to decide, as long as the signs are noticeable to road users and maintained in good condition. Page 13 of 22

14 Q2: At what type of crossings will the Emergency Notification Sign be required? A2: They will be required at public crossings only. There will be no requirement for private crossings. Q3: With respect to stop signs, who is responsible for the sign if it s on the SRCS or separate sign posts? A3: For maintenance when the stop sign is on the SRCS it is the railway company s responsibility. If it is on a separate sign post, it is the road authority s responsibility. Costs would be allocated by the CTA. Q4: Is this something that will be clarified in the Regulations? A4: Yes, that will be written prescriptively into the responsibility section when it is drafted. Q5: Does the responsibility of the stop sign also include the initial installation? A5: It refers to the determination if one is required. If the railway company agrees with the road authority that a stop sign is required at the crossing, the location is determined and TC will be leaving it up to the two parties to decide. Q6: Should the Standards or Regulations put preference on it? A6: TC would not put preferences in a regulation. A guideline, a standard or an interpretation document would be created. The TAC Manual recommends that the stop sign be put on the same sign post. Q7: If there is a disagreement between a road authority and a railway company over the need for a stop sign, how will this be resolved? A7: This comes down to the fundamental principal; a disagreement cannot be left unresolved as it presents a threat to safety. The CTA may decide in some cases that a warning system be installed and the costs would be shared by both parties. Q8: What would TC do in the interim? A8: If a threat to safety exists or becomes immediate, a Railway Safety Inspector would issue a Notice or Notice and Order under Section 31 of the RSA. The Notice would determine a certain timeline to deal with the situation through collaboration. Q9: What is TC s role in dispute resolution? Will you be clarifying what you understand to be TC s role before going to the CTA? A9: TC has a role under the RSA for the Notice of Railway Works. If one party decides to conduct railway works at a crossing, by law, they have to notify other parties. If they object to the proposed works, TC can get involved. Q10: Will TC s role from a safety perspective be clarified? A10: An interpretation document or a guideline will provide more clarification. Q11: What would the timelines be for this document? Is this something we could expect to see in draft form when the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part I? A11: These documents will not be ready for the Canada Gazette, Part I process. There will be a section in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) that summarises TC s implementation and enforcement plan. These documents will be developed through working groups with all stakeholders and will provide tools to help municipalities and railways. These documents will be available when the Regulations come into force. Page 14 of 22

15 Grade Crossing Standards - Active Warning Systems Cross-product warrant for warning systems increased from 1000 to 2000 for new/altered/operational changes (this is not a basic standard). Removed: -the maximum warning times (35/55 second requirements for FLB or FLBG) -Post-operation of Prepare to Stop at Railway Crossing Sign (PTSS or AAWS) Battery back-up for Prepare to Stop at Railway Crossing Signs and Traffic Signal Pre-emption Systems reduced from 8-hrs to 4-hrs. To reduce costs and meet the industry standard. Some stakeholders outlined that depending on the design vehicle, a warning time may exceed 35/55 seconds. There is still a clause that says that control circuits must provide reasonable approach warning times. The prescriptive requirement for post-operation was removed. There has been some debate on the effectiveness or the need for post operation as there is no clear consensus on what should be installed. Road authorities are generally responsible for those systems and they would determine whether or not they would want post-operation installed. Road authorities have advised TC that the industry practice is generally 4 hours for these types of systems. TC will not change industry standards for the two types of systems. Comments/Questions: Q1: What is the minimum warning time? A1: Minimum warning time is still 20 seconds, and there are additional requirements that could make it longer than 20 seconds. It depends on the design vehicle and a number of other factors. Q2: What if the Prepare to Stop at Railway Crossing sign is operated by solar power? How does the battery backup requirement intend to deal with solar powered signals/signs? A2: An ad hoc committee would review these types of situations to bring clarification and make changes where needed after CIF. Train Whistling A 60-day period has been added for railway companies to advise whether the crossing meets the required standards for anti-whistling. To streamline the process and to avoid lengthy delays where a municipal resolution has been passed and crossings have been upgraded as required. Page 15 of 22

16 Prescribed requirements in the proposed policy are the same as TC Guideline No. 1 Procedure & Conditions for Eliminating Whistling at Public Crossings. Previously, anti-whistling zones were grandfathered so this only applies to new anti-whistling applications. The RSA depends on prescribed requirements. The anti-whistling process will be more efficient if it is prescribed in the Regulations. The table and conditions would remain the same. Comments/Questions Q1: The 60-day period applies to what? A1: Once the municipality finalizes their resolution, they will have to notify the railway company whether or not the crossing meets the conditions for anti-whistling. The railway company must notify the municipality if it doesn t meet the conditions within 60-days. Once the crossing meets the applicable standards, the railway company must immediately cease whistling. Comment from the railway industry: Part of the application for an exemption is an assessment that must be completed by the municipality (by a professional engineer) which the railways then use to complete the assessment. That 60-day period should not start until the railways have that assessment. The trigger for the 60 days as written in the Regulations would be of significance to the railways. Transport Canada s response: The RSA defines the process; it s codified in the Act. That exact timing should be based on precedence going forward. When the Regulations come-into-force, requirements for whistling cessation would then be prescribed as noted in the Act. Where there is a disagreement, the Minister would decide. Action: Transport Canada will look more in depth at defining the trigger for the 60-day period. Comment from the railway industry: If we are relying on precedence being set we would like to know upfront what the intent is of the introduction of a prescriptive requirement of 60-days. Comment from a road authority: This is not a one size fits all and urges TC not to create a rule that requires a safety assessment be completed. Q2: Could you clarify or did TC indicate that the reverse onus is on the railway if the requirements are not met? This would have a significant impact on cost. A2: Yes, the only person using a whistle is a railway employee, so that puts the onus on the railway. It is a process defined by parliament. Maintenance, Testing and Inspection TC has decreased the inspection frequency for interconnected devices from 2 times annually to once annually for traffic signal pre-emption, traffic signals installed in lieu of warning systems and PTSS. Industry best practices use these reduced timelines for these devices. Page 16 of 22

17 TC has removed broad requirements for any other information related to crossings as a record keeping item. All record keeping items related to maintenance, testing and inspection will be specifically prescribed in the RRGCS.. When maintaining records for a crossing, TC will not require the version number of the warning system software. It would be recommended but it will not be prescribed by regulation. This was too broad and potentially difficult to enforce while being costly for railways to maintain. This requirement was deemed overly prescriptive. Comments/Questions Q1: Regarding the decreased inspection frequency, would the Regulations indicate that testing of interconnected traffic control devices are joint inspections? A1: Yes, it would concern both the road authority and the railway. For example, TC prescribes that inspections of the traffic signal pre-emption and PTSS be done jointly. Temporary Protection Measures This section has been simplified while still accounting for all cases that would trigger temporary protection measures. Planned Work: Work at grade crossings or in the vicinity of crossings: Consultation shall occur to ensure both parties are communicating. This section was overly prescriptive. Requirements are now more broad, but still cover the detailed cases outlined in previous versions of the draft RRGCR. Wording simplified for clarity. Similar intent to previous versions. Maintenance, Testing and Inspection: Responsible authorities must agree on the technical guidelines for the protection of road users at a crossing. Page 17 of 22

18 Unplanned Work: Failure or malfunction: The responsible authority is expected to immediately protect against unsafe conditions. Whether or not this means temporarily closing the crossing or ceasing train operations, they must notify all other responsible authorities and ensure the safe and orderly flow of road users. The failure or malfunction should be repaired as soon as possible. If there is a failure or malfunction, it s expected that a record of that particular malfunction be kept for at least two years. Wording simplified for clarity. Similar intent to previous versions. This helps in determining whether temporary protection is being implemented properly and also to see the types of systems that are failing and malfunctioning on a regular basis. When completing Maintenance, Testing and Inspection activities, the safe and orderly flow of road users and rail traffic must be ensured, depending on the situation. Both parties should communicate when that type of work is planned. Questions/Comments: Q1: has the keeping of records for failure and malfunction been changed to two years? A1: Partially to reduce the cost incurred by keeping records. Action: Transport Canada will respond to Transports Québec on why exactly it has changed. Timelines Timelines for sharing of information have been extended from year 2 to year 7 after CIF. The basic standards for public/private crossings will be required to be met at year 7 after CIF. Previously, they were required at year 5 after CIF for public crossings. To allow for better prioritization and engineering flexibility. Railways and road authorities felt like they didn t have enough time and they didn t have sufficient human resources. They would rather see costs spread out over a longer period of time. At year zero, or CIF, it is expected that current guidelines and regulations be upheld. Over time, due to alterations and operational changes, all grade crossings will be upgraded to the highest standard. It is up to railway companies, road authorities and beneficiaries to decide how these upgrades will be prioritized and completed. Questions/Comments: Comment from the railway industry: A lot of those basic standards are the railway s responsibility but it depends on obtaining information from the road authority on items such as design vehicles. Industry feels that TC has taken away the little power TC had in terms of ensuring that the information is provided to the railway in a timely manner. That may result in the railway being in non-compliance if the work has not been completed in accordance with the timelines because of the missing information. Page 18 of 22

19 Transport Canada s response: For the sharing of information, when information is requested, it pertains to the fundamental safety of the crossing. That information is necessary to determine the level of safety at the crossing. Therefore, if information is requested it must be provided in a reasonable time. TC did not set deadlines to provide the information as some information may take longer to obtain than others. The authority is still there. If a responsible authority makes a request, the other is expected to respond. Q1: Does that also apply to private crossing owners? Industry has had issues with getting that information from private crossing owners. A1: Any beneficiary or railway company can ask any of the other stakeholders for information relative to safety of the crossing. Under the prescribed requirements, they have to provide that information in a timely manner. Train Operations This has been a contentious issue for both railway companies and road authorities and TC recognizes that there are gaps in existing legislation. TC is looking for suggestions from both parties on a solution. Questions/Comments Q1: Would upgrades required to meet the standards in the Regulations be eligible under the GCIP for existing crossings? A1: Again, the GCIP and the Regulations should never be linked. The GCIP allows any railway or road authority to apply for funds for safety improvements TC makes a determination regarding the overall priority. Parliament decides the amount of funds allotted to the program. General Discussion Q1: The railway industry provided a full table of costs expected from these regulatory requirements and compliments TC on how many of these issues/demands have been met. The railway industry has planned to complete many upgrades from passive crossings from their analysis. Do you see these numbers being reduced as a result of the modifications? Did TC evaluate the left over costs in terms of defining the seven years? Did you agree with the numbers that were provided? A1: TC is still reviewing these costs, including the additional clarification that was requested. In modifying the policy, it is expected that a lot of the costs that were identified will now be removed from the equation. TC feels that the benefits are still very strong. Comment from the railway industry: The industry must know how much it is going to cost the railways. We have to assess what impact it will have on operations and the industry in general. Transport Canada s response: Yes, that is the purpose of consultations and the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) that will be summarized in the RIAS. Comment from a road authority: From a municipal perspective, the FCM needs a full understanding of costs before the RIAS and the Regulations are published in Canada Gazette, Part I. The modifications are very welcomed and we appreciate the time that TC has taken to meet with all stakeholders, especially our member from Langley. We feel it s important to get some guidance from TC on the important changes that could reduce the cost implications. The major components are the basic standards and the triggers for alterations and operational changes. Page 19 of 22

20 Comment from the railway industry: The railway industry agrees that there are significant changes that will reduce the cost but it s difficult to get a real understanding without knowing what they are. It is important that TC advises stakeholders on how the proposed modifications may have impacted those costs. The industry would like to look at these to see if they concur. Comment from the railway industry: The railway industry would like to provide updated costs to TC for the RIAS and the CBA due to the significant modifications. Very detailed costs have been provided to TC and they would like to see how the costs may have been impacted by the modifications because it might be an opportunity for further dialogue. Transport Canada s response: Yes, TC is currently in the process of looking at how the modifications affect the numbers the industry provided. Action: TC is currently in the process of looking at how the modifications will impact costs. Once TC has fully reviewed this they will seek comments from the industry. Q2: Are the Regulations now subject to the Small Business Lens? Will any feedback or information be provided on how these Regulations could impact small businesses like short lines? A2: Yes, these Regulations are subject to the Small Business Lens component. TC must complete a flexibility analysis on the proposed policy for the small businesses that have been identified by your association. Action: Transport Canada will meet with RAC to discuss the Small Business Lens and how it affects short line railways. Q3: What are the basic standards? A3: The basic standards include but are not limited to sightlines, signage, approach time, alignment of light units, SRCS requirements and anything that would be critical to safety. A stop sign would be an example of a basic standard requirement or if a warning system was required to mitigate a lack of sightlines, then the warning system would be a basic standard. Q4: There were also some basic standards related to the interconnection with advanced warning systems or traffic signals. Crossing designers looked at the costs to comply with this requirement and suggested, it would be a significant cost for the road authority. Are those still in there? A4: The requirement for Prepare to Stop at Railway Crossing Signs still exists in the RRGCS section 14. RRGCS section 15.3 on traffic signal pre-emption has been removed from the basic standards. Therefore, if the ITE preemption practices manual is not met at year seven, it does not necessarily mean non-compliance. If the required standard isn t met, the pre-emption systems will be grandfathered. Q5: Will the railways be receiving responses to each individual comment given during the consultation process that TC tabulated in a spreadsheet? A5: TC has compiled a draft sheet that answers CN s specific comments. That could also be done for CP and RAC if needed. TC s proposed solution is outlined for each individual comment in the spreadsheet. Action: TC will meet with the rail industry to discuss their comments made throughout the consultation process and how each individual comment was addressed. Page 20 of 22