How to cross railway tracks

17 comments

1. I question whether having more level crossings is a good thing in an urban environment. It slows rail traffic down, it forces the driver to blow the horn (which is really loud) and it’s generally unsafe because a small, but not insignificant, number of people will try to jump the gate and run the risk of getting pulverized. There are only a handful of those overhead walkways in the city; for the most part, the road underpasses with their grade-separated sidewalks do the trick quite nicely.

2. I am not so sure if this is really as big of a deal as he contends. Predestrian level crossings might work in some areas but in many areas a level crossing could could create pressure for a full level crossing, especially on the Weston line where drivers dream of shortcuts, regardless of how they might effect a community. I found Brooks story a bit of a mish mash of ideas and it was evident to me that his research about the Wallace Avenue Bridge was, well, not really research. As I wrote to Now…..

   Roger Brook’s April 12 report about the recently discovered “problem” presented by bridges could have benefited by more context, common sense, and accuracy.

   The poor old Wallace Avenue Bridge was saved by local residents some years back because they felt it helped create a vibrant community and represented one of the few remaining links to the areas industrial history. While it has many stairs, using it offers exercise, a great view, and a safe lit path at night.

   In fact many do use it, every day. I know because my wife and I do and we can see the bridge from our house a block away. Old people use it, people carry groceries over it, and lots of bicyclists use its tire ruts when using its stairs. But according to Brook most people don’t like the bridge as evidenced by fact he has spotted “hundreds” of people crossing the rail line under the bridge while he was watching it one day. “Hundreds”? Over the 6 years I have lived near the bridge I have never seen hundreds of people crossing under the bridge. Do people cross illegally? Absolutely and in fact a few people live in the woods next to the rail line and are often seen walking the rails. But “hundreds”? Sorry but this is a fabrication designed to support a story angle in search of facts.

   If Brook knew anything about the area he would find that for many the bridge is beloved as it provides a pedestrian friendly route whereas a level crossing, costing millions, would open the floodgates to car through-traffic that would overwhelm this working class community; doing far more damage than whatever invented problem he thinks is going on now. In fact the combination of rail line and bridge has protected this area and kept traffic on arterial roads for generations. And it has done the same for our friends on the other side on Glenlake Avenue. Fortunately, despite Brook’s attempt to play it down, environmentally friendly rail traffic on the Weston line and others in the area is on the increase as evidenced by ongoing EA’s and current rail construction. Throw in the much more modest money the City is spending this year to create the West End Rail Path and this lovely area will be safe from cars and stupid ideas for years to come.

3. I never understood why Toronto doesn’t have level crossings for pedestrians. I just moved to the Junction area and it is a fairly split community because of all the tracks surrounding it. In my opinion the Wallace overpass is a bit overwhelming and doesn’t do much to connect Dundas Street to Perth. Avenue. That area of the track would be ideal to put a level crossing or two because visibility is excellent, it would almost be impossible not to see a train coming. With proper signalling crossing would be safe and easy to do. The new West Toronto Railpath will have very poor connections to the West side of the tracks. Level crossings on Humberside and Jerome would make ideal connections to the new park and would bring both communities on each side of the track together. Dundas in that area is also very busy with cars, crossing a busy street and then a rail track can be challenging for children and the elderly, so there should be a few light signs installed between Bloor and Annette to slow traffic. Other ideal level crossing would be in the Liberty Village area. There should be a crossing connecting Dovercourt to Atlantic and another crossing at the foot of Sudbury going right behind the Dominion’s, those connections would also help enhance the possible future expansion of the West Toronto Railpath. It is time that CN start adapting itself to the city and not the other way around, the tracks that cross Toronto are not servicing an industrial based economy anymore and it should now adapt to the needs of the city. Industrial areas downtown are not the wastelands they used to be, vibrant communities are popping up there and they should all be connected regardless of the tracks.

4. > If Brook knew anything about the area he would find
   > that for many the bridge is beloved as it provides a
   > pedestrian friendly route whereas a level crossing,
   > costing millions, would open the floodgates to car
   > through-traffic that would overwhelm this working
   > class community

   Level crossing needn’t necessarily equal car crossing. There is no reason one couldn’t build pedestrian-only level crossings.

   > it’s generally unsafe because a small, but not
   > insignificant, number of people will try to jump the > gate and run the risk of getting pulverized

   As the NOW article points out, there are unofficial unauthorized level crossings all over the city already. People will be using them anyway and that is far more dangerous.

5. I would agree with Scott’s observation regarding the number of people who cross the tracks (at level) near the Wallace Street bridge. I frequent the bridge, and while I sometimes see a few people wandering around the tracks, they don’t look like they are crossing, but rather walking along the ROW that will become Railpath.

   I also frequenty use the bridge over the tracks at Pape, just north of Gerrard, and I’ve NEVER seen anybody crossing at level.

6. Brook maybe should have picked a better rail corridor to talk about. He doesnt know the particulars of the Weston line and Wallace bridge area. In fact there IS a full level crossing 2 blocks east that he fails to mention and it works really well, thats because it is a line that is mostly GO rush hour or night time industrial.

   And predestrian crosings are a cool idea in the right place.The Wallace bridge, over a very busy corridor used by more than one rail company, is not the right place. To build a predestrian crossing here would indeed cost millions of dollars and lead to a chorus of car users saying lets make it a full level crossing (anybody who lives in the area knows how the corridor has meant only 3 east west roads- Bloor, Dupont and St.Clair). In this case the rail lineand bridge is actually protecting the community from attempts to ease traffic pressure being created by the box stores on Keele. Its the opposite of the pressure that residents in Weston are fighting where level crossings may be removed.

   I don’t know why he just did not do a case study on an area where this would really work instead of picking on a bridge that most people like and by using speculative information.

7. Another write up in Spacing that seems to come from a race without children. No-one is going to take two kids and a baby in a stroller across a 3 or 4 track level crossing. A long-ramp bridge like the ones found crossing the Lakeshore at the foot of Roncesvalles makes far more sense. I’m reasonably sure that more people have children ages 1-10 at any given time than have limited mobility in society – perhaps just not in the Spacing demographic. Has anyone even considered the liability issues? Do you not remember the removal wholesale of kids playclimbers in schools a few years ago, motivated by fears of rising premiums?

   The reality is that there is minimal economic logic to connecting the communities on either side of the tracks. The tracks, in fact, provide a logic and a containment to the area – particularly the Perth/Symington area above Bloor and below the East-West train line north of Dupont. As that area gentrifies, its viability will depend on a degree of containment that can build a market for local shops. As it is, a primary reason to cross the tracks is to give your money to non-community oriented vendors like the Price Chopper on Dundas at Chelsea. That money would be better focussed on building viable businesses in the Lansdowne/Bloor area, which could use the help.

   And yes, I live in the area: Indian Road Cres. near Abbot, with close friends and family on the other side.

8. The NOW article suggests that people are actually fined for crossing tracks. Personally, when crossing our tracks (behind 48 Abell to get groceries from the Liberty Village Dominion) I find the rail workers to be more than accommodating, and when I flash an LED at them, they even smile, wait and wave me across!

   Personally, though, a tunnel seems like the best (albeit most expensive) idea, although it would certainly create undesirables.

   In all my experience crossing our tracks, I think I have only had to wait for a train twice.

9. I admit is is hard to outline all my points in one article which may have led to some confusion. I’ll try to clear some of the many comments…

   “It slows rail traffic down, it forces the driver to blow the horn (which is really loud) and it’s generally unsafe”

   The city has had two pedestrian-only level crossings on the Stouffville GO line in Scarborough for decades. After retrofitting them with signals and a mini-crossing arm they recommended eliminating train whistles in the area last month.
   http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-2185.pdf
   In Quebec City the presence of illegal crossings caused the government to force the railways to slow down. Once a signalized pedestrian crossing was installed normal speeds resumed. Pedestrians wait for trains- trains don’t wait for pedestrians. http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/1999/R/57-R-1999_e.html

   If you consider 4 Canadian deaths a year (including suicides) to be unacceptable then you should be interested in lowering the speed limit to 10kph which would save the lives of thousands of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Of course then you’d be curbing the mobility of drivers not pedestrians.

   “The poor old Wallace Avenue Bridge was saved by local residents some years back because they felt it helped create a vibrant community and represented one of the few remaining links to the areas industrial history.”

   I love the handsome Wallace Avenue pedestrian Bridge and was in agreement with those who didn’t want looping ramps installed at meetings in 1996. I just think that pedestrians and cyclists should have a choice between a level crossing and 112 stairs.

   “But according to Brook most people don’t like the bridge as evidenced by fact he has spotted “hundreds” of people crossing the rail line under the bridge while he was watching it one day. “Hundreds”?

   My actual words: I noticed that while most pedestrians accepted the grueling 60-stair climb, over a hundred others scampered across the rails on illegal paths located just below.

   I spent 4 days at 4 illegal crossings counting and interviewing people who crossed the Weston line at 4 separate level crossings (sun-up to sun-down). One thing to be known about level crossings is that some may stay open for years, while others are shut down on a daily basis depending on property ownership, and complaints etc.
   There were 3 illegal access points on the southwest side that were closed the last time I visited the site 2 weeks ago. The artist building that was abandoned had access points on both sides which were closed off for construction. Also the opening in the fence at the Price Chopper/Shoppers drug mart was also patched up. Ease of access has a great influence on how many people cross on a particular day. I had to change survey locations one morning when a large truck parked in front of my chosen opening, blocking it. Most people won’t climb fences.

   “If Brook knew anything about the area he would find that for many the bridge is beloved as it provides a pedestrian friendly route whereas a level crossing, costing millions,..”

   The reason few bridges have been built is their high cost, space needs and the knowledge that people try to avoid grade-separated infrastructure whenever choices are available.
   Level crossings can be as low as $15,000 for the bare bones models found on the bike trail north on Lakeshore Blvd. and east of Parliament. With full safety features they run about $120,000 to
   $180,000. New pedestrian bridges have to be accessible and contain ramps whenever grade changes are involved. They range from $500,000 to a million dollars and pedestrian tunnels are much more than that. Exceptional circumstances can raise costs for all crossing types or make certain types impractical. The main point is that if transportation engineers allowed pedestrian crossings to be built we could afford many crossings, not just one every decade or so.

   “..costing millions, would open the floodgates to car through-traffic that would overwhelm this working class community; doing far more damage than whatever invented problem he thinks is going on now.”

   The transportation department has gotten rid of over a hundred level crossings in Toronto over the years and continues to eliminate more.
   The travel needs of cars and pedestrians are different. Grade separated infrastructure allows ambulances a reliable routing, it prevents grid-lock and traffic back-ups from cars lined up waiting for trains. Cars don’t mind going an extra kilometre out of the way as long as the route is fast. Grade changes caused by tunnels and bridges don’t bother drivers who merely have to push down on the pedal a little harder.
   It is pedestrians and to a lesser extent cyclists who need frequent crossings and direct routes to ensure a quick convenient trip. There are quite a few legal level pedestrian crossings in Canada and I have never heard of a case where one was turned into a road crossing.

   “Fortunately, despite Brook’s attempt to play it down, environmentally friendly rail traffic on the Weston line and others in the area is on the increase as evidenced by ongoing EA’s and current rail construction. ”

   Great, and if we ever get one GO train every ten minutes I see no reason to block pedestrians and cyclists during the other 9 minutes considering the reliable technology that allows safe passage. The Blue-22 proposal, which I oppose in its current form, contains neither restrictions on the fare the corporation can charge nor how often it must run the service. If we ever get regular 1-minute frequencies along our rail lines then people will stop crossing illegally and bridges or tunnels will become a practical option. Not even the most optimistic long range plans have proposed anything like this for many decades.

   “Throw in the much more modest money the City is spending this year to create the West End Rail Path and this lovely area will be safe from cars and stupid ideas for years to come.”

   The rail path is only as good as its connections to neighbourhoods along it. Any ramps for crossings would have to be built outside the rail corridor and will make crossing inconvenient. The city is still trying to figure out how to get Railpath across the little-used Bradford line. Without a level crossing they’ll need an expensive inconvenient solution considering the 7-metre height clearance.

   “Brook maybe should have picked a better rail corridor to talk about. He doesnt know the particulars of the Weston line and Wallace bridge area. In fact there IS a full level crossing 2 blocks east that he fails to mention and it works really well”

   My article focused on level pedestrian crossings, as it is the city’s goal to eliminate all level road crossings regardless of their safety record. Due to article length I also didn’t have a chance to mention the Paton Road pedestrian tunnel just a block to the south of the Wallace level crossing. It was built in the late 70’s and closed due to safety issues. You can still see the rusting concrete pedestrian entrances on both sides of the tracks.

   “Has anyone even considered the liability issues? Do you not remember the removal wholesale of kids playclimbers in schools a few years ago, motivated by fears of rising premiums?”

   Insurers are in the business of risk. Without frequent minor or major injuries or deaths insurance rates are managable. The cost of level crossings including insurance are many times cheaper than grade-separated crossings. Cost, including maintenance is actually one of their great advantages.

   “The reality is that there is minimal economic logic to connecting the communities on either side of the tracks.”

   The area is already connected by car. The way we have shaped our railway corridors has turned them into barriers to pedestrians and cyclists, which means they are disconnected. Dundas Avenue, which hugs the tracks in this area, used to be lined with walk-in businesses which are now mostly empty, ill-used or converted to housing. First the tracks came, then gradually the local access was blocked along with most of the local market. The result is 2 new chain stores which are dependent on lots of free parking to enlarge the market by relying on vehicles to bring in customers.

   “The NOW article suggests that people are actually fined for crossing tracks. Personally, when crossing our tracks (behind 48 Abell to get groceries from the Liberty Village Dominion)..”

   I surveyed this crossing as well, which has survived for years thanks to ongoing construction and people damaging a gate when it was locked. In surveying locations I found that two locations had a high fear of enforcement while the other two crossings had a low fear of enforcement. Your crossing was one of the two low ones.

   “In all my experience crossing our tracks, I think I have only had to wait for a train twice.”

   Makes you think

10. dan> The Spacing demographic has some kids. Two of 6 editors here indeed have born fruit. There are a lot more variables than “kids” when looking at this stuff, but I have observed at times parents tend only to look at the kid variable when they have one.

11. It is time that CN start adapting itself to the city and not the other way around, the tracks that cross Toronto are not servicing an industrial based economy anymore and it should now adapt to the needs of the city.

    That depends of what needs you think the city has. Considering that trains emit much less pollution than trucks or cars, and electric trains emit no local pollution at all, I fail to see how we serve the needs of the city by dismantling the rail network and leaving the job of bringing goods into the city to the trucking industry.

    By all means, if we can have pedestrian level crossings without compromising either safety or rail traffic, let us do so. But let us not put all our sipping and personal transportation onto the roads, and then delude ourselves we have somehow gone beyond the industrial economy of the past.

12. Shawn> even if a parent does ‘think only of kids’, so what? I haven’t heard that argument applied to people in wheelchairs: “people with disabilities only think of people with disabilities”, etc. Try it out and get back to me about how it went over. I emphasized only the issue of children in the interests of brevity.

    Roger> the closing of the station at Annette and Dundas, I think, had a bit to do with the reduced viability of storefronts on Dundas. And that station was, in fact, on the railway tracks, tha being what it was there for. The tracks, and the bridge were there already, and have nothing to do with barriers: the areas were always distinct. If you go to the Annette St Library just west, you can see the large map of the area, showing the tracks well established, and the lots laid out but largely undeveloped.

    The closing of the half-dozen or so urban blight industries in the area – piano factory, slaughterhouse and packing plant, dry goods elevators – also had more than a bit to do with the shift from small retail.

    As for, ‘the areas are already connected by car’, you pointed out that ‘Cars don’t mind going an extra kilometre out of the way as long as the route is fast.’ . Cars provide no logic to go from Dundas west of the tracks to Perth east of the tracks. Those with a car will probably go to whatever area provides cheap convenient goods within a twenty minute drive, and that area has many choices.

    The argument against bridges on cost – $120000 (low level crossing figure) vs $1m (high bridge figure) is essentially the Pinto argument: do it the cheap way, we can pay for the lawsuits with the money we save. I don’t think many people think that argument is a good one. Unlike a Pinto, which might be on the road for 10 years, this is an infrastructure decision that, like the viaducts, bridges and tunnels in the area that are 100 years old and still functioning, promises to provide an ongoing liability for generations. One lawsuit in the first year could easily obliterate the cost difference, and every year would provide the chance to be sued again.

13. The “Pinto” argument above is based on an assumption that the signalized level crossing would be unduly dangerous, but there is no evidence for this assumption. On the contrary, the evidence so far is that they are safe and effective.

    On the liability issue, presuming the signals work correctly, there would be no liability as a pedestrian would only be hit if they behaved illegally by ignoring the signals.

    Furthermore, the cost of pedestrian bridges means that few, if any, will be built. If signalled level crossings (which, again, have not so far proved dangerous) replace illegal crossing points in places where bridges would not be built for cost reasons, then in fact there is an increase in safety.

14. Dylan> clearly, crossing railway tracks is dangerous. A warning system can only mitigate danger, not eliminate it. So the comparison is between a safe condition (no-one on the tracks) and a mitigated dangerous one (people on the tracks + warnings) can only lead a reasonable person to conclude that danger is increased, and that the railway consents to this increased danger. I really don’t know what ‘unduly’ means in this case: but I would not want to explain to the relative of a dead person that the crossing wasn’t “unduly” dangerous.

    If the argument is that people are on the tracks anyway, they are by ignoring the obstacles and warnings provided. That’s where liablity would be avoided. The railway has done what a reasonable person would do to avoid dangeroul situations. A hole in the fence, reported and unrepaired would certainly affect liability. So, even in a case where the objective is prohibition, there is liability on the part of the railway. It’s not possible to argue that there would be ‘no liability’ when the railway in effect adds more signs up but makes the hole in the fence themselves.

    Now: take a recent model Peg Perego stroller, load it with two kids, both fighting, one sick. Hang a few days’ groceries off the handles, and try to cross a streetcar track, where the vehicle speed is under 30km and stopping distances are under 30 meters. Now try three rail lines. Time yourself. Add an iPod. Add an unfamiliarity with the language on the signs. Add bad weather. Add a cel phone. If you like, add a disability like poor vision, and forget to bring your glasses. Add a small amount of bad judgement. Now, tell me again about these level crossings.

    Now consider the crossing at rush hour. Set the trains at every ten minutes. Consider what the average crossing time is for the person with the stroller. Now at minimum, double it, to provide a safety margin. Now calculate the interaction of multiple trains on different tracks. Consider how one train makes it impossible to see or hear a train coming behind it. What you will end up with is a few minutes an hour when crossings can be safely effected, on no particular schedule. Now consider that people have a clear message that crossing is OK, the reduction of attentiveness that comes from familiarity, and what you have is a formula to guarantee that people will take chances, misjudge, and ultimately die. In court, it will be pointed out by the grieving family’s lawyer that this situation exists, the railway knew about it, and did nothing about it. So much for ‘no liablity’.

    As for the argument that separated grade crossings cost more, so fewer will be built: how many do you think are needed, beyond the one that exists between Dundas and Wallace on that stretch of track? I have not seen lineups to use the existing bridge, and I also haven’t seen people in throngs on the tracks. And if a level crossing is a solution there, what about areas like Dundas east of Scarlett, where a big new Loblaws should be serving the people across ten or fifteen lines of switchyard?

    The level crossing argument is an argument for its own sake: it ignores basic realities, in my opinion.

    I should also add that a very close old friend is a recently retired engineer who has run freight and passengers on that route, and throughout the Windsor/Ottawa corridor for 25 years. I sent him the link to this thread and asked him to comment, and he laughed for about 5 minutes, and said, “Dan, there’s no point.”

15. “The tracks, and the bridge were there already, and have nothing to do with barriers: the areas were always distinct. If you go to the Annette St Library just west, you can see the large map of the area, showing the tracks well established, and the lots laid out but largely undeveloped.”

    The article points out that railway tracks in themselves did not present much of a barrier to pedestrians when frequent convenient crossing points are present. The dead end streets in the area to the west used to be through roads that allowed pedestrians and cyclists quick passage between the stores on Dundas and the neighourhood to the west. Crossings were blocked one by one, leading to gradual separation and the death of commercial Dundas Street in this area.

    Certainly there were other factors over the years (industrial decline, decline of local transit, higher car-ownership), but you can’t cut off local walk in businesses from most of their market and not expect changes.

    In my opinion the decision to cut the area in two (making many trips on foot impractical) contributed somewhat to lower transit use on this section of the former Dundas streetcar, higher car use and lower overall patronage of local stores that lack abundant free parking.

16. I know this is pedantic, but opinion and facts seem to be at odds.

    This image,

    http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/CPR_Toronto/westtorontodiamond1923.jpg

    from 1923, shows no level crossings on the line heading a substantial distance south of the junction.

    This image

    http://www.boldts.net/photos/TorJu1.jpeg

    from 1980, further down the tracks, shows no level crossings there.

    This image

    http://www.boldts.net/photos/TorJu4.jpeg

    from the late 70’s early 80’s shows the old station. The one level crossing that I can see, for cars, is the existing level crossing on Junction street: to the south is the level crossing of the east west main rail line. There are no other level crossings.

    Finally, this image, from 1920

    http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/Toronto/junction/weston_road_bridge.jpg

    shows no level crossings, but does show the grade-separation of Old Weston Road and the east west line. This illustrates to me, at least, the clear understanding of the risks of level crossings, and explains why the Wallace Street bridge was built.

    A glance down Dundas does not show thriving businesses, but marginal workers housing, light warehousing and east of the tracks the non-residential, industrial area that was supposedly cut off. To the south of the station is a level crossing, but no evidence that this was anything other than a railway company crossing, something universally found. These typically had locked sliding gates to prevent pedestrians from crossing: this may or may not be the case here and in this era.

    There never were level crossings. The areas were, and are separated. The death of the eight or ten retail stores on Dundas near Annette was because of the closure of the station, which was the result of the closure of the meat packing plant – one of the most foul and toxic industries in Toronto, and other industries in the 80’s and 90’s. Such small businesses exist east of the tracks as well: there is no reason for anyone to walk ten blocks to them. If community support were the key, there are plenty of people living west of Dundas and east of Keele.

17. I’m arriving a bit late for this topic, but feel compelled to comment as I live in the Junction area and have two different level crossings within a block of my house, one on Old Weston which has four sets of tracks and Osler which also has four sets of tracks. I would love to see some sort of pedestrian friendly crossing for the tracks on Old Weston that would connect over to Dundas West (and the remaining section of Old Weston on the other side of the tracks, which got chopped up and separated as a result of demolishing the bridge that was there until about 20 years ago). The comments about crossing with a stroller and small children, while in full agreement of the difficulty and inconvenience, are a daily occurrence for the residents of this working class neighbourhood.
    Try hauling a shopping buggy full of groceries across four sets of tracks, especially those on the diagonal like Old Weston.
    To get from Davenport/Old Weston to Dundas/Keele for example requires crossing tracks and then walking along a rather bleak stretch of Junction Road. I really feel the Junction area gets the short end of the stick in this respect, especially for those who are not car owners, whether by choice or for financial reasons, as there does not seem to be much consideration given for pedestrians or cyclists in creating a system that connects communities and neighbourhoods in a safe and convenient fashion. The Railpath is a very welcome addition to the neighbourhood, but it does not address the issue of making level crossings such as the one’s cited any safer or more convenient for pedestrians, buggy pushers or cyclists.
    Underpasses are not much better, as I’m sure those of you familiar with bridge crossing St. Clair West between Old Weston and Keele will attest.
    It’s long, dank, dark and filled with car fumes from the cars and trucks that overload that stretch of St. Clair. I’d rather take my chances on crossing the tracks than have to go under that bridge. I wish our local councillors would take more interest in this. It doesn’t help that the tracks are what form the boundary of two different wards so you’re having to deal with two councillors.
    It’s bad enough having to deal with one!