Today's date: Monday October 23, 2017
   
column width padding column width padding
The Wellington Advertiser Masthead Logo

We Cover The County...
39,925 Audited Circulation

WEEKLY POLL   |   Community News   |   EQUINE   |   Schools & Buses

Facebook Slug
Enhanced_728x90
column width padding column width padding

Flashing lights at railway intersection could prove costly

by Mike Robinson

ABERFOYLE - It’s uncertain if they will be a green light to install flashers at the railway crossing on Hume Road in Puslinch.

Although it has been suggested before, the idea came up again at a recent community forum where people heard the idea was proposed in 2008.

At that time, Tom Sagaskie of the Guelph Junction Railway indicated the crossing did not warrant flashing lights.

But suggestions which were made at the recent forum recommended the idea be included in the town’s road review to determine how to proceed.

Concerns were voiced over railway crossings on Watson and Arkell Roads as well because of increased vehicle and train traffic.

The most recent response from Sagaskie on Sept. 29 outlined what would need to be done, and the potential costs that could be incurred.

He stated the best approach would be to conduct a road and railway safety assessment as outlined in Transport Canada’s guide for crossing standards.

Such an assessment would be undertaken jointly by rail and road authorities.

He noted it involved survey work to establish sight lines and determine any visual obstructions.

He estimated that work alone would be roughly $10,000, with the cost to be shared between the railway and the township. Also required would be daily traffic counts along with accident histories to determine if changes are needed.

If warranted, there would need to be negotiations for cost sharing.

Sagaskie indicated guide flashers will cost roughly $135,000 per crossing, while installing gates would run about $225,000.

He said while a federal fund does exist, there is a multi-year backlog with funds generally directed to high speed areas with a history of accidents.

Council held little in the way of discussion regarding the information presented, but the matter was discussed more thoroughly at its Oct. 19 session.

 

October 21, 2011

 
 

Tell Us What You Think

Login to submit a comment

Comments appearing on this website are the opinion of the comment writer and do not represent the opinion of the Wellington Advertiser. Comments that attack other individuals or are offensive, unsubstantiated or otherwise inappropriate will be removed. You must register or log in in order to post a comment. For more information, read our detailed Comment Policy and Guidelines.

       

ReliableFord

Spacer

Wellington County

Related Stories

  • Success at last? Council to meet with CN
  • Ice schedule conflicts taking place at Aberfoyle ice pad
  • Proposal for shoulder paving on local highways may be impossible
  • Council wants more information before deciding on pit infilling
  • Stokley concerned with how costs will be covered
  • Shorter may be better for email addresses
  • Traffic counts may not be helpful in setting speed limits in Puslinch Township
  • Pedestrian bridge model should be investigated
  • Surplus farm home severance issue reaches Puslinch councillors
  • Cox Construction applies to expand gravel pit
  • Possible unity in water protection rules?
  • Year one: Dennis Lever sees much to be proud of in Puslinch
  • McClintock trailer park applies for sewage upgrades
  • Puslinch development charges to jump 4.3%
  • Resident offers idea for future focus for Puslinch
  • Puslinch council concerned residents may foot bill to protect city water supply
  • column width padding column width padding column width padding

    The Wellington Advertiser

    News

    Opinion

    Community

    Deaths

    Digital Publications

    Classifieds


    Twitter Logo

    Free Press News Network Logo