GO Transit

[Acitta]

It's true. But with the gates down, lights flashing and bells sounding, that does indicate some level of danger in crossing those tracks.

Not to mention the signs indicating multiple tracks. If I remember correctly, the video shows behaviour that is plainly irresponsible and obviously self-destructive, and we should not be looking for excuses to push the responsibility anywhere other than where it belongs, on the person who ignored an extensive installation of safety equipment working properly to warn them away from the area.

It is easy to think that the warnings pertained to the train that was visible. Two people safely crossed before the two people who were hit, so it was easy for them to conclude that it was safe to cross. It wasn't clear to them that there was another train which they couldn't see which didn't blow its horn. One of the changes as a result of this investigation is that trains are now supposed to blow their horn. You are right that technically the adult pedestrian was at fault, but the report makes it clear that poor crossing design was a factor.

[KevinL]

I'm of two minds about that article. It would not surprise me at all that there are regulatory gaps in the system, but it seems that the sheer neglect/stupidity on display by the child's guardian is now being completely overlooked.

...and she's now suing.

[danbrotherston]

We act like this with car crashes, why not train crashes.

It does not matter who is at fault, what matters is preventing it from happening again.

Just because we can "blame" the person who was hit does not mean there are not mitigating factors which could be addressed. The article indicates that CN routinely exceeds the 5 minute delay for the crossing when doing switching work, with lots of spurious activations. That clearly encourages this behaviour.

Also, can you put yourself in the shoes of the people there? Did they just wait 5 minutes while no trains come, now one finally clears the intersection, how long would you wait? Would you be tempted? What if someone in front of you went through safely. Are you standing there with an anxious child? Are you late for your next activity because of the delay? We need to have empathy and not just demonize people.

(FWIW the same is probably true for drivers, but I also think that bad driver's behaviour is objectively less sympathetic and driving is an activity which we should demand higher standards for).

[neonjoe]

I hope at least this leads to a quicker implementation of grade separation.

[danbrotherston]

I'd like to see a grade separation there, but I'd also like to see a rationalization of the road design. Right now it's just a mess.

[ijmorlan]

I hope at least this leads to a quicker implementation of grade separation.

For pedestrians and bicycles. Close the road, it’s not needed.

[ijmorlan]

We act like this with car crashes, why not train crashes.

It does not matter who is at fault, what matters is preventing it from happening again.

Up to a point. I hope everybody understands that it is fundamentally impossible to protect against sufficiently irresponsible behaviour.

Just because we can "blame" the person who was hit does not mean there are not mitigating factors which could be addressed. The article indicates that CN routinely exceeds the 5 minute delay for the crossing when doing switching work, with lots of spurious activations. That clearly encourages this behaviour.

OK, that’s a good point. The spurious activations are especially concerning; when it comes to safety systems, it’s not actually “fail safe” to activate spuriously because it encourages people to ignore the signals. I remember seeing a video of a British rail crossing where the crossing “arms” are basically gates that, when closed, make it almost impossible to cross. Why were they “needed”? Because the crossing arms drop about 5 minutes, no exaggeration, before the train comes. Of course people ignored them.

Also, can you put yourself in the shoes of the people there? Did they just wait 5 minutes while no trains come, now one finally clears the intersection, how long would you wait? Would you be tempted? What if someone in front of you went through safely. Are you standing there with an anxious child? Are you late for your next activity because of the delay? We need to have empathy and not just demonize people.

(FWIW the same is probably true for drivers, but I also think that bad driver's behaviour is objectively less sympathetic and driving is an activity which we should demand higher standards for).

[tomh009]

We need to have empathy and not just demonize people.

Noting that there were multiple warnings telling people not to cross is not demonizing people.

Yes, additional warnings will be good, but that doesn't change the fact that she made a poor, high-risk decision to cross an acrive railway crossing -- and with a child in tow, yet.

[danbrotherston]

We need to have empathy and not just demonize people.

Noting that there were multiple warnings telling people not to cross is not demonizing people.

Yes, additional warnings will be good, but that doesn't change the fact that she made a poor, high-risk decision to cross an acrive railway crossing -- and with a child in tow, yet.

And the report raised several mitigating factors that influenced her decision. Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

Demonizing is a shortcut for saying.... "Well she made a poor, high-risk decision to cross an active railway crossing with a child in two"...and concluding that with..."Therefore SHE is the problem, not the railway crossing"

...I feel this is where many of the earlier comments here (and obviously everywhere else) were leading. It's exactly what we do for car crashes, and it's exactly the thinking that keeps us trapped in a dangerous, poorly designed world. If I'm wrong and that isn't where people were leading, then I'm sorry for misinterpreting.

It's also not the case that a report cannot place the blame on a specific individual. Some NTSB air crash investigations have come to that conclusion. But this report doesn't do that, it identifies specific mitigating factors, and it approached the situation with an open mind and didn't jump to conclusions.

It's great our accident investigators are able to do that. I wish they'd investigate all car crashes this way.

[tomh009]

Noting that there were multiple warnings telling people not to cross is not demonizing people.

Yes, additional warnings will be good, but that doesn't change the fact that she made a poor, high-risk decision to cross an acrive railway crossing -- and with a child in tow, yet.

And the report raised several mitigating factors that influenced her decision. Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

Demonizing is a shortcut for saying.... "Well she made a poor, high-risk decision to cross an active railway crossing with a child in two"...and concluding that with..."Therefore SHE is the problem, not the railway crossing"

That is not what I said. There were mitigating factors, but there were also many warnings, and most people at the crossing waited for the crossing to open. This situation likely occurs daily, and yet this is the only accident that I am aware of. So, I think it's not unreasonable to conclude that her decision and action also contributed to the accident.

[KevinT]

Perhaps cheaper than grade separation would just be flipping CN's yard around: There are 8 tracks in that yard, the closest 3 of which to the main tracks are also connected to the east. It appears there's enough land to connect the other 5 in the east as well, and with that done they could dead-end all the tracks in the west to eliminate the back-and-forth switching across Lancaster. No doubt CN would insist on being paid to do this by Metrolinx, and would heavily pad their numbers the same way they once soaked VIA Rail for the Kingston sub upgrades, but I bet it would still be a lot cheaper than grade separating Lancaster.

In theory that could create bottlenecks for GO's access to the Shirley layover yard, but not as much as you'd think. If you look closely, you'll see that GO can't directly access the west end of their yard from the south track without crossing over west of Lancaster anyways, so they're already regularly blocked out by CN's switching activities. Also, CN often parks cars for days on the north track under the River Rd pedestrian bridge, so I doubt that flipping their yard to east-only access would have much effect at all on GO, at least not today in a pre-AD2W world.

[ac3r]

Perhaps cheaper than grade separation would just be flipping CN's yard around

Freight companies releasing their grip on their assets? That's a nice fantasy. :'P CN and CP - heck even just short line railroads - are not known for giving things up or even negotiating, sadly.

[the_conestoga_guy]

The future of this intersection (Victoria/Lancaster/train tracks) is wildly interesting to me going forward, since there's so many competing interests.

We know that the main interchange for the future Highway 7 will be on Wellington, so traffic will likely need to be diverted off of Victoria Street. We also know that the Region is considering* a road diet for Victoria between Park Street and Highway 7 once the new highway is constructed. In my correspondence with Regional planners, I also know that they hope to include cycling facilities along this road as part of the diet. Lastly, we know that Metrolinx and CN would both love to have the railway grade separated.

I personally like the idea of closing this crossing to cars and maybe installing a pedestrian bridge to maintain an active transportation link. But I'm not sure if the fact that the adjacent fire station complicates matters, as that would lead to somewhat longer response times.

*considering =/= implementing. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...-04-24.PDF

[nms]

I don't think CN owns the yard anymore, but they have running rights over it.  Metrolinx owns it, which is why they are indicted in the TSB ruling.

The CBC KW story from February 9 provides a little more detail of how that crossing operates.

Through its investigation, the TSB found Metrolinx installed two east-facing cameras focusing on the gates in June 2020. Officials reviewed footage taken between June 23 and June 29 during 4 a.m. and 11 p.m., and found the crossing's warning devices were triggered 195 times, of which 129 were done by CN freight trains or switching assignments.

Of those 129 times, during 17 occurrences, vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists were delayed more than five minutes, which goes against Grade Crossing Regulations, said the TSB. On three occasions, delays were longer than 10 minutes, with 18 minutes recorded as the longest delay.

I can understand why pedestrians in particular would be frustrated waiting more than 10 minutes for the crossing to clear, especially if the train itself appeared to not be moving.

[westwardloo]

The future of this intersection (Victoria/Lancaster/train tracks) is wildly interesting to me going forward, since there's so many competing interests.

We know that the main interchange for the future Highway 7 will be on Wellington, so traffic will likely need to be diverted off of Victoria Street. We also know that the Region is considering* a road diet for Victoria between Park Street and Highway 7 once the new highway is constructed. In my correspondence with Regional planners, I also know that they hope to include cycling facilities along this road as part of the diet. Lastly, we know that Metrolinx and CN would both love to have the railway grade separated.

I personally like the idea of closing this crossing to cars and maybe installing a pedestrian bridge to maintain an active transportation link. But I'm not sure if the fact that the adjacent fire station complicates matters, as that would lead to somewhat longer response times.

*considering =/= implementing. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...-04-24.PDF

My question is, why not build a grade separated crossing similar to Margaret Ave? Lancaster at Victoria St is already higher than the rail crossing and could be built up easily. It would require remove access to the one garage property and the shell station, then some regrading to all Breithaupt meet Lancaster on the other side of the crossing. Lancaster is a major throughway, it may not seem like it compared to the suburban streets. Even after HWY 7 is built Lancaster will serve as a major connection for Bridgeport and Lancaster residents to get Downtown.  I think it would be a mistake for the region to close this crossing to car traffic, I do think it need to be grade separated so GO/ VIA trains can travel faster through that section. St. Leger st could be closed with a pedestrian bridge built though.