Railway crossing upgrades grudgingly approved

By Cal Braid
Taber Times
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

Canadian Pacific Railway grabbed the attention of Town councillors at an April 8 regular meeting. A recent CPR inspection of the 50 St. crossing determined that it will now require a cantilevered light unit on the south approach to keep both crossings in compliance with Transport Canada standards. As a formality, the Town’s administration asked council to ‘approve’ a mandatory, non-negotiable project.

The council agenda package explained that the costs for crossing maintenance in Canada are apportioned by Government Order. For this particular crossing, the Town of Taber will be apportioned 50 per cent of an estimated $166,852 cost. The estimate was attached to the agenda, and it broke down the cost components. CPR will submit an application to Transport Canada seeking funding for 50 per cent of the estimated price, or approximately $83,426.

A grant portal may open before Nov. 28, 2024 and an amount may be approved by Transport Canada. If funded, the Town’s share of the cost could be brought down to 25 per cent or $41,713. Transport Canada’s railway crossing regulations and standards have been amended to include a risk-based approach to existing crossings. “High priority crossings (public, track speed of 60 mph or more, and 10 trains per day or more) must meet the requirements by Nov. 28, 2022 and other crossings by Nov. 28, 2024, with some exclusions,” the agenda said. So the project must proceed, but there were grumblings as council questioned not only the new crossing standards, but CPR’s estimates as well. Materials were estimated at $52,800, but it was the labour costs that stirred up discontent. Labour was broken down into installation-$29,000, statutory leave-$8,410, supervision and administration- $18,270, and travel and expenses-$8,700 — for a total of $64,380. An additional $25,000 was tacked on for ‘services,’ meaning engineering design, transport, and equipment rentals.

“What if we say no?” Coun. Brewin asked. “It seems like these guys put the lights up and they didn’t put the proper ones up. We have no choice with CPR. They say – we do.”

Chris Eagan, director of planning, engineering and operations, presented the facts to council, and he replied, “They will bring the crossing up to their safety standards and then they will send us an invoice, which is the nature of the relationship we have with them.”

“I realize we really have no say,” Brewin said. “I was just looking at their quote here. I had a question on this. Look under labour. What is labour statutory leave?” He frowned.

Eagan said, “I’m guessing, but I’m assuming that would be the statutory holiday pay linked to the labour.”

Coun. McLean waited and then asked, “So what exactly is wrong with the crossing? Do you know? It just looks fine to me. I didn’t realize that we had an issue with this crossing.”

Eagan explained that standards have likely changed from the time it was originally installed and once CPR identified it as currently sub-standard, they marked it for an upgrade. McLean wondered how other communities got away with having crossings without an arm to guard the railway. She pointed to Coalhurst, which is located next to the CPR yard and has a high-traffic intersection at Highway 3. Eagan compared it to a building code, and said varying standards are likely applied to different types of crossings.

Coun. Bekkering said, “I question their estimate. It’s their estimate, we pay 50 per cent, we cannot question their estimate. If it comes in at $10,000 higher, we gotta pay. They can rationalize it of course by saying ‘We’ve gotta pay stat pay.’ It’s just ridiculous. But you know, CPR is king, and we’re the subjects. I just wanted to make that comment. It’s hard to negotiate with CPR – well it’s almost impossible actually.”

Coun. Sorenson put a bow on it. “So, a lot of unhappy people, but I’d be prepared to make a motion.” The motion to partner with CPR using funds from the capital reserves was passed with Brewin the lone dissenting vote. On this issue, council did not go quietly.