News   Mar 28, 2024
 980     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 549     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 843     0 

General railway discussions

^There are lots of developments going in that are closer to tracks than this one.

But in fairness, I bet more than a few of those new occupants will start complaining about loud crashes, bells and horns, and idling diesel fumes shortly after they move in.

If nothing else, maybe there should be a codicil in their title that stipulates that they have been warned about the proximity of the yard before making a purchase decision, and waive the right to complain or advocate for relief.

- Paul
 
^There are lots of developments going in that are closer to tracks than this one.

But in fairness, I bet more than a few of those new occupants will start complaining about loud crashes, bells and horns, and idling diesel fumes shortly after they move in.

If nothing else, maybe there should be a codicil in their title that stipulates that they have been warned about the proximity of the yard before making a purchase decision, and waive the right to complain or advocate for relief.

- Paul
Of course, lots of people buy property in locations and then complain about long-standing 'issues' that affect them negatively (e.g wheel squeal at TTC loops or subway curves). The School Board are obligated to post signage warning buyers of new homes that their children may not be able to attend a local school but that is, they hope, temporary while rail noise is probably permanent.
 
Of course, lots of people buy property in locations and then complain about long-standing 'issues' that affect them negatively (e.g wheel squeal at TTC loops or subway curves). The School Board are obligated to post signage warning buyers of new homes that their children may not be able to attend a local school but that is, they hope, temporary while rail noise is probably permanent.
Aren’t there notices near Pearson along these lines? (Relating to noise) I feel like I saw some a number of years ago
 
Aren’t there notices near Pearson along these lines? (Relating to noise) I feel like I saw some a number of years ago
Yes there are. Here's the 'noise map' from GTAA's Noise Management document. It is also included in Peel's Official Plan:

1673184836708.png


I don't know if there is anything legal tied to the title of new builds or leases after a certain date that would restrict a person's rights or it just a matter of 'you were warned'.
 
Yes there are. Here's the 'noise map' from GTAA's Noise Management document. It is also included in Peel's Official Plan:

View attachment 449227

I don't know if there is anything legal tied to the title of new builds or leases after a certain date that would restrict a person's rights or it just a matter of 'you were warned'.

I don't know about Pearson, but many airports put restrictions on what types of developments can be put along the low altitude flight path as they know someone will complain regardless of what warnings are made, especially after the property has been sold several times.
 
I don't know about Pearson, but many airports put restrictions on what types of developments can be put along the low altitude flight path as they know someone will complain regardless of what warnings are made, especially after the property has been sold several times.
Mississauga has large signs posted at various low locations under the flight path warning people of noise from aircrafts. They have also turn down the idea of residential development on Hurontario between Matheson and the 407 because of noise. The downside to this where the city has no control or changes to fight paths that have come into effect the last 10-20 years done by the airport.

Warning clause and on records notices from trains should be given to anyone who wants to build and live next to a rail line that they have no rights to claim about noise from the line after they purchase a place or rent. Anyone who rents X must inform the renter of these noise issues to make them aware of they have no rights to claim about noise. This should be done by the Provinces right across the province for any rail line in existing, bank or could be reactivated at some future date. Also applies to all transit lines and hwy's.
 
There's a couple of angles to this. In relation to airports, Transport Canada can impose Airport Zoning Regulations, but they are related to flight operations and safety. Being federal, they can override municipal zoning and land use bylaws. Anything to do with noise would fall under the municipality.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know how far a government or entity can go to actually restrict the right of somebody to complain or initiate a civil action. Whether or not they would be successful remains. Warning statements are good as far as they can go; I'm not sure how far that is. Introducing 'quality of life' changes to adjacent landowners is an emerging area of law. Think windfarms.
 
There's a couple of angles to this. In relation to airports, Transport Canada can impose Airport Zoning Regulations, but they are related to flight operations and safety. Being federal, they can override municipal zoning and land use bylaws. Anything to do with noise would fall under the municipality.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know how far a government or entity can go to actually restrict the right of somebody to complain or initiate a civil action. Whether or not they would be successful remains. Warning statements are good as far as they can go; I'm not sure how far that is. Introducing 'quality of life' changes to adjacent landowners is an emerging area of law. Think windfarms.

I don't think that one could "extinguish" the right to complain legally - there are too many rights to due process, and too many ways down the road to argue that CN was doing something "new" that was outside the original waiver - but as a matter of confirming who has the moral high ground in any future dispute, a waiver would be a good move.

There are all sorts of situations where people are asked to sign legal waivers (skydiving, for instance). Lawyers will tell you that these are often worthless, but they do serve as a reminder of who asked for the problem in the first place.

- Paul
 
Slightly OT but my recollection re Pearson and the residential development along Derry was that YYZ management at the time had opposed the development due to the noise concerns and requested that a) the signs be put up along the roads, and b) that there was some sort of clause written in to the initial purchase agreement that the buy had been advised of the airports flight paths and agreed to purchase anyway.

That doesn't stop residents today from complaining about noise "over their heads". Just take a listen to a few of Pearson's community public meetings/noise forums to find out. One recent meeting a resident who was essentially right under the final approach path for, I believe, 06L/R less than 10 Km away from the end of the runway. I kind of felt bad for the employee who had to tell the resident "yeah you're a little screwed. There's no where else we can put the aircraft if we expect it to safely land on the runway".

It's actually funny to listen to Etobicoke and Mississauga residents asking for more flights to be on the 15/33 pair while the residents (specifically the ones south of the airport and directly under the approach for 33R) argue that those runways should be used less since "they were promised that those runways would only be used when needed."
 
That's the former 'Newmarket Spur' that used to serve the Stepan Canada plant. With the amount of trackage they own I'm surprised that they see the need and that it is worth the cost of maintaining the trackage, crossings and bridges, even to a low degree. Even if for some reason they want to store them in the general area, there are several unused sidings further north on the Newmarket Sub.

Depending on where they park the cars, prepare for complaints from residents and cottages where the line backs directly on properties. The same thing happened when the OBR was doing a lot of car storage. You know, 'unsafe', 'ugly', 'property values'.
 
Announcement today concerning Huron Central Railway:


1673360541144.png
 
That's the former 'Newmarket Spur' that used to serve the Stepan Canada plant. With the amount of trackage they own I'm surprised that they see the need and that it is worth the cost of maintaining the trackage, crossings and bridges, even to a low degree. Even if for some reason they want to store them in the general area, there are several unused sidings further north on the Newmarket Sub.

Depending on where they park the cars, prepare for complaints from residents and cottages where the line backs directly on properties. The same thing happened when the OBR was doing a lot of car storage. You know, 'unsafe', 'ugly', 'property values'.
Maybe the Huntsville yard is full?
 

Back
Top