|
|
|
|
|
|
18 August 2004
CPR Won't Support
Full-Protection at Mackenzie Crossing
The Canadian Pacific
Railway has rejected the full-protection option at the Mackenzie Avenue rail crossing
but indicates it will look favourably upon either the nighttime or permanent closure options.
"CPR Field Operations will not support the full protection system option currently being
discussed by the committee as it will impede CPR Revelstoke yard operations," Mark Seland,
the CPR's senior manager for communications and municipal affairs said in a 28 Jul 2004
letter to Council. "Therefore to complete a study of this option may be redundant."
He said the company makes a significant contribution to the local economy, including $500,000 a year
in taxes and noted that it cannot simply stop the whistles. Their use at uncontrolled crossings is
also federally mandated by Transport Canada.
The CPR would, he said, be happy to suggest a consultant who can help the City decide which option
to pursue. "Given the long-standing commitment CPR has made to the positive
contribution to the community of Revelstoke I would ask that you continue to work with Mr. (Rick)
Poznikoff (CPR's community relations manager in Calgary) and Mr. (Stan) Bell's staff in Revelstoke
(Bell is the Revelstoke service area manager) to determine and implement a mutually agreeable
solution - perhaps one of the other two proposals: nighttime closure or permanent
closure to vehicular traffic at the Mackenzie Ave. crossing."
Elements of the community have been trying to eliminate the use of whistles when CPR trains approach
the crossing. Formation of a public committee was followed by months of study and sometimes
acrimonious discussion. The committee eventually decided upon a set of options that included
full-protection, nighttime closure, and permanent closure. The
full-protection option was by far the most expensive and was estimated to cost about
$250,000.
Councillor Bill MacFarlane told Council that Seland's letter answers a lot of questions and said he
was sure it would "be gladly received by the committee."
|
|
|