Jennifer Smith

There was an article in the Champion last week about rail police ticketing trespassers cutting across the CP rail tracks at Court Street. It was all part of Rail Safety Week, aimed at educating the public and preventing tragic accidents.

The constable doing the blitz stressed how important enforcement was, given the apparent difficulty in physically preventing people from crossing there.

“Enforcement is our main deterrent,” said Const. Ron Morrison of the Canadian Pacific Police Service.

He was one of two CP officers stationed at the CP tracks on Court Street North to watch for people crossing the tracks, or walking along them, to get from one side of Court Street to the other — a known shortcut.

There are two wire fences to block access to the tracks, but a hole has been cut in one, and pedestrians can walk around the other.

“People get complacent and lazy and think it’s easier to cut across,” said CP’s Randy Marsh. “You can put up all the signs you want. To keep it (trespassing) under control is a daily job.”

Unfortunately, CP Rail doesn't appear to be concerned enough to actually repair the fence.


The article caught my eye because I had just recently spoken to a woman who lives near Court Street who admitted to using that shortcut herself on a regular basis. I'm quite sure that my son used it as well when he was attending W.I. Dick, along with most of his classmates. It's ill-advised and potentially dangerous, certainly, but it's also a natural thing to do given that both ends of Court Street come right up to the tracks there.



Another article in the Champion this week referred to a similar problem on the same rail line between Thompson and James Snow, where a pedestrian bridge has been considered and repeatedly deferred because of the projected $2.5 million cost. There was no mention of people cutting across the tracks, but looking at the satellite image it's almost as if they want people to cross there.



All of this got me thinking about how difficult it is to legislate human nature.

You can put up all the "No Trespassing" signs you want, but if people want to get from one side to another, they are going to cross - especially if there is a natural crossing with nothing but a torn fence to block it. Similarly, you can put up all the speed limit signs you want and police it 24/7, but if a street is wide and straight and unobstructed, people are going to drive at whatever speed feels natural.  If they prefer to walk on the side of the street with no sidewalk, you will find a worn path in the grass there. If they want a place to run their dogs off leash and there is a convenient area with a fence around it (like, say, the Fairgrounds), they are going to use it as a leash-free park.

I'm not preaching anarchy here - far from it.  If a few people are going where they shouldn't go and doing what they shouldn't do, that's an enforcement problem. But if a whole lot of people are doing it all the time - that's a design flaw.



In some cases, these 'unofficial' uses are harmless and can simply be ignored. In the case of the rail tracks, I believe a solution must be found for safety's sake. But in many cases, the simplest solution is often to make the unofficial official.

Are people using the Fairgrounds as a dog park? Section off part of it as a dog park, away from people's backyards. Are people tossing their trash on the ground in a certain spot? Put a trash can there. Are kids using a wall for graffiti? Turn it into a mural project. Are people speeding? Consider either physically or visually narrowing the street.

In the case of Court Street, I see three ways to approach the problem. One is the status quo: do the occasional blitz and then turn a blind eye to the gaping hole in the fence. Another is to get serious about blocking the route with a stronger fence that people can't just cut through, climb over or walk around. Razor wire may be involved.

The third solution is to simply accommodate human nature by providing a safe pedestrian crossing between Martin Street and Ontario.

I know, I know, you're thinking about that $2.5 million price tag. And yes, a pedestrian overpass is a monumental endeavour.  But a more sensible solution in this case might be a pedestrian underpass.



People are shorter than rail cars, which means you'd only have to make it about 10' high. And a grade separation already exists where Sixteen Mile Creek passes under the tracks. In fact, that creek tunnel is already used as an underpass by students from W.I. Dick. A dangerous one, mind you, because it is unofficial and therefore unlit and unmonitored.

Oh, and it's a flood channel.



Of course, I'm not an engineer. I honestly don't know how feasible such a thing would be at Court Street.  But if nothing else, the situation there illustrates the need to use some common sense to predict these issues and start incorporating the solutions into development plans from the very beginning - before the houses and the schools and the roads go in.

Our next opportunity to do so will be with the next phase of Milton's development in the Boyne Survey, the secondary plan for which is currently up for public review and comment.  Unfortunately, the current versions of that plan and the Official Plan Review have dropped or deferred plans for all potential pedestrian rail crossings.  And again, no one seems to have considered an underpass instead of a bridge.

Maps of the town’s trails system included in the draft official plan also don’t include two connectors across railway lines. The Town’s trails master plan had identified a pedestrian bridge over the CP railway line between Thompson Road and James Snow Parkway as well as one over the CN railway corridor along the Union Gas easement south of Derry Road...

... “In order for us to design a pedestrian bridge that crossed those tracks, it would have to be over two containers high and it would have to span four sets of tracks,” said Bill Mann, the Town’s chief planner.

“So when we revisited it, we felt it was more appropriate people use the roadway system including the Thompson underpass.”

It might be more appropriate on paper, but human beings are pretty determined to follow the path of least resistance.

I think they're going to need a bigger fence.