With a proposed rail side trail jeopardized by the recent loss of support from Councillor Sylvia Bradley, supporters of the 1.2-kilometre section are lending their voice to a debate that has recently been dominated by those who oppose it.

Meanwhile, it does not appear likely that there will be any change in Orangeville Council’s stance on the project, which currently stands at four against and three for the section that would run alongside the tracks between Town Line and John Street.

At Monday’s council meeting, John Street resident Nancy Urekar spoke in favour of the rail side trail and town trails in general. “I don’t understand why it (the rail side trail) isn’t so easy to do. After all, I think trails are safer than sidewalks.”

She added that light physical activity, which includes walking on a trail, could decrease obesity and diabetes levels in a municipality’s population by up to 40 per cent.

In e-mail correspondence to the Citizen, Orangeville resident Graham Burke pointed out that “people have been walking along on the tracks for a number of years. This is certainly not safe.

“I think it is actually a responsible thing for the town to provide an alternative to walking on the track by providing a secure trail adjacent to the rail line. Providing an alternative place to walk on, other than on actual tracks, seems quite responsible when you think about it.”

Councillor Scott Wilson, an opponent, said in an interview Tuesday that while trespassers are currently walking on the tracks “at their own peril,” he doesn’t feel the town should be encouraging people to be in the area by providing a trail.

He is joined by Councillors Gail Campbell and Mary Rose. Ms. Rose said in an interview that she is “philosophically against putting a trail in beside a live rail.”She has her safety concerns regarding this particular project and added she is”not interested”in preponderant evidence from other municipalities and studies that rails with trails (RWT) have a very good safety record.

As well, she said the Orangeville RWT plan was financially not feasible. “It’s a very costly idea and the money could be spent elsewhere.”

The project would cost a total of $330,000 and two thirds of the cost ($220,000) would be covered by federal and provincial grants. A condition of the grants is that the money could be used for the RWT only and otherwise would be forfeited.

Mr. Burke countered: “Is it really exorbitant to spend $100,000.00 to build 1.2 km of trail that will help keep people from walking along a somewhat active rail line? And how do you define exorbitant? What are you comparing it to?

“For example, how would this compare to the cost of constructing 1.2 km of sidewalks, a new lighted baseball diamond or soccer field, or already constructed sections of trail? I recall that it cost about $90,000.00 to construct the George Douglas section of trail that is referred to above, and that section is about 800 meters long. And grants were

also obtained through the

Optimists Club to help

finance that project.”

Opponents have also said quarries in the Melancthon

area would result in longer

and faster trains. One opponent

stated that it takes 10

miles for a train to come

to a complete stop.

Train operations are governed by the

Canadian Railway

Operating Rules,

Orangeville

519.941.3900 which classify the local rail as a “Class

2” track which cannot exceed 30 miles per hour. Its 25-m.p.h. top speed (and 10- m.p.h. speed when passing through town) has been set by Cando, contracted by the town to run the rail, in accordance with track safety rules standards, which are based on the grades, curves, number of crossings and overall track condition.

With these maximum speed figures in mind, the opponent claims a train in town, travelling at 5 m.p.h. – slower than the average commuting cyclist and 1.3 m.p.h. faster than the average speed of an accomplished marathon runner – would take a full hour to come to a halt.

There have also been concerns about the setback of the trail from the tracks.

A setback refers to the distance between the paved edge of the trail and the centre of the closest active railroad track. There, so far, has been no consensus on an appropriate setback.

Trail opponents have stated that a U.S. study recommends setbacks of 50 feet (15.2 metres) or more, or have no trail at all. While that appears true, such setbacks refer to tracks where Amtrak passenger trains run along at speeds up to 140 m.p.h.

What is not frequently mentioned is that the same study says a RWT beside trail with slow and lowfrequency trains could have setbacks as close as 10 feet (three metres).

Mr. Wilson’s objections, however, are as much economy-based as safetybased. In an interview, he maintained that the primary reason for a railway is to promote and service business in the area, “and the town is seeking to have the line be more productive than it already is.”

He fears that, if the trail is allowed, those advocating the RWT’s safety will be the first to complain trains eventually do become more frequent and longer. “Rail growth has the potential to be stymied if the trail is there,” said Mr. Wilson.

“The very argument used to say it’s safe will be used again, but only in reverse.”