The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

ick and tired of stonewalling S by Canadian National Railway (CNR) over eastâ€"Oakville noise complaints, members of the Community Services Committee decided to talk tough Tuesday night. By HOWARD MOZEL Oakville Beaver Staff By meeting‘s end, they had resolved to try to pressure the rail giant into further testing and to notiâ€" fy the National Transportation Agency about the matter. Given the two sides in the feud, it may be David and Goliath all over again â€" but without the Biblical happy endâ€" ing. CNR, after all, is under no obligaâ€" tion to bend to councillors‘ wishes and â€" given the power of the Railway Act â€" is even exempt from Ministry of the Environment noise guidelines. Even so, committee members and residents were in no mood for excusâ€" es and rallied to push for changes in the company‘s inflexible attitude. Noise problems, particularly that caused by the lateâ€"night shunting of freight cars from Ford, have been a contentious issue with residents of Melvin Avenue and Cynthia Lane for some time. Recent upgrades to CNR‘s Oakville yard â€" including construction of a new "pull back track" â€" have only added to the probâ€" lem. CNR gets earful over noise complaints In July, Vibron Limited was comâ€" missioned to conduct a noise study which concluded that the impact of upgrades would be "insignificant" and "not noticeable" to nearby resiâ€" dents. A barrier wall, Vibron said, would have to be 21â€"feet high and cost more than $1 million. Representatives of CNR conâ€" curred, saying the barrier would be of "dubious benefit" and as such refused to ask Ford to help pay for it. Incensed, Ward 6 councillor Jim Smith asked whether they thought the Town should pay for it. Again, CNR reiterated its position that the noise impact would be minimal. Getting hotter by the minute, Smith accused CNR of serving Ford, but not the people of Oakville. ‘‘You just don‘t give a damn," he said. Next came area residents who immediately questioned the validity of Vibron‘s noise study. Conducted in July when Ford‘s production was next to nothing, they maintained the tests were useless. Unless a new study is commissioned, everything else is irrelevent. One resident said that, since the existing tracks were in place before his home, he has no right to comâ€" plain about them. He said he has every right, however, to try and stop any increase in noise. Like Smith, Ward 6 councillor Bill Logan immediately took sides with the residents and made a motion for CNR to pay for an additional study to more accurately reflect "full traffic conditions." Smith said he couldn‘t support Logan‘s move since CNR made it quite clear it wouldn‘t spring for the cost. With little legal weight behind him, Logan could only hope CNR would "return with a more responsiâ€" ble attitude and not fall back on cut and dried CNR regulations." Ward 2‘s Kathy Graham asked that the National Transportation agency be notified and that another noise study be conducted after the new track is completed. CNR, she said, is a public agency and as such must start following the lead of simiâ€" lar bodies and take public consideraâ€" tions into account. Ward 3 councillor Keith Bird, who supported the motion, warned residents about getting their hopes up, doubted whether more testing or shaming CNR into good corporate citizenship will work. \vV18 Y