The City Lacks Clear Authority to Act on a Proposal That Seeks to Improve Safety but May Make it More Dangerous –
The Capital Corridor Joint Powers Association has been considering the building of a three-quarter mile long wall along the railroad tracks, along the length of Olive Drive from the Richards Underpass all the way to the freeway offramp.
While the JPA argues the wall would make the stretch of railroad tracks safer, residents argues that it will cut off Olive Drive from portions of downtown Davis, make a school route longer and more hazardous, and isolate a segment of the population.
Leaders lament the lack of local control, while questioning if the construction of a wall will not simply make matters more dangerous. Moreover, it is questionable how many of the deaths along this stretch of rail would even have been prevented by a wall.
City leaders argue that this is just a ploy by Union Pacific to get public money to reduce their own liability.
As Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza put it on Sunday, “Anyone who believes this will create more safety is dead wrong.”
On Sunday, a couple of dozen residents gathered outside of the train station, most of them residents of either Olive Drive or J Street, to bring notice to the issue.
Alan Miller, a resident of J Street who would be impacted by such a wall, was one of the organizers of Sunday’s event. In a November 27 Op-Ed in the Davis Enterprise he wrote, “The fence will be ‘impenetrable’ steel-reinforced wrought-iron; 3,800 feet long and 8 feet high; cost $250,000 in materials; begin at Richards Boulevard and end nearly three-quarters of a mile east at the Olive Drive offramp just a few hundred feet short of Sudwerk; and have no access points.”
“The Olive Drive community will quite literally be walled in,” he continued.
On Sunday he spoke to the group, acknowledging that there is a safety problem.
“There is a problem, people cross these tracks and they do really stupid things. You have to do something,” he told the assembled crowd. “The problem is if you just put a wall up… people are going to go down to that end [pointing towards the Olive Drive freeway offramp] and cross the tracks in a more dangerous place or they’re going to walk across this bridge over Richards, so they walk along the tracks even more, or they’re going to cut a freakin’ hole in the fence in which case the whole thing is a waste of money anyway.”
“This isn’t the solution. What we need is a way over the top of the tracks,” Alan Miller said.
As Mr. Miller noted on Sunday, it is questionable how much benefit this would give the safety aspect. Of all the deaths, he thinks perhaps only the one which involved a drunk employee of Murder Burger might have been prevented by having a wall. Many of the deaths are suicides and such individuals would simply avoid the stretch of track walled off on the south side, or would be able to enter the track from the north.
As Mr. Miller wrote in his op-ed, “Of the dozen person-vs.-train accidents in Davis proper over the past couple of decades, fewer than half were adjacent to the proposed fence, and only one or two might have been prevented by this fence. Most have been suicides, very intoxicated people, vehicle incidents, crimes or other random events. None that I can recall were happy sober persons crossing the tracks, who, like the proverbial chicken, simply wanted ‘to get to the other side.’ “
The worst area at Swingle Crossing east of Mace is not even covered by the fence, and that may produce the most fatalities.
Moreover, due to logistical constraints, children would either be forced to cross the freeway off-ramp at the end of Olive Drive, or walk considerably out of their way down to the dangerous Richards Underpass. Either way, safety is a problem and people are likely to attempt more risky crossings.
On Saturday, Alan Miller, Councilmember Swanson and myself walked the stretch that would be walled off. Because of the layout of the roads, people do not realize how close Olive Drive is to downtown or J Street. Forcing people to take Richards Blvd or walk to the east would significantly impact businesses on both sides of the tracks that rely on customers to cross the tracks.
Moreover, the safety improvement is questionable. If anything, it will increase the time people are on the tracks and promote riskier attempts to cross at more dangerous locations.
The most logical place for a crossing would appear to be at Hickory Lane.
But this would be costly for the city, unless they could get grant money.
“Downtown, a pedestrian/ bicycle bridge from Hickory Lane into the Amtrak station can be constructed using city-owned land, but the structure itself will cost a couple of million dollars,” Alan Miller wrote.
“A quarter-million dollars is a good down payment on that bridge. The city should request that part of the available public safety funds go toward these legal crossings to give the residents the option of safe passage. By cobbling together local funding sources, money from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and with assistance from state and federal representatives, these long-needed crossings can be built,” he added.
City Leaders Speak Out
Councilmembers Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson came to the event on Sunday and spoke.
“Union Pacific has put us in a very difficult position,” Mayor Pro Tem Krovoza argued on Sunday, “Union Pacific has not supported an at-grade crossing here at the station. That’s the obvious thing to be done, and they haven’t done it.”
He said now they are turning around, trying to get public money to pay for a 3800-foot fence all along Olive Drive. He said that Union Pacific is pushing the problem onto the City of Davis to spend millions of money that is tight right now, when they have failed to offer their own solutions to the problem for years.
“How is UP going to solve this?” he asked rhetorically. “They are going to take public money that’s available from the State of California, they’re going to solve their liability problem and they are going to let the City of Davis spend millions to work around what they’ve decided to do.”
Mayor Pro Tem Krovoza agrees there is a problem, but he sees the problem as that of providing residents and children of South Davis a way to come to the downtown safely and effectively, to keep our downtown vital and get to school.
“Putting up this fence does not solve this problem,” he said. “Putting up this fence does not create a safer environment for the residents or these kids because if they go to the West side as we’ve heard, they’re going to have to make four crossings through busy intersections which are absolutely less safe than walking across two train tracks where you can see everything coming.”
He added, “Or they can go to the east, and where’s the break going to be at the east? It’s going to be right at the Olive Drive offramp where you’ve got cars going 60 miles an hour coming across, that is less safe.”
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson spoke, as well.
“You hear a lot of talk about it’s safety,” she said. “Yesterday I spent a couple of hours out here and I would challenge anyone who thinks this is the safe alternative, to go stand at the end of Olive Drive just at the end of the 3800 feet and stand there and watch the cars come off.”
“As adults standing there at the crosswalk counting the time it takes for cars to come off is about 5 to 6 seconds – best conditions, fully aware,” she continued.
She added that initially, “My visceral reaction to this is a fence that is going to separate Olive Drive from the rest of Davis. That is disconcerting on a number of levels.”
Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Association
The Davis City Councilmember who is the liaison to the Capitol Corridor Joints Powers Authority (CCJPA) is Sue Greenwald. For a variety of reasons, unfortunately, she was unable to attend the last three meetings and also did not inform the alternate Joe Krovoza of her absence to the meetings or that this issue had come up.
As a result, the city is late in responding to this issue. However, three Davis residents did attend a November 17 meeting.
In a letter from Luna Salaver, Public Information Officer to the CCJPA, she said, “As a result, instead of allocating funds to simply build the fence, the Board requested staff continue to work with the City of Davis and UPRR, as well as the CCJPA Executive Committee to expend Proposition 1B Transit Safety/Security funds on non-construction activities (design, environmental, purchase of materials) related to the proposed fence.”
She cited safety concerns stemming from that fact that freight trains come through Davis at 79 miles per hour, though Alan Miller on Saturday noted that on this stretch, because of a curve and the train station, the trains are traveling perhaps at 35 mph. However, he also noted that more accidents and fatalities involve slower moving trains, perhaps due to the fact that people are more likely to attempt to challenge them or misjudge their speed.
At the center of this, however, is Union Pacific which can build the wall themselves if they are so inclined. Ms. Salaver writes, “UPRR is proposing this 3800 linear foot fence as a trespasser deterrent because this project is on its railroad Right of Way (ROW). UPRR is exercising its right to protect its property and itself from liability.”
She added that CCJPA is committed to working with the City of Davis, but time is of the essence.
“The CCJPA is committed to working with the City of Davis on developing a safe, secure grade-separated access between Olive Drive and the Davis Station/downtown district. The CCJPA has been successful with other Cities along our corridor station project partners to have grade-separated access to/from the platform and the station area to prevent passengers and the general public from crossing active mainline passenger and freight train tracks. Examples include the current Richmond Station (re-built over seven years ago) and planned stations in Fairfield/Vacaville, Hercules and Union City. We strive to have the same success at Davis, a community that actually grew around a Southern Pacific Railroad depot built in 1868,” she added.
She concluded, “Until then, we must move forward on what we can accomplish to deter future trespasser accidents. The impact of these fatalities to the surviving families, train riders and train crews CANNOT be understated. Something that is rarely considered is how these incidents profoundly impact train crews. For the train crews who experience such a tragedy, just one single trespasser fatality is one too many. Their lives are unalterably changed forever. Many never return to train service.”
Residents Worry About Safety and Impacts of Cutting off Olive Drive
At the protest on Sunday, Olive Drive Resident Henry Reneau told the group that he understands the train’s liability problem, but believes that is better solved with a bridge over the tracks than a wall.
The worst part of the wall he said, is that Olive Drive residents would be cut off from the downtown.
“There are a lot of people who do an enormous amount of shopping at just the Co-Op alone, they’re not going to be able to go there anymore. They’re going to find something closer. They can’t make that trek all the way around,” he said.
Chris Congleton studies transportation at UC Davis, and argued that this is a solution to prevent half of one person per year from getting killed by a train in Davis.
“In the United States upwards of 40,000 people a year get killed by cars and we’re not putting fences up on roads,” he said.
He added, “No children have ever been killed by a train here, and children cross every day.”
Another resident, Taylor Jaco Pope, argued that the corner of Richards and Olive Dr is actually a much more dangerous crossing than the train tracks.
“It’s not safe,” he told the crowd, “If you increase the volume at the intersection with cars, with bikes, with kids, it’s going to be less safe still.”
Tree removal
In a letter from resident Robert Canning to the Davis Enterprise, he laments the potential loss of trees.
“One negative consequence of the fence-building will be the destruction of a number of full-growth trees along the stretch of track where the fence will be built,” Mr. Canning writes. “Those of us who commute by rail from Davis or live in the neighborhood know there is an almost continuous line of trees from the city-owned land behind Design House to the Olive Drive offramp from Interstate 80 (where, if you slow for a moment, you can see a coast redwood in the middle of the turnaround).”
“These trees include many native and mature oaks and other species, including one large palm tree across from the rail depot,” he adds.
“These trees provide significant benefits to the Olive Drive and Old East Davis neighborhoods,” Mr. Canning continues. “They provide a pleasant view for citizens living in proximity to the tracks. For residents on the north side of the tracks (I, J and K streets), they dampen the sound of the nearby freeway – a constant buzz that can be heard throughout Davis, but particularly in the downtown area. And for those in the Olive Drive community they provide shade, and finally, they provide habitat for hundreds of animals.”
Alan Miller estimates there to be upwards of 90 trees along the route, many of which are either on the right of way or just off the pole line that would separate Union Pacific property from the rest of the community.
However, CCJPA PIO Luna Salaver claimed otherwise in her letter, writing, “Please note that tree removal is not part of the plan.”
Concluding Thoughts
Clearly, the safety issue is of real concern. However, as everyone who has walked the stretch of railway recognizes, a wall on one side of the tracks is not going to improve safety.
However much a wall might reduce the railroad giant’s liability, it does not solve the problems. In fact, it creates a whole new set of problems, starting with the barrier that it would present to the working-class residents of Olive Drive, inhibiting their access to downtown.
As Alan Miller wrote, “History has shown that one cannot simply wall in a community that has been part of another community. There is something unseemly about walling in the area of town with the lowest income, lowest rate of car ownership and highest percentage of minorities with what amounts to a border fence. The sheer number of crossings may be curtailed, but even more risky behavior to circumvent the fence will be the result.”
Thus he adds, “The fence attempts to address the symptom (people crossing the tracks), but not the problem (no convenient, safe way for Olive Drive residents to reach downtown).”
And that is the problem. Unfortunately, we are reacting to this situation that we have known is a problem for years. However, the city leadership appears to get it, with at least three members of the Council understanding the delicacy and urgency of this problem.
However, this is also largely out of our hands. The CCJPA has some authority here, but ultimately Union Pacific owns the land and can do as they want. As many described, they are difficult to deal with.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]The worst area at Swingle Crossing east of Mace is not even covered by the fence and that may produce the most fatalities.[/quote]
I believe the records show:
Swingle has crossing arms
Crashes have been train/motor vehicle, NOT pedestrian or bicycle…
[quote]School Lovenburg[/quote]????????? name change?
Freudian Slip.
I found this statement interesting: “The city and the district have long been partners in providing safe walking, bicycling and public transit routes for students to travel in commuting to school. Union Pacific and the Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority have indicated a willingness to assist with planning for a crossing.”
The CCJPA has, as I quoted above, but is UP? That I wonder about. The real question is whether UP is willing to wait until we can get a crossing before building a fence. Also nowhere does Ms. Lovenburg discuss the infeasibility of a one-way fence that people can work around and still have it be more convenient than going down to Richards. She also does not address the dangers of pedestrian crossing along Richards. These are critical issue and I don’t mean to demand that the board member address everything in a short piece, but safety concerns seem to increase with this, not decrease.
School Lovenburg
The result of blogging before morning coffee. After coffee, of course, it would have come out as School board member, Susan Lovenburg. My apologies to Ms. Lovenburg.
dmg: “The Davis City Councilmember who is the liaison to the Capitol Corridor Joints Powers Authority (CCJPA) is Sue Greenwald. For a variety of reasons, unfortunately, she was unable to attend the last three meetings and also did not inform the alternate Joe Krovoza of her absence to the meetings or that this issue had come up.”
Why was Council member Greenwald absent, and failed to notify the alternate Joe Krovoza? Council member Greenwald is usually extremely conscientious, so I would say this is uncharacteristic. Would it have made a difference in UP’s decision had the city actively been a participant in the process earlier?
It would seem that the City Council, now having been alerted to the problem, should take a very pro-active approach. Go talk to UP, explain concerns with a positive attitude, explore possible solutions. Bring pictures/diagrams with you. Go with an open mind – you haven’t heard UP’s side of things yet. (Antagonism will get you nowhere.) What have you got to lose? Otherwise the fence is a done deal…
Sorry, Olive Drive, we just gave away $1-million of our redevelopment tax funds to Hanlees Dealership Group. (Either to combat the blight of an auto sales/repair building along the freeway or to direct the laundered funds into a general fund bonanza.) Maybe the money could have helped solve this and other dysfunctions in your part of town, but we don’t like to spend much time prioritizing redevelopment needs.
Very disappointed with Sue Greenwalds lack of responsibility for her elected duties .
JustSaying: “Sorry, Olive Drive, we just gave away $1-million of our redevelopment tax funds to Hanlees Dealership Group.”
The Olive Drive RR crossing problem has been in existence for years, and redevelopment tax funds were not forthcoming thus far. What makes you think the city would have spent the $1 million it gave Hanlees on an Olive Drive RR crossing instead?
I think the one unsaid point about all this business is that there is literally no problem at all for people on or near Olive Drive to use the Richards Boulevard subway. Whenever I am biking back to Davis from West Sacramento, I enter town on the bike path which runs into Olive Drive. (You depict it above in your first picture, I believe.) It’s a very easy ride to Richards, though you will almost always have to wait for the light to change.
The entire length of Olive Drive is only 0.6 miles on a bike. Most of the residents live within 0.25 miles of Richards. They have no good excuse to not walk or bicycle that short distance, rather than crossing over the rail tracks on foot.
Obviously, it’s more direct to traverse the tracks at Hickory Lane if you are going to, say, the movie theaters on F Street. But that is illegal and dangerous and there is practically nothing which can make it otherwise.
I happen to live just east of Highway 113, half way between Russell and Covell. It would be a lot faster for me to walk over to Arthur Street if I ran across the highway and climbed up the embankment. However, that’s dangerous and illegal. So instead I have to backtrack to the pedestrian crossing behind Sycamore Park or (if I am driving) go down to Russell and west to Arthur and then north from there. That’s life.
I don’t necessarily favor building a fence along Olive. I haven’t given it too much thought. But I am foresquare against the notion that using Richards Blvd. is too difficult.
[quote]Sorry, Olive Drive, we just gave away $1-million of our redevelopment tax funds to Hanlees Dealership Group. … Maybe the money could have helped solve this and other dysfunctions in your part of town, but we don’t like to spend much time prioritizing redevelopment needs.
[/quote]
Indeed, Justsayin…the argumnet for redevelopment and environmental mitigation money seems to be use it or lose it, but there are always things that can be done to improve our City and I’ve never liked the idea of subsidizing an auto dealership with public funds.
I am glad Jo and Ro are trying to do something rational for our fair city. Maybe the next step is to connect all of these disparaging issues.
“””” Sue Greenwald. For a variety of reasons, unfortunately, she was unable to attend the last three meetings and also did not inform the alternate Joe Krovoza of her absence to the meetings or that this issue had come up.””””
How about just plain lazy !!!!!
[i]”There is a problem, people cross these tracks and they do really stupid things. You have to do something,” he told the assembled crowd. “The problem is if you just put a wall up… people are going to go down to that end [pointing towards the Olive Drive freeway offramp] and cross the tracks in a more dangerous place or they’re going to walk across this bridge over Richards, so they walk along the tracks even more, or they’re going to cut a freakin’ hole in the fence in which case the whole thing is a waste of money anyway.”[/i]
It’s also possible–much more likely, in my opinion–that a fence would just force people who are now illegally crossing the tracks to use the Richards Blvd subway, which is not any trouble to use.
[i]”This isn’t the solution. What we need is a way over the top of the tracks,” Alan Miller said.[/i]
I don’t get this: so he can save 1/4 of a mile walk? I suspect a new pedestrian overpass, very near Richards, would cost far more than $1 million.
DG: [i]”Moreover, due to logistical constraints, children would either be forced to cross the freeway off-ramp at the end of Olive Drive, or walk considerably out of their way down to the dangerous Richards Underpass.”[/i]
Dangerous Richards underpass? What evidence is there that it’s dangerous at all? Certainly it’s far safer than illegally crossing the railroad tracks.
[i]”Forcing people to take Richards Blvd or walk to the east would significantly impact businesses on both sides of the tracks that rely on customers to cross the tracks.”[/i]
What?!!! This makes no sense. You are suggesting that someone who lives along Olive Drive, if he had to walk or bike a quarter mile to Richards would not go downtown if illegally crossing the railroad tracks was not an option?
Avatar, PLEASE!
[quote]“The Olive Drive RR crossing problem has been in existence for years, and redevelopment tax funds were not forthcoming thus far. What makes you think the city would have spent the $1 million it gave Hanlees on an Olive Drive RR crossing instead?”[/quote] I rest my case. Actually, I’m just saying that we [u]could[/u] have made improvements (not just an overpass–like 113’s–or some better, planned solution) to “redevelop” and “un-blight” the area. And that we [u]should[/u] have, many years ago.
I understand the reasons you support the Hanlees scheme, Elaine. I just think there better things we could have done with $1-million to improve lives of residents who live in the few “blight” areas of town, things that have been serious problems for, as you say, years. But, that $1-million has been spent.
What plans have been developed to make real improvements with redevelopment funds other than just wait around until businesses walk in the door with their hands out?
Why do we keep treating Olive Drive residents and businesses like they live on the other side of the tracks?
JustSaying: “I understand the reasons you support the Hanlees scheme, Elaine. I just think there better things we could have done with $1-million to improve lives of residents who live in the few “blight” areas of town, things that have been serious problems for, as you say, years. But, that $1-million has been spent.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with your point – that sometimes the city’s priorities when it comes to spending the redevelopment funding seems out of whack. For instance, I did not particularly agree with spending redevelopment funding on putting in a second screen at the Varsity Theater. But if the city is going to spend redevelopment funds in this way – giving it out to “blighted” businesses – at least do it in such a way as to generate and maximize tax revenue to the city, which the Hanlees deal did.
However, many have said that redevelopment funds should be spent on “real blight” of which there is very little in Davis, and most of it is in the Olive Drive area. I think that is a reasonable point. But some would argue that is a lot of money to spend in one small area, that will generate no tax revenue to speak of, thus not benefit the city as a whole at a time when the city desperately needs the tax revenue. I can see arguments both ways – and not necessarily any one right/correct answer. I respect both views.
Nevertheless, I just cannot see the City Council spending $1 million in redevelopment funding on a RR crossing – for a variety of reasons…
[quote]Why do we keep treating Olive Drive residents and businesses like they live on the other side of the tracks? [/quote]
I guess cause they are–but we’d be a stroner community with fewer geographical (or other) divisions.
As to the insinuations about my attendance: I have been proactively involved and I have been discussing this matter in depth with David Kutrosky of the Capitol Corridor, with Terry Bassett and with Bob Clark. I have been actively involved with this from day one.
I have missed two Capitol Corridor meetings. One was when both Joe and I were at the League of California cities meeting. I had told David K. that the Capitol Corridor meeting would conflict with the League meeting and that both Joe and I were going to the League meeting. He decided not to reschedule the meeting in light of the League Conference confict. I also discussed it with Joe at the time. The morning of the second meeting (held in Suisun), I had unexpected auto problems that I found out about as I prepared to leave (had I known the night before, I could have taken the train), so I immediately called David K. and we talked about the fence issue for about half an hour right before the meeting.
I would have loved to have discussed the fence issue with Joe, but Joe did not contact me. Joe is very busy with his day job and council and family obligations. This weekend, I tried a few times to get hold of him. When I finally did, we talked about a couple of important items, but he didn’t have time to discuss the Capitol Corridor issue, and there were potential Brown Act conflicts as well.
Sorry Sue , Hearsay reporting by David .
Avatar, you need not apologize for your nonsensical personal attacks. You need to apologize for bankrupting our city.
David,
Why was the last post edited out when Avatar apologizes for relying on hearsay from you?
What I don’t understand is why councilmembers who are demanding a solution to an insoluble problem voted to recreate this same problem by proceeding with plans to develop the Nishi.
I have always maintained that it makes no sense to build housing on land that is wedged between the railroad tracks and I-80. I was the only vote against building the Lexington Apartments on East Olive Drive, and I was the only vote against proceeding with plans to develop the Nishi. Both times, I explained that we couldn’t afford the multiple overpasses that would be needed to keep people from crossing the long stretches of railroad track.
I would to comment on a few points that have been brought up:
1) It makes no sense to raise people’s hopes about an at-grade crossing unless we find out that there have been significant policy changes in that regard. To date, it is not an option.
2) While I had my own disagreements with the Hanlee’s subsidy plan, I was generally in favor of making concessions to retain and attract a critical mass of auto dealers. Our sales tax revenue is extraordinarily dependent on auto sales. Without these dealerships, our revenue situation would be dire in the extreme. We need this revenue to provide for all citizen needs.
3) We have studied the grade-separated crossing in depth.
a)It would cost millions of dollars.
b)We can’t get outside funding for it.
c)It wouldn’t solve the problem, as people are crossing all along to tracks. They are crossing at points which are closer to the existing pedestrian underpass at Richards than they would be to a new crossing at the far end of Olive Drive.
d)I do not agree that crossing the tracks is safer than crossing the streets and highways at signalized intersection.
This issue affects a very disenfranchised population and I can’t help but feel that Councilmember Greenwald needs to apologize for not bringing this issue to light sooner, esp. as a representative to CCJPA.
Perhaps if the issue was affecting the expensive real estate closer to campus our representatives would have felt the same urgency the Olive Drive / Old East Davis population now feels.
Imagine your city representative letting an issue get to the point where another agency is going to construct a huge wall right where you live, and finding out about it far along in the process?
And commentors on this blog and “the other one” have the audacity of saying these people have no grounds to protest.
Who will get blamed for the lack of communication? Big bad UP or our own reps?
I would love to see this dismissed. It’s a total nanny-state type issue (this coming from a moderate liberal) on a site that does not have a history of problems. It’s hard not to roll my eyes every time I see this come up.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
“I don’t get this: so he can save 1/4 of a mile walk?”
The kids are heading to school in east Davis, not downtown.
Civil Discourse: I would have the same analysis if this were a neighborhood of billionaires.
Civil Disc: [i]”The kids are heading to school in east Davis, not downtown.”[/i]
I was not talking about “kids.” You took my words out of context. I was replying to David Greenwald’s rather strange conclusion that people from the Olive Drive neighborhood cannot or will not shop [b]downtown[/b] if they have to use the Richards Blvd. subway, because David claims that is dangerous and the trip downtown for them is too long and apparently too arduous.
As to your thoughts on the kids: Keep in mind that the children who live on Olive Drive (or anywhere south of the UP tracks) go to Montgomery Elementary in South Davis. They don’t cross those tracks. So we are not really talking about any kids under age 12. This is not an issue about kindergartners.
I recall hearing in a school board meeting that there are “about 9 or 10” Harper Junior High students who live on or near Olive Drive. I am quite certain that none of them is walking to school. Those kids, if they are not taking a bus or are not being driven to school, they are bicycling.
They have absolutely no need to cross the railroad tracks anywhere near Olive Drive. They should ride east on the old bike path which runs next to westbound I-80 to the Mace Blvd. overpass. From Mace it’s a very easy ride down to Harper. I am sure an average junior high student can make that trip in 8 minutes tops.
If a kid prefers going through the heart of Davis–it’s longer, slower and more dangerous than going to Mace–it will add at most 3 minutes if he rides south to Richards, goes through the subway, and say, rides out 4th Street from L and then 5th to Alhambra and then to Covell to Harper.
I guess the problem here is that this small group of kids is crossing over the rail tracks where 2nd Street meets L Street. (That’s the point at which it is a 3 minute shortcut compared with Richards.) I don’t know if a fence there will ultimately stop them from crossing the tracks.
But, no matter what, they should not be illegally crossing the railroad tracks. Even if none has thus far been hit by a train, it is dangerous.
If you are looking for blight, look no further than the restaurant site next to the old Howard Johnson’s in S Davis. It has looked terrible for years since the last failed restaurant. Join that with the large number of cars parked along that Ensenada Dr. from the auto dealers, and it looks crummy. I also do not understand how redevl funds are used. They do not seem to be used to really help people or blight.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=UNP+Interactive#chart2:symbol=unp;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
Check out Union Pacific’s stock price chart at the address above or if that doesn’t work go to yahoo finance and put in the symbol UNP and find it that way. Seems like they could pay for it themselves.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?#chart2:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
This one is even better.
When you bring it up click on max to really get the picture.
Sue: I think the problem that everyone sees is that the wall is going to make things worse. It is not going to improve safety because (A) the wall is only blocking off a portion of the tracks; (B) only one of the fatalities at most would have been stopped with a wall, so maybe you are right that there will never be an overpass, but the current solution does not work. I walked the route this weekend with Alan Miller and Rochelle, I think you should as well before you make up your mind on this.
I was going to support Sue’s request to explain why Acerbic Avatar’s apology was taken down, but before I could get it typed out I see Sue’s (very non-offensive) post has disappeared. I recommend you find another way to deal with posts you feel are too nasty for the rest of us to deal with (or ones that seem critical of this site) to avoid readers wondering why things are censored and disjointed.
Yesterday, I was on a site that has a system that allows readers to report posts that “don’t contribute to this discussion.” The powers that be then make the decision on whether to indicate accept the recommendation. The post then hides behind the “doesn’t contribute” comment, but is available if people want to click it up. It also offers readers a chance to disagree (click “this does contribute”).
I no longer agree that nasty or personal comments should be censored (except, maybe, when you decide they’re obscene or [u]really[/u] nasty). We can make our own decisions about the value of opinions posted by people with bad manners.
Here’s the thing JustSaying, I didn’t even look at the comments until about 20 minutes or so ago. It’s nice to know I can go away and cover the court and deal with family matters and the site is not going to blow up. I think the tone here is a far better than it was last year before we went to required registration and moderation. So while I appreciate you opinion, I think Don Shor has set out the right tone and mix and I support his efforts there.
Rifkin: I stand corrected.
Councilmember Greenwald: I stand corrected.
Let the fence building begin!!!
From the experience of living in Davis for the last 30 years I am left with the impression that neither Union Pacific or California Northern are going to win any good neighbor awards. They consistently use our town for their private switching yard during peak traffic hours. They keep us awake at night with their horns ( which,by the way is only required by law if the municipality fails o file a waiver of the requirement).
We are all learning,of late, that corporations really only consider their fiduciary responsibilities. The community or the environment are only considered when Government steps in to force good citizenship. And when Government is bought and paid for, owned and operated by corporations, it’s not very realistic to expect corporations to do anything but look out for the bottom line
So assuming that U.P. is going to do what protects them from liability, and 200 year old land laws prevent Government from stopping them, it’s not highly likely that meeting with U.P. with a positive attitude and an open mind is going to accomplish anything.
If the people who want to develop the Nishi property really think there is a market for housing people smack between a major interstate freeway and the main East/West rail line, maybe we should let them build high density on the condition that they pay for an over crossing.
The fence is going to get built if that’s what U.P. wants. It would therefore be less inconvenient for people stuck between the freeway and the rail right of way to have this additional safe crossing
If suicide by train (or Darwin Awards) law suits are going for about a million a head these days and they occur about every other year, a $250,000 fence is a “no brainer” investment for a corporation concerned only with profits. So unless somebody in Davis comes up with a way to convert U.P. into a model corporate citizen, we best be figuring out how to finance that over crossing
DAVE: [i]”I think the problem that [b]everyone[/b] sees is that the wall is going to make things worse.”[/i]
Everyone? Obviously some people from the Capital Corridor Joint Powers Association think it will make things better.
DAVE: [i]”It is not going to improve safety because (A) the wall is only blocking off a portion of the tracks;”[/i]
That’s a non-sequitur. It’s possible that it won’t improve safety. It’s also possible it will. Your declaring that it won’t does not make your statement true.
This discussion has me thinking there are 3 possible crossing areas to consider:
1. People who are crossing to go into downtown as a shortcut in place of taking the much safer route through the Richards Blvd. subway. No one has made any convincing argument that the fence won’t work in this respect;
2. The next crossing point to consider is the current one a few junior high kids are probably now using, portaging their bikes over the tracks at 2nd & L. The fence there certainly will put a stop to that;
3. The last place to consider is at the terminus of the fence, which you say will go “all the way to the freeway offramp,” the same point as the Pole Line Road overcrossing. This crossing is now unimportant, but would become viable if the fence were built. If a Harper student rode his bike east on Olive, he could cross the tracks under Pole Line. From there he could take Second Street up to Mace and take Mace back to Harper.
However, that route doesn’t make any time-saving sense. It’s longer and more difficult than just staying on the Old Olive Bike Route up to the Mace overcrossing and riding down Mace to Harper, past Gas & God.
DAVE: [i]”(B) only one of the fatalities at most would have been stopped with a wall … but the current solution does not work.”[/i]
That is really beside the point. The real problem is not that only one non-suicidal person, apparently drunk, has thus far been killed crossing the tracks from Olive Drive. The problem seems to be that because there is no safety fence, irresponsible people, especially a few junior high kids, are putting themselves at danger by crossing the tracks illegally. That raises the public safety question: do we want to discourage unsafe behavior? I’m not yet sure, because I don’t know enough about the fence and the taxpayer costs and other considerations.
However, a well-made, well designed safety fence should stop (almost) all people from crossing the tracks to get downtown by foot. Those folks will be safer going downtown by way of Richards. Equally, the fence should stop all bike portages at Second and L. Again, that increases safety. The fence won’t stop kids from portaging under the Pole Line overpass. But it just does not make much sense to me that with that option, kids will cross there. If the fence is built, and they do cross there, then the fence would have to be extended further east to maximize safety concerns.
[i]”They consistently use our town for their private switching yard during peak traffic hours. They keep us awake at night with their horns ( which,by the way is only required by law if the municipality fails o file a waiver of the requirement).”[/i]
You have lived in Davis 30 years. The railroads–or should I say Rail Roads, because when the tracks were laid in Davis that compound word was not yet in English–have been here since 1868. The California Pacific Rail Road established Davisville as a real estate investment. Without the railroad and without the hoteliers and barkeepers and so on who were tied to the railroad, the university farm never would have been built here, either, Roger.
[i]”We are all learning,of late, that corporations really only consider their fiduciary responsibilities.”[/i]
This is so much left-wingnut silliness, Roger. You are saying that a corporation is self-interested? Whoa! Such brilliant insight. Think about yourself and about almost every human being alive: he is mostly motivated by self-interest. It’s no different, other than corporations are often very big and powerful and so their missteps can hurt more people, and their efficiencies can help more people.
[i]”The community or the environment are only considered when Government steps in to force good citizenship.”[/i]
This is the same with individuals, Roger. It’s human nature. Sure, there are some people whose first concern is the environment. But look around: when individual people are fighting for economic survival, they won’t focus on the environment unless government steps in, as well. (Although it mostly has little to do with money, it’s the reason we in Davis are fighting over fireplace effluents. You might not have noticed, but those chimneys in Davis spewing smoke are not the chimneys of big bad corporations which you hate so much. They are coming from the fireplaces of individuals or families.)
[i]”And when Government is bought and paid for, owned and operated by corporations, it’s not very realistic to expect corporations to do anything but look out for the bottom line.”[/i]
You should be happy then, that in our state, government is bought and paid for by trial lawyers and public employee unions. If you don’t believe me, look up on Cal-Access ([url]http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/[/url]) who has funded all the Democrats in our state senate and assembly and higher offices. And if you still wonder about the powers of the public employee unions, take a look at what happened to Lois Wolk last year when she stopped the unions’ plans to make municipal bankruptcy twice as expensive.
Another article posted on this issue at the Davis Voice:
[url]http://www.davisvoice.com/2010/12/does-this-fence-makes-sense/[/url]
Also, Davis Wiki is getting plenty of discussion over at
[url]http://daviswiki.org/Olive_Drive_Railroad_Fence[/url]
But really the only point of view missing here at the Vanguard is probably Greg Kuperburg’s, strongly in favor of a fence. His comments can be found at Davis Wiki.
[i]”And if you still wonder about the powers of the public employee unions, take a look at what happened to Lois Wolk last year when she stopped the unions’ plans to make municipal bankruptcy twice as expensive.”[/i]
In case anyone cares to know what ultimately happened–no one in the media has yet written about it AFAIK–Mariko Yamada’s bill, AB 155, which was bought and paid for and literally written by the California Professional Firefighters (which is the umbrella fire union to locals like the one in Davis), died last week.
When it failed to get through the Local Government Committee in the Senate in 2009, because Lois Wolk voted no, along with the 2 Republicans on that committee, Sen. Wolk was soon thereafter removed from almost all of her committee assignments by Darrell Steinberg, a lapdog for the public employee unions and other Democratic financiers.
Eventually, by twisting her elbow in all directions and cutting her off from any power in the Senate, Lois changed her position on the Municipal Bankruptcy Bill. But the dirty tactics of the firefighters in this case against Lois seem to have cost them, at least in terms of time. With the governor threatening a veto unless the bill was wholly re-written, the CPF could not get thier dirty bill through. (Also, the California League of Cities, no thanks to the City of Davis, which never spoke up against AB 155, got more aggressive in fighting Ms. Yamada’s dirty bill. That also helped slow things down.)
So finally, on November 30, 2010, the California Senate failed to pass it on its Third Reading ([url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0151-0200/ab_155_bill_20101130_history.html[/url]) (just after Thanksgiving, with a lot of members absent).
I have about 30% confidence that Jerry Brown, a former mayor, will stand up to the firefighters and veto Mariko’s dirty work next year. But, of course, Jerry was funded by those same unions, so he may lack the b@lls to do the right thing.
Rich:
“1. People who are crossing to go into downtown as a shortcut in place of taking the much safer route through the Richards Blvd. subway. No one has made any convincing argument that the fence won’t work in this respect; “
A lot of the people on Olive Drive believe that a more dangerous option, because it would require their kids to cross more streets. Moreover, walking through that subway especially for a small child has hazards as well. Besides given where the wall ends, it might not achieve that purpose. It is also a lot longer if you have to travel east upon crossing through the underpass. Until you walk the rails, you don’t get a true sense of how much distance the street configuration adds.
“2. The next crossing point to consider is the current one a few junior high kids are probably now using, portaging their bikes over the tracks at 2nd & L. The fence there certainly will put a stop to that; “
Not necessarily. The fence ends at the end of Olive Drive, so they would be able to cross at the off-ramp which is a much more dangerous cross.
“3. The last place to consider is at the terminus of the fence, which you say will go “all the way to the freeway offramp,” the same point as the Pole Line Road overcrossing. This crossing is now unimportant, but would become viable if the fence were built. If a Harper student rode his bike east on Olive, he could cross the tracks under Pole Line. From there he could take Second Street up to Mace and take Mace back to Harper. “
The Pole Line overcrossing is a good deal down the road, although one thing the city apparently is considering is a ramp up to the overcrossing.
The question for all of these points you have to consider is if you build a fence, how will people go where they are now. The problem is that train tracks may still be the most direct route. Going through the underpass adds a lot of distance if one intends to head east.
Are they going to fence both sides of the tracks?
[quote]Are they going to fence both sides of the tracks? [/quote]
If they were smart, they wouldn’t… need openings on the station side, and right of way is narrow enough that they can use signs on the Olive Drive side with signs facing the station side… Emeryville is the nearest station I’m aware of with fencing… there I believe it’s both sides of tracks (but I think there are 3-4 lines in that section) and they have a pair of elevators and a bridge to cross… the elevators are just big enough to comfortably walk a bicycle in, and turn it around pretty easily within the elevator car… if we/UP/both do a grade separated crossing, I’d use that station as a model… pretty expensive…
They wouldn’t put a fence along Second St. because it would interfere with their maintenance operations where they illegally park their trucks with two wheels on Second St. (where the no parking signs are currently posted) and two on the railroad right of way, while doing work on rail cars stationed on the right of way.
DAVE: [i]”A lot of the people on Olive Drive believe that a more dangerous option, because it would require their kids to cross more streets.”[/i]
What?! Are you kidding me? How could it be “a more dangerous option” to enter downtown on marked off, designated bikepaths (separated from car traffic in the tunnel), than having those kids illegally tresspassing across multiple rail lines with a great amount of train traffic in that stretch between Olive and the SP Depot? That makes no sense at all.
DAVE: [i]”Moreover, walking through that subway especially for a small child has hazards as well.”[/i]
No responsible parents in Davis in 2010 are having their toddlers walk or bike on their own into downtown. If small children are going downtown, they are accompanied by adults, who can make sure they are safe. Moreover, you have to compare the Richards route with illegally crossing the railroad tracks, which the lack of a fence there is permitting and to some extent encouraging.
DAVE: [i]”Besides given where the wall ends, it might not achieve that purpose.”[/i]
That’s an argument for making sure the western terminus of the fence feeds traffic into Richards. It’s not a good argument for your cockamamie contention that people are safer with the status quo.
DAVE: [i]”It is also a lot longer if you have to travel east upon crossing through the underpass.”[/i]
It’s not a lot longer. It’s a a half-mile longer at most. And that is really no big deal. Suck it up.
DAVE:[i]”Until you walk the rails, you don’t get a true sense of how much distance the street configuration adds.”[/i]
I know the area perfectly well. I’ve been going over to Olive Drive since 1965.
[b]2. The next crossing point to consider is the current one a few junior high kids are probably now using, portaging their bikes over the tracks at 2nd & L. The fence there certainly will put a stop to that; [/b]
DAVE: [i]”Not necessarily. The fence ends at the end of Olive Drive, so they would be able to cross at the off-ramp which is a much more dangerous cross.”[/i]
The off-ramp begins just a few paces west of the Pole Line overpass. However, the real question here is [i]why would someone want to cross there?[/i] As I said above–and Greg Kuperberg argued more elquently here ([url]http://www.davisvoice.com/2010/03/the-most-dangerous-half-mile-in-davis/[/url])–if it proves that people are crossing at the eastern terminus of the fence, then you just have to make the fence extend further east. Your argument presupposes they will–but you give no logical reasons why. It’s no longer a shortcut from that point to anywhere.
DAVE: [i]”The question for all of these points you have to consider is if you build a fence, how will people go where they are now. The problem is that train tracks may still be the most direct route. Going through the underpass adds a lot of distance if one intends to head east.”[/i]
Why don’t you come up with a good example of where someone who say is starting at 1025 Olive Drive would likely be going in which it makes more sense (in terms of time saved) for him to walk or bike to the eastern terminus of the proposed fence and cross the tracks illegally there than it would to obey the law?
[i]”They wouldn’t put a fence along Second St. because it would interfere with their maintenance operations …”[/i]
That’s not the reason, and your contention makes no sense*. The point of a fence is to discourage or even make it impossible for people who now can easily (though not safely) cross back and forth over the rail lines from Olive Drive to downtown Davis or from Olive Drive to L Street at E. 2nd. You don’t need a safety fence on both sides of the track to accomplish that.
*A fence on the Depot side of the tracks could easily be built with gates to allow maintenance trucks in when needed.
To Sue Greenwald: Thanks for clarifying why you were not in attendance at the meetings. I know you to be a conscientious public servant, and was certain your absences were unavoidable. I’m also glad to hear you have discussed this issue at length with the powers that be.
Sue Greenwald: “2) While I had my own disagreements with the Hanlee’s subsidy plan, I was generally in favor of making concessions to retain and attract a critical mass of auto dealers. Our sales tax revenue is extraordinarily dependent on auto sales. Without these dealerships, our revenue situation would be dire in the extreme. We need this revenue to provide for all citizen needs.”
Amen!
Sue Greenwald: “3) We have studied the grade-separated crossing in depth.
a)It would cost millions of dollars.
b)We can’t get outside funding for it.
c)It wouldn’t solve the problem, as people are crossing all along to tracks. They are crossing at points which are closer to the existing pedestrian underpass at Richards than they would be to a new crossing at the far end of Olive Drive.
d)I do not agree that crossing the tracks is safer than crossing the streets and highways at signalized intersection.”
This makes sense to me…
Rich Rifkin, Sorry about this late posting, I’ve been gone for a while
Rich;
” Without the railroad and without the hoteliers and barkeepers and so on who were tied to the railroad, the university farm never would have been built here, either, Roger”.
So are you suggesting that founding Davisville more than a hundred years ago somehow gives them the right to sound their 110 decibel horns at 3;00 :A.M. in a residential neighborhood, keeping many of us awake at night, or to park their trains across Eighth St. during rush hour (which considerably lengthens an ambulance trip from East Davis to Sutter Hospital)/
Rich:
“This is so much left-wingnut silliness, Roger. You are saying that a corporation is self-interested? Whoa! Such brilliant insight. Think about yourself and about almost every human being alive: he is mostly motivated by self-interest. It’s no different, other than corporations are often very big and powerful and so their missteps can hurt more people, and their efficiencies can help more people”.
What I am saying is that corporations are, by definition, only self interested.By law, they are required to consider fiduciary responsibility to stock holders. And this is generally in direct competition with community/environmental interests. And U.P., in particular, has a track record for poor community citizenship.
I might add that unions are also mandated to protect the interests of their members as their primary responsibility, and that trumps public interests every time. But, in this instance, we are discussing weather the concerns of Davis citizens will sway U.P. from protecting it’s own financial interests. History has shown us that U.P. doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Davis and is concerned only with protecting their stock holders investment. So don’t hold your breath while waiting for U.P. to become a responsible community citizen.g
[i]”So are you suggesting that founding Davisville more than a hundred years ago somehow gives them the right to sound their 110 decibel horns at 3;00 :A.M. in a residential neighborhood, keeping many of us awake at night, or to park their trains across Eighth St. during rush hour (which considerably lengthens an ambulance trip from East Davis to Sutter Hospital)”[/i]
Absolutely. They were there first. The neighborhoods were built next to an existing railroad. The trains don’t blast their horns for fun. It’s required of them by law.
Your complaints remind me very much of the people who move in near an airport, which was there first, and then they complain that airplanes make noise.
[i]”What I am saying is that corporations are, by definition, only self interested.By law, they are required to consider fiduciary responsibility to stock holders.”[/i]
Your statement continues to be silly, Roger. Saying corporations are self-interested is not an insight–it’s obviousl. And human beings are self-intereested, as well. Of course, there are different ways to express self-interest, and some people, just as some companies, are more enlightened in this regard.
So for example, you find the Sierra Nevada Brewing Corporation or the Google Corporation constructing solar parking lot structures. They see that in their self-interest. Other companies, as with other individuals, might make a different calculation of self-interest.
[i]”… in this instance, we are discussing whether the concerns of Davis citizens will sway U.P. from protecting it’s own financial interests. History has shown us that U.P. doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Davis and is concerned only with protecting their stock holders’ investment.”[/i]
The only real public policy question here is whether building a fence will help or harm the public interest. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the railroad company’s financial interests. If it is best for Davis to have that fence built–and more and more I am leaning toward that side of the equation because the opponents of the fence have yet to muster a logical argument against it–then the interests of the railroad and those of the people of Davis are sympathetic. Your antipathetic feelings about capitalism don’t change that.
[i]”The trains don’t blast their horns for fun. It’s required of them by law.”[/i]
I was not too familiar with the laws in this regard, so I looked them up. This fact sheet ([url]http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/1773.shtml[/url]) explains when and why by law trains must blow their horns.
However, as you noted, a local government can request a waiver of the federal law by establishing a quiet zone: [quote]A new quiet zone must be at least ½ mile in length and have at least one public highway-rail grade crossing. Every public grade crossing in a new quiet zone must be equipped at minimum with the standard or conventional flashing light and gate automatic warning system. A quiet zone may be established to cover a full 24-hour period or only during the overnight period from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.
Local governments must work in cooperation with the railroad that owns the track, and the appropriate state transportation authority to form a diagnostic team to assess the risk of collision at each grade crossing where they wish to silence the horn. An objective determination is made about where and what type of additional safety engineering improvements are necessary to effectively reduce the risk associated with silencing the horns based on localized conditions such as highway traffic volumes, train traffic volumes, the accident history and physical characteristics of the crossing, including existing safety measures. [/quote] That sounds reasonable to me. So if you think Davis should become a new quiet zone, then take it up with the City of Davis.
Note: I Googled the city’s website to see if anyone has pursued this, and I could not find anything about it. I did find this story ([url]http://www.leavenworthtimes.com/highlight/x710523401/Commissioners-hire-consultant-for-railroad-quiet-zone[/url]), which regards another city trying to become a quiet zone.
Rich;
Thanks for the FRA link. It’s been a while since I have looked up the rules. It would appear that Davis meets all the safety requirements for establishing a quiet zone. I see no reason why City staff could not be instructed by the CC to handle the details,(no need to hire a consultant). Perhaps they could contact other cities that have established quiet zones to find out about what hoops need to be jumped through. It’s a good idea to bring my concern to the attention of the CC.
And while we are at it, perhaps we could prevail upon the Davis Fire Dept. not to run their sirens in the middle of the night. You may have noticed that the Davis Police Dept. does not run their sirens past a certain hour. It is felt that running the flashing lights on their cruisers is sufficient warning when they are practically the only vehicles on the roads. I guess the Fire Dept. feels the need to let us all know what a good job they are doing ,all night long, in order to justify the hefty salary/benefit/retirement payments that we are all paying which contribute mightily to our current budget woes.
I will talk it around with some of the many folks who agree with me that sounding train horns is completely unnecessary at night when there are no other distractions which might cause a driver or pedestrian to not see the drop down arms or flashing lights. If enough people feel as I do, perhaps we could approach the CC as a group. Any more, that seems to be the only way to get their attention.
Davis has become noticeably noisier at night in the last few years. Every Fall, when I return from my hunt trip to Montana, I am shocked by how incredibly noisy Davis is all night long. If it is appropriate to keep our sky dark at night, certainly it is not unreasonable to to try for a reasonable level of quiet. People have become so accustomed to living in constant noise that they have grown to accept it as normal. The health consequences are huge and should not be ignored.
Rich Rifkin: “Absolutely. They were there first. The neighborhoods were built next to an existing railroad. The trains don’t blast their horns for fun. It’s required of them by law.”
From freedictionary.com: “Defendants sometimes argue that a plaintiff “came to a nuisance” by moving onto land next to an already operating source of interference. A new owner is entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of his or her land the same as anyone else, but the argument may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct. It may also have an impact in determining damages because the purchase price may have reflected the existence of the nuisance.”