Contrary to prior reports, the City of Davis may have a good deal more leverage than first believed about the fence that goes up along the Union Pacific tracks, at least in terms of the type of fence and the possibility of creating some sort of bike and pedestrian crossing.
Without city approval, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority would not approve government funding for a fence. On Tuesday night, representatives from the railroad giant, Union Pacific, vowed to work with the city as the council unanimously rejected the current proposal and called for future study.
In her comments, Mayor Pro Tem Swanson said that she appreciated the outreach by Union Pacific, stating, “Just because we simply oppose the fence you propose doesn’t meant that this has to be a negative process. I agree that collaboration is definitely there, maybe that particular fence isn’t part of the solution.”
She encouraged creativity to create alternative solutions that would be more palatable to the community and those living on Olive Drive. She does not believe this has to be an adversarial process.
Mayor Joe Krovoza echoed the remarks of the rest of the council stating, “My bottom line on this is I think UP’s liability and safety in the city is going to require a more creative solution than the one we have before us at present.”
He added that he fully expects that the city, with Union Pacific and other organizations, can find a better solution.
Lisa Stark represented Union Pacific and emphasized the need to work with the city and maintain open communications. In a clear but futile attempt to gain support, she said that the city and residents could choose the fencing color.
She argued that public safety issues were the primary driving force for this project and cited the high incidences of trespassing. She noted that four enforcement operations in 30 days resulted in 68 citations and 110 ejections.
She cited a high train volume on the corridor with 354 trains per week and 32 capitol corridor trains daily. These trains travel at high speeds. Moreover, pedestrian and train traffic do not mix, as a train needs at least a mile to stop and in many cases a longer distance.
She argued that there is a legal and safe pedestrian crossing in close proximity.
Ms. Stark concluded, “We understand that people want safe and easy access to get somewhere, but in our mind, public safety comes first. It’s very close to a legal and safe grade crossing, and we would prefer using that first.”
A spokesperson from the Public Utilities Commission said that the CPUC has authority over at-grade crossings and the city would have to file an application through the CPUC if they wanted an at-grade crossing.
However, he argued that everyone would protest that proposal, citing other crossings, which are less convenient for people who are walking.
He argued that the primary goal is protecting public safety and each new crossing increases the number of crossings and thus injury risk. He believes that the current area is problematic for the number of trespassings and that the railroad and the CPUC are unlikely to agree to an at-grade crossing.
While that wouldn’t prevent the city from applying, he believes, however, it would trigger protests. He said there is no doubt that they would support an undercrossing or an overcrossing, but not an at-grade crossing.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson would later question Union Pacific as to whether they would help fund an overcrossing. Ms. Stark was evasive on that point.
Ms. Swanson pushed it, “While I appreciate the examples for the fence, I feel it’s unfair to use this example unless we’re getting an overcrossing as well, because that ends up putting the burden on the city and the residents and it’s unfair.”
Ms. Stark responded that they have supported efforts of the city in the past to support something like that but she does not believe that the city is far enough in the planning process to do determine something like level of support or means of support for an overcrossing.
Mayor Krovoza pushed on the point of the incomplete crossing just east of the Amtrak station.
He pressed the point, “At two points that cement used to go all the way across, [and] who built those crossings going all the way across at the depot?”
The response was, “We don’t show any legitimate public crossings there, so none of them were approved by the public utilities commission.”
The Mayor pressed the point, “They were built, who built them?”
And he continued to press: “At two points out there, there’s white cement that was built very nicely all the way across, both tracks to facilitate people being able to walk across without having to step over the tracks and trip. It was built. You can tell that it was built because somebody subsequently went and ripped up the concrete that was furtherest to the south, so it is now less safe to cross there.”
He added that they were deliberate, well-made, and made things safer and he wanted to know who built them and why they were ripped out.
At some point there was a response that they are extensions of the platform, built by Southern Pacific at approximately the same time as they built the parking lot.
Alan Miller, who is a resident and one of the lead organizers on the oppostion to the proposed fence, was given extended time to address this issue.
He suggested that this is an old problem, [so] why [take action] now? He suggested that the availability of public funds played a role in this.
“Some fencing is needed, I am in favor of fencing,” he said. “Drunk students cross the tracks on Thursday night doing some of the most stupid things you can imagine, I have seen some very near-deaths.”
He researched the fatalities in the last twenty years and found that the type of victims were all over the map.
“But in all these that I researched,” he said, “Not one was made by a sober, happy person trying to get from one side of the tracks to the other.”
He said, “Only one person was for sure crossing over the tracks and was killed, and they were intoxicated.”
He asked rhetorically, “What problem is this fence meant to solve? Apparently not these deaths. I don’t know who did this fence plan, but they did not research these deaths nor do they know Davis.”
He argued that had the fence existed for the last twenty years, probably 12 or 13 of these deaths would have still occurred.
“It may be the use of public funds to reduce liability, not to improve public safety,” Alan Miller argued on Tuesday night. “That is an inappropriate use of public funds.”
Alan Miller argued that there are huge differences between Davis and other cities where Union Pacific has built fences. In those cities, he argued, one only has to walk to the end of the block in order to cross the tracks.
“In Davis, there is a neighborhood of 1000 people,” he argued, “You are cutting off multiple established routes that have been there for over 100 years. We have only one legal way out of there for a neighborhood of over 1000 people and we need three.”
Walking that route myself with Mr. Miller, along with Rochelle Swanson, it became apparent how close in proximity Olive Drive is to the downtown, but taking the Richards Blvd. route adds a tremendous distance to that route.
Steve Tracy showed how safe an at-grade crossing could be with an example of Pasadena’s Del Mar Station – a densely packed and highly used crossing that enables the public to gain access to commercial entities across the tracks from a train station.
The Del Mar station has a train roughly every six minutes with 200 trains a day crossing through the tracks – four times the amount of trains as the Davis Amtrak station has going through it, with only two fatalities in that area, one a suicide and one on a sidewalk in another location – neither at the Del Mar station’s at-grade crossing.
“This worked beautifully from what I could see, “ Mr. Tracy pointed out, “the gates actually structured the crossing. The pedestrians went when they were supposed to go and they stopped when they were supposed to stop.”
School Board Member Susan Lovenberg came forward to remind the council about the students and the safety of the students. 49 DJUSD students live on Olive Drive, going to 11 different schools, which creates logistical problems for transportation solutions. They are largely at-risk students. The school district has attempted to deal with transportation issues for several years without much success.
“Most illegal crossings by children were by teenagers crossing the L Street area, likely traveling to either Holmes or Harper Junior High,” she said noting all of our Junior Highs and High Schools are north of the tracks.
“We are left with the continued need for a safe crossing that addresses the needs of all of those living on Olive Drive including the students,” she said. “I don’t know what that looks like and I suggest none of us do. We haven’t done the study yet that looks at all of the crossings, how expensive it is, and what are the funding sources.”
The City Council is now, for the most part, unified on this issue. And that will present a powerful challenge to Union Pacific. There were beliefs at one point that the railroad would build the wall without city approval and thus without funding.
Based on their comments and actions, that does not appear likely. That gives the city considerable leverage to gain the kind of agreement they need to make the arrangement more palatable.
Everyone agrees this is a safety issue, although Alan Miller’s point is well-made that the fence would probably not have reduced the fatalities by much, if at all.
The question is how to prevent this fence from sectioning off Olive Drive from the rest of the community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Excellent summary. I assume that UP could build a fence anytime they want if they decide to use their own money. I wonder if they will move in that direction?
Frankly, it did my heart good to see our city coming together to support our neighbors on Olive Drive. People from all over the city spoke and our Council clearly stayed focused on the needs of its citizens while showing respect for the representatives from UP, FRA and PUC. They asked good and even tough questions but did so carefully.
I think it is also worthwhile highlighting the job our mayor did in handling the emotional crowd who came to speak into these issues. He was fair but firm. He helped set a respectful tone that led to a fruitful discussion and outcome.
dmg: “Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson would later question Union Pacific as to whether they would help fund an overcrossing. Ms. Stark was evasive on that point.
Ms. Swanson pushed it, “While I appreciate the examples for the fence, I feel it’s unfair to use this example unless we’re getting an overcrossing as well, because that ends up putting the burden on the city and the residents and it’s unfair.”
Ms. Stark responded that they have supported efforts of the city in the past to support something like that but she does not believe that the city is far enough in the planning process to do determine something like level of support or means of support for an overcrossing.”
I don’t think Ms. Stark was being “evasive” at all. UP is perfectly willing to support an overcrossing/undercrossing, if the city can find some means to fund such a project other than funding provided by UP, e.g. SACOG or other gov’t funding of some sort. But in the current economic climate, such funding is not likely to be forthcoming was what I heard (SACOG has already said “no” I think is what was said)…
dmg: “Without city approval, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority would not approve government funding for a fence.”
I somehow missed this point – are you sure this is what was said? If the city disapproves, is it certain UP will not get gov’t funding for the fence? What precisely was said to make you think this?
Robb: “I think it is also worthwhile highlighting the job our mayor did in handling the emotional crowd who came to speak into these issues. He was fair but firm. He helped set a respectful tone that led to a fruitful discussion and outcome.”
I agree, Joe Krovoza did an excellent job of running the meeting, and was quite respectful wrt all parties concerned. Appreciation was expressed to UP for being willing to come to the City Council meeting and listen to what the public had to say.
Bottom line is it appears UP is willing to listen, so it is incumbent on the City Council to try and work out a solution that is best for everyone concerned. A missed opportunity in this regard bc of political considerations (UP bashing for potential political gain) would be most unfortunate…
I don’t support using any kind of funds (government or otherwise) for something we don’t want. What we want is a legal, safe crossing for bikes and pedestrians. I can remember this discussion going on for at least 10 years, so it is not just a new thing that has come up right now. If they build a wall, people will put a hole in it so they can cross through. Could we use redevelopment funds for this? Could we sell the DACHA houses at market rate and use the money for this?
I am curious to learn just who provides the moneys granted by the Capital Corridor Joint Powers authority. If these funds are provided by California taxpayers, and money is being provided to a private corporation in order to lessen that corporation’s liability, could the CC JPA perhaps provide funding to mitigate the effects on the taxpayers of Davis of their contribution to U.P.?
[i]”I am curious to learn just who provides the moneys granted by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority.”[/i]
I don’t know.
I suspect that most of the money comes either directly from the State of California or indirectly from federal transportation taxes which are passed along to states. Here is an agenda item from the CCJPA ([url]http://www.capitolcorridor.org/included/docs/board_meetings/ccjpa_agenda_080917.pdf[/url]): [quote]RESOLVED, that the CCJPA Board hereby adopts the CCJPA fiscal year 2008-09 budget of $31,865,185 or any such amount that is included in the enacted State Budget Act of 2008 and the subsequent allocation letter from the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency plus any further amount authorized and provided by the State to support additional Capitol Corridor train and feeder bus service based upon the enactment of the State Budget Act of 2008 and subject to allocation of such funding by the State.[/quote]
I added additional images to illustrate the points that Alan Miller made last night.
“I don’t think Ms. Stark was being “evasive” at all. UP is perfectly willing to support an overcrossing/undercrossing, if the city can find some means to fund such a project other than funding provided by UP, e.g. SACOG or other gov’t funding of some sort. “
To me she was because she wouldn’t say yes or no. To me it’s a bit disingenuous because the railroad is trying to get the city cooperate so they get funding but not willing to commit to helping the city get funding.
“I somehow missed this point – are you sure this is what was said? If the city disapproves, is it certain UP will not get gov’t funding for the fence? What precisely was said to make you think this? “
We were told that unless the city agrees, the CCJPA, of which the city has a rep on, is not going to approve funding. That won’t mean UP won’t fund it themselves, but they won’t get the subsidies.
dmg: “To me she was because she wouldn’t say yes or no. To me it’s a bit disingenuous because the railroad is trying to get the city cooperate so they get funding but not willing to commit to helping the city get funding.”
That is not how I heard it. My sense was that UP/Ms. Stark could not commit to anything bc of the lack of available public funding (SACOG has already said “no”). In fact Ms. Stark and the gentleman from CCJPA made a big point of stating that UP has already sent letters in support of an Davis overcrossing/undercrossing for an application to SACOG, but SACOG was not receptive to the idea and would not cough up anything (not one cent) for such a project. The impression I had is that neither Ms. Stark nor the CCJPA rep thinks there is any other public funding source available for an overcrossing/undercrossing.
dmg: “We were told that unless the city agrees, the CCJPA, of which the city has a rep on, is not going to approve funding. That won’t mean UP won’t fund it themselves, but they won’t get the subsidies.”
Somehow I missed this – that if the city says “no” to the fence, UP won’t get a gov’t subsidy to build the fence… was this said orally, or was it part of the packet? Good catch on your part – thanks for this very important info…
Joe Krovoza showed an at grade crossing in Pasadena, which appears great from the photo. But it did not sound like UP would be receptive to an at grade crossing bc of the liability issue, only an overcrossing/undercrossing – which is inherently more expensive I would think. However, someone in the audience (cannot remember if it was Alan Miller or someone else) said that another city had constructed a pre-fab overcrossing that worked very well, and that Davis should investigate this possible solution.
My hope is that our City Council will do some homework, and also join forces w UP, and come up with a good solution that perhaps SACOG would sign onto. Another possible partner could be UCD – Gary Sandy, UCD Community Relations Director expressed concerned for student safety across the tracks. Perhaps UCD’s transportation research dept. has some innovative ideas…
The money is Proposition 1B transportation safety fund money, voted on by the people, distributed by the CCJPA and originating at Caltrans. CCJPA itself would not and could not fund a local city pedestrian bridge from its budget. The price tag is relatively high, about $3-$5 million. A tunnel is much more. That kind of money doesn’t come easy. The City would have built the bridge if SACOG had granted our previous grant request. The argument needs to be re-framed, as the population (lack-of) factor without further arguments (and there are many good ones) will keep the project a low funding priority. Even an at-grade crossing when all is said and done (associated fencing, gates, paths, signage, signaling) would approach $1 million.
Yes, UP actually needs a letter from the City to allow the CCJPA to release the funds. This fact was in the City staff report to the Council. That is what this is all about, the availability of public funds, not actual public safety. There is no magic cost/benefit analysis of correcting existing rail safety issues in Davis, only available funds for a single project that I believe has the potential to do more harm to public safety overall, and probably even increase the death rate on the tracks (I won’t repeat my arguments for that here, watch the City Council video and you are free to agree or disagree).
I brought up several rail safety issues that have been ignored by the railroad and the FRA that are potentially more of a threat to public safety than citizen tresspassers. There is no way to quantify potential safety threats relative to each other, but I find the argument brought to the table last night about safety being all about the bad citizens of Davis trespassing as rather disingenuous. I have on several occasions reported safety issues along the railroad in Davis to both the UP and the FRA and have received varying responses ranging from nice people who could not help to extremely rude to non-responsive to being hung-up on to inexplicably confused and incompetent. My point is UP and FRA are no shining paragons of safety, straightforwardness nor cooperation. The City of course has to be civil to official representatives, but must remain vigilant in understanding the agendas and organizational culture of the City’s adversaries on this matter.
Stark actually got a bum rap from the audience when she was mocked for ‘not knowing’ what an over-crossing meant, as it can, indeed, mean at-grade. However, I won’t defend her corporation, as sending a PR person really did not help the discussion besides disseminating the corporate line, which only helps UP. UP doesn’t have to engage in any conversation with Davis citizens. An engineer familiar with the project area and fence design or a decision maker able to take comments back to Omaha for consideration would have been useful, rather than a PR offer for a green (literally! lime or forest green?) fence. But UP would rather not have a useful conversation. That is their way. The FRA rep did not even speak on the topic, a fact that Rochelle picked up on right away.
One council-member threw at least two expensive, red-herring side issues into the ring that have little-to-nothing to do with solving the issue at hand, but could muck up discussions. Thankfully, a strong majority of the current council not only gets it, but seems at this point willing to take this thorny issue to the mat and hopefully see it through. Because a public crossing here has been denied by the railroad for over 80 years, it will take a united effort by the City to gain the political partnerships to find the funding and/or the political will to allow for a crossing to be forced upon the railroad, because forcing is what it is going to take.
The likely, and tragic, result of all this would be the railroad saying ‘enough’ with the process and building the fence, and the City saying, “we’ll continue to look at options and seek funding”. That’s where we’ve been for the last decade. If the fence is built, the crossing project will lose momentum as it did before. In this scenario, more people will use the long, legal route, more daring souls will find their way around the fence and cross the tracks in more dangerous ways, anarchistic souls may try to make holes in the fence, and overall pedestrian/bicycle transit times will be drastically increased, while safety and the efficiency of circulation patterns will be reduced.
This above scenario is the likely outcome, but we, because we are Davis, will NOT allow that to be Olive Drive’s future.
Did I understand the FRA spokesperson correctly who said that the reason that Davis can’t have a ‘quiet zone’ is because we don’t have a public railroad crossing in Davis. Sound like a great added benefit of putting in a crossing; Trains won’t be required by law to blow their horns as the travel through town.
In a bit of steel rail irony, a few minutes ago a person who had been drinking fell while crossing the tracks at 2nd and L. Police, Fire, and AMR responded, and the violator was taken off to the hospital with an eye injury suffered when his head hit the track.
Fortunately, some other track crossers removed him from the tracks before the emergency responders arrived. The injured party was advised by the DPD officer that he could file a report with Amtrak/UP police, but for some reason he felt that wouldn’t be necessary.
Anyone know if UP made any noise or comments when Davis was developing the properties south of the tracks? Did the city seek UP input at that time?
To Alan Miller: Do you have any idea of what the cost would be for a pre-fab overcrossing? I found that idea intriguing, but of course there was no discussion as to how much that might cost…
Alan Miller: “Yes, UP actually needs a letter from the City to allow the CCJPA to release the funds. This fact was in the City staff report to the Council. That is what this is all about, the availability of public funds, not actual public safety.”
Thanks for this clarification…
I’m assuming your position is either 1) no fence; or 2) a fence accompanied by at least one legal crossing (at grade/undercrossing/overcrossing)? I found your argument that the fence would not really prevent deaths (possibly 1 in the last 20 years) very persuasive – as if the fence is a solution in search of a problem…and worse – if built – may create additional problems (school children having to cross Richards Blvd) for the city of Davis…
Lousy logic Tuesday night (and more of the same on this blog) for not erecting a barrier: “There have been only one or two lives that might conceivably been saved had there been a barrier. It’s just not worth the inconvenience created or the expense of public money.” Recently, at considerable public expense, we moved a crosswalk a hundred feet or so, changed the engineering of an intersection, and created new handicap/bike curb cut-outs (F St. and Covell), after hearing the rhetoric, “Will it take someone, a child, losing their life before we do what we must do to make this intersection safe.” No one scoffed at the concept of preventing a death.
However, with this railroad proposal though, even though there is evidence that a fence very well could have saved a life, and therefore could very well save a life in the future, the suggestion is that not enough lives would be saved to make this project worthwhile. How many lives must we project would be saved for us to say, “It’s worth a little inconvenience.”?
The only difference I see is the fact that a corporate entity is involved in the current proposal, and so many against this(actually so few proportionally, since I suspect we heard close to 100% of those opposed on Tuesday night and on the blog now) are the sort of folks that have an irrational hatered of corporations. Anything they can do to stick it to a corporation makes them happy, even if it is detrimental to the community welfare.
Not only that, but doesn’t anyone wonder what sort of ignorant city government (planners and Council) allowed a proposal to build residential properties, especially so many, in that sliver of land between the railroad and the freeway go forward. In most other cities, the intelligent choice always seems to be to use the land for industrial/commercial. Had good sense been practiced then, this issue wouldn’t even exist now.
Finally, since it seems very likely our RDA money is about to be seized by the State, why not encumber a couple million dollars of the $9 million or so in the fund to build the over-crossing that everyone wants?
I was the sole vote against building the largest housing project on Olive Drive, based exactly on the reason that it was on “that sliver of land between the railroad and the freeway”. I was ridiculed at the time in an article in the Sac News and Review for saying that it would create safety problems.
More significantly, I was the only vote a few months ago against recreating a similar situation on the Nishi.
“However, with this railroad proposal though, even though there is evidence that a fence very well could have saved a life, and therefore could very well save a life in the future, the suggestion is that not enough lives would be saved to make this project worthwhile.”
The question is whether maybe saving one life in the past means that we need to block off a major path by which 1000 people access our downtown. Even Alan Miller agreed we needed a fence, the only question is how to allow people to continue to get over the tracks without forcing them to Richards which would add considerable distance to the trek.
AT: “Lousy logic Tuesday night (and more of the same on this blog) for not erecting a barrier: “There have been only one or two lives that might conceivably been saved had there been a barrier. It’s just not worth the inconvenience created or the expense of public money.” Recently, at considerable public expense, we moved a crosswalk a hundred feet or so, changed the engineering of an intersection, and created new handicap/bike curb cut-outs (F St. and Covell), after hearing the rhetoric, “Will it take someone, a child, losing their life before we do what we must do to make this intersection safe.” No one scoffed at the concept of preventing a death.”
I think you are missing the point here. I don’t think people are necessarily advocating for no fence. The problem is if a fence is built, w no crossing that accompanies it, a greater safety problem will be created. Why? Because it will force pedestrians and bicyclists to cross at a freeway off ramp, where cars go whizzing by at freeway speeds – especially school children. Or they will cross the railroad tracks on either side of the fence bc it is quicker access than taking the legal route which would be almost a mile longer. What UP is advocating is building a fence w no crossing, which would push the safety problem onto other parts of the track, or to other parts of the city which could be more dangerous. Which essentially pushes additionally created problems onto the city of Davis.
AT: “However, with this railroad proposal though, even though there is evidence that a fence very well could have saved a life, and therefore could very well save a life in the future, the suggestion is that not enough lives would be saved to make this project worthwhile. How many lives must we project would be saved for us to say, “It’s worth a little inconvenience.”?”
But one has to ask themselves which is safer, especially if the pedestrians are children: 1) crossing at RR tracks w clear visibility even tho illegal; or 2) crossing at a freeway off-ramp where cars go whizzing by at freeway speeds?
AT: “The only difference I see is the fact that a corporate entity is involved in the current proposal, and so many against this(actually so few proportionally, since I suspect we heard close to 100% of those opposed on Tuesday night and on the blog now) are the sort of folks that have an irrational hatered of corporations. Anything they can do to stick it to a corporation makes them happy, even if it is detrimental to the community welfare.”
I was strongly in favor of bringing Target to Davis, so I am not an anti-coporate type at all. I don’t think that is the issue at all. The fence, if built w no crossing, will effectively close off a part of the city in a way that will make pedestrian crossings more, not less dangerous.
AT: “Not only that, but doesn’t anyone wonder what sort of ignorant city government (planners and Council) allowed a proposal to build residential properties, especially so many, in that sliver of land between the railroad and the freeway go forward. In most other cities, the intelligent choice always seems to be to use the land for industrial/commercial. Had good sense been practiced then, this issue wouldn’t even exist now.”
Sue Greenwald: “I was the sole vote against building the largest housing project on Olive Drive, based exactly on the reason that it was on “that sliver of land between the railroad and the freeway”. I was ridiculed at the time in an article in the Sac News and Review for saying that it would create safety problems.”
I think this is a very valid point, and all the more reason to be careful when developing the Nishi property, so the same mistake is not made…
ERM: But one has to ask themselves which is safer, especially if the pedestrians are children: 1) crossing at RR tracks w clear visibility even tho illegal; or 2) crossing at a freeway off-ramp where cars go whizzing by at freeway speeds?
1) I think crossing a road (in general) is safer than crossing railroad tracks. There are several reasons I believe this. First, cars have some ability to react. They can steer to avoid obstacles, they can hit the brakes, etc. Trains cannot really do anything in terms of collision avoidance. Second, when cars are coming from multiple directions, it is easy to “look both ways” and wait until it is safe to proceed. Many people don’t realize is that when a train is passing, you must safely wait a little longer before crossing the tracks after the train goes by than you do to cross a road. Here is why: One common way that people are stuck by trains while crossing tracks is because trains are long and you cannot see around them. Consider the scenario where a long train is traveling from your left to your right. As this train passes, it might stretch far into the distance to your right before the end passes the point where you are waiting. During this time, another train, potentially moving at a high rate of speed, is approaching you from the right. You cannot see this train because it is completely obscured by the train immediately in front of you. In many cases, you won’t hear this second train either because of the noise of the train right in front of you. As soon as the end of the train immediately in front of you passes, you immediately step out onto the tracks expecting the path to be clear, and are oblivious to the fact that you are about to be hit by the second train. this type of accident is not uncommon, and I have personally seen one near miss in this very manner.
2) Why would someone stay on the opposite side of Olive drive until they get down to where the fence ends, and then cross the street near the freeway offramp? Why would they not cross the street where they always do and then walk along Olive drive?
To dgrundler: Doesn’t it make sense to see if there is any way that both a fence and crossing can be built? I understand there will be resistance, but you would be surprised how much public transportation funding is floating around out there. Why not this project, if SACOG can be convinced there is a fairly cheap way of doing it (if there is)? I’m thinking of a pre-fab overcrossing as was mentioned at the CC meeting…
ERM,
I do agree that adequate access needs to be provided. That access should have been addressed when the buildout of Olive Drive was approved. No matter what we do moving forward, I believe the fence needs to be part of that. Without the fence, I see no way of preventing people from crossing illegally. Even if an overpass was right there, and people would have to walk an extra 40 feet or so to use it, I bet many would still just cross the tracks. You would be amazed how many people walk across fifth street next to the old Explorit where there is no cross walk, even though there is an underpass right there. Ideally, it would be nice to have them both simultaneously, but I think there is a stronger case for the under/over pass once the fence is built.