For a change it appears the City of Davis has been too effective in advocating on behalf of the Olive Drive residents, for whom a fence would effectively cut them off from the rest of the city.
As we reported earlier this week, the City of Davis was prepared to oppose public funding of a fence along Olive Drive until a deal could be worked out for a safe crossing for the residents of that street to cross into the downtown.
In a February 1st letter from the Interim City Manager, he asked for a firm commitment from Union Pacific that they are willing to work with the city before constructing a fence.
He wrote, “The City of Davis would like a firm commitment from UPRR that it is willing to work with the city to explore options, and that UPRR will not pursue or install the fence until the City and UPRR have had sufficient opportunity to develop reasonable alternatives that promote safety of the residents of Olive Drive and the passengers and UPRR employees operating the trains.”
He continued, “To this end we request that UPRR commit to delaying the fence project until the city, in conjunction with UPRR, develops alternatives and risk assessments.”
That letter was never addressed by Union Pacific, and instead they sent their own letter to the CCJPA, backing out of their request for public funding.
Wrote Scott Moore, Vice President of Public Affairs for Union Pacific, “The purpose of this letter is for Union Pacific to notify the CCJPA in writing that UP would like to withdraw from consideration [of] any public funding for the Davis Fence project.”
“Let me be clear in stating that although UP is withdrawing any request for participation from CCJPA for public funding towards the construction of the Davis Public Safety Fence, UP is still interested in moving the fence project forward to protect public health and safety,” he continues. “As such, UP will be exploring options to fund the safety fence exclusively with private dollars, though we have no set timetable for such construction to occur.”
He added, “In the meantime, I would suggest that CCJPA staff, UP staff, and the City of Davis continue discussions about what other measures could be taken in addition to the privately funded safety fence to secure the area in question and grant a convenient and safe grade-separated pedestrian crossing and access point for the public.”
This comes not long after they claimed publicly that they wished to work with the City of Davis on a joint solution.
At this week’s Tuesday council meeting, the City Council voted to direct City Attorney Harriet Steiner to file an injunction to halt construction of the fence until UP addressed local concerns.
Also going to bat for the City of Davis, are its legislative representatives, both residents of Davis, Senator Lois Wolk and Assemblymember Mariko Yamada.
In a letter to Bob Franklin, who chairs the CCJPA Board, Senator Wolk expressed the concern that a fence could “potentially” add to the safety concerns.
“The City is also concerned that this fence may significantly impede access to downtown Davis for Olive Drive residents,” wrote the Senator. “The Olive Drive neighborhood represents a socio-economically disadvantaged area. Most of the residents rely heavily on biking and walking as their primary form of transportation, and improving, not hampering, convenient bicycle and pedestrian access in this area should be a high priority.”
Assemblymember Yamada, along the same lines, wrote that “Many residents bike or walk across the tracks to reach downtown Davis because they do not have cars. They do not use the Richards Boulevard undercrossing because it is inconvenient to their neighborhood and schools. I recall transporting students from the mobile home park during inclement weather, when their parents had great difficulty walking their children to school.”
“A simple fence is not likely to re-route Olive Drive residents. In fact, I suspect that residents would find riskier ways to get through such a barrier. I believe they need and deserve a safe bicycle and pedestrian crossing instead of a barrier that would only further blight the area,” she added.
Both Mayor Joe Krovoza and activist Alan Miller expressed optimism in the Davis Enterprise that a deal could still get done here.
What I find truly remarkable is how much city government has changed in the last three months. This is an issue in which the city never would have gone to bat, with previous councils. Now we suddenly see everyone working on the same page to forcefully push to make it very difficult for the CCJPA and Union Pacific to “railroad” the city, even on an issue that the council has no direct authority on.
My guess is that one of two things are going to happen here. Either there will be no fence and this is Union Pacific’s graceful way of bowing out of a fight. Or there will be a fence but only after an agreement is reached for some sort of reasonable crossing alternative.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “What I find truly remarkable is how much city government has changed in the last three months. This is an issue in which the city never would have gone to bat, with previous councils. Now we suddenly see everyone working on the same page to forcefully push to make it very difficult for the CCJPA and Union Pacific to “railroad” the city, even on an issue that the council has no direct authority on.”
🙂
the city should put its liability where its mouth is… sign a blanket absolution and hold harmless for any action that occurs to anyone crossing that place for any reason. No need for a fence…
U.P. Is a multi-billion dollar corporation, in a position to buy and sell Davis from pocket change. They have a track record for being poor neighbors. They have no legally mandated requirement to negotiate with the City of Davis. With an average of one suicide by train occurring every other year, which probably costs them approximately two million dollars a pop, it is in their best interest to spend an estimated $250,000.to fence off the tracks along Olive Drive.
Thinking that Davis can use partial reimbursement of that quarter million,from CCJPA, as some kind of bargaining chip is pure hubris. This is David vs. Goliath,and Goliath is going to do what they damn well please.
The people who developed all those apartments on Olive Dr. should have been required to fund a bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing from Olive to the corner of 2nd. and L Streets. Since that did not occur, it’s time for Davis taxpayers to pony up for yet another byproduct of unchecked development.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with roger bockrath here as far as what U.P. is able and likely to do. However, I am not sure that city leaders see the CCJPA funding (PUC funding actually) as a bargaining chip. I think they are simply trying to do the right thing. Saying “no” to public money is simply saying that we don’t think this is an appropriate use of public funds given that it is not a real solution to the problem.
Some may scoff at the idea that the city is merely trying to do the right thing–after all, this is not a new issue. True, but I think the current City Council is taking the issue up in a new way–actually listening to the community on Olive Drive and trying to solve this once and for all in the interests of all of Davis.
If there is pride (not hubris) it is in seeing our city come together around this issue. Having attended the Council meeting when the UP representative cynically offered to allow us to “choose the color of the fence”, I was proud of the way our community used all its experience, knowledge and wisdom to make a strong case for an alternative. That was something to be proud of.
Finally, lets not forget the outcome of the David vs Goliath narrative…
In response to R.B., it is not in their best interest to fence off the tracks due to the suicides, because not one of the suicides would have been stopped. Even if the fence went in as planned, the entire north side of tracks would not be fenced in, and even it it was, which it will not be, the station area will never be fenced. You cannot prevent suicides with fencing. A couple of editorials in Bay Area newspapers pointed this out. Also, only one of the fifteen deaths documented in the last 20 years would have been stopped by the fence had it been in place during that time. UP does not want to acknowledge these facts.
If anyone wants to see the fence style, one is now in place between the at-grade crossing West Sacramento near the Sacramento River, and the I Street River Bridge. It is tight-mesh reinforced steel, eight-feet high, and in my opinion looks like a prison fence and completely inappropriate for Davis. As Mike Erickson pointed out at the Council meeting on 1/11, if there was a decent crossing, there would be no need for such a monstrous and expensive fence, because there would be no motivation to circumvent it. The “you could have a green fence” by the U.P. representative showed the railroad has no qualms about insulting the intelligence of our citizens.
I do agree with R.B. that an over-crossing should have been paid for by the developers of the massive apartments on the south side of Olive Drive. I testified that before the City Council when the Lexington was proposed, but that City Council did not listen, and screwed the City Council and citizens to pay the consequences and the bill today. That is water under the bridge, because today City Council and Staff are doing a stellar job on this issue.
Much as Goliath Railroad’s proposal is not only wrong for Davis, but won’t even accomplish their own stated goals because they refuse to admit the unintended consequences, we cannot ignore that despite the fact only one person has been killed along the fence line, it is only a miracle that more have not been killed, considering the stupid things that some people in crossing the tracks.
Some fencing is needed, to guide people to a safe crossing, to that Davis citizens should concede. And a public crossing is needed, to that the railroad may concede, if ‘it’ gets real. Olive Drive cannot be walled off completely.
The sticking point is this: An under or over-crossing is more expensive than Davis can afford, and an at-grade crossing is affordable. Union Pacific does not want any additional at-grade crossings for liability reasons, no matter how safe they are constructed. So, what we NEED is a temporary, at-grade crossing and some attractive, modest fencing until such time as the City has the money to build a grade-separated crossing.
[quote]I do agree with R.B. that an over-crossing should have been paid for by the developers of the massive apartments on the south side of Olive Drive. I testified that before the City Council when the Lexington was proposed, but that City Council did not listen, and screwed the City Council and citizens to pay the consequences and the bill today.[/quote]I want to make it clear that I voted against those apartments because of the unresolved railroad safety issues. It was a 4-1 vote. Now, the council has voted to study development of the Nishi property, which could easily recreate the same situation on West Olive Drive. I voted against this as well.
Correction: Looking back at an ancient newspaper article, it looks as if Mike Harrington might have also voted against the complex.