Union Pacific Appears Ready to Construct Fence, City Still Trying to Stall For Time

However, the CCJPA will not agree to help fund the fence over the objections of the Davis City Council.  That gives the city some leverage, although it is also believed that at some point the railroad will build the fence with their own money regardless of the city’s objections.

At the previous council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson moved to oppose the current proposal and direct staff to work with Union Pacific and other entities to create a more appropriate plan for Davis.

According to the staff report, since the council’s January meeting, staff held one meeting with representatives from multiple jurisdictions.  At the meeting, Union Pacific staff informed city staff that the concept of utilizing their right-of-way for bike and pedestrian purposes was no longer an option.

They further indicated that at the full extent of their right-of-way would need to be reserved for their future plans to construct a third rail line and that they had initiated a survey of their property to locate the property lines and right-of-way boundaries in the area of the proposed fence.

At this meeting, according to the staff report, “It was agreed that the city would develop several options for crossings. CPUC appointed a staff person to assist us in looking at the options. UPRR stated that they were more than willing to talk about grade separated crossings.  They indicated that the direction they have from UPRR management is to move forward with their proposed fence.”

As a result of that meeting, the Interim City Manager Paul Navazio submitted the attached letter to Union Pacific. The letter asks for a firm commitment from Union Pacific that they are willing to work with the city before constructing a fence.

He writes, “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.”

Mr. Navazio also requested  90 day notices prior to any request for public funding of the fence and the start of construction.

The city has yet to receive a response from Union Pacific.

The staff report acknowledges, “One concern that city staff has is that the CCJPA Board might not have all the facts, information and concerns that have be brought forth by all the parties over the past month. It is feared that the CCJPA Board could mistakenly believe that the fence would solve all safety issues rather than making safety issues worse.”

Liisa Stark represented Union Pacific in the January meeting 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.

However, others in particular have questioned whether the stretch of track that the fence would be built on is really the most dangerous stretch of track around.

Toward that end, Alan Miller argued, “Some fencing is needed, I am in favor of fencing.”

However, he quickly added,  “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 mapped the deaths in relation to the proposed fence, and found that of the 14 deaths, only two occurred along the proposed fence area.  One was a person lying on the tracks.

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 at that meeting.  “That is an inappropriate use of public funds.”

He acknowledged that at-grading crossings are rarely approved, but here are justified for the sake of public safety.

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.”

He showed an example where crossing over the tracks meant only about a 200-foot walk to one destination, but with a wall, it would mean a 1.25 mile trek.  He acknowledged it was one of the longer examples, but nonetheless for a crossing that hundreds of people use every day, the fact remains that crossing at Richards adds considerable distances for pedestrians and bicycles.

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.”

After last month’s meeting it appeared that the Council was unified against the proposed fence and that this would present a powerful challenge to Union Pacific. 

There were fears at one point that the railroad would build the wall without city approval and thus without funding.  After last month’s meeting and the comments by Union Pacific, that did not appear likely.  However, in their actions since, it might end up being that Union Pacific has to forego public money if they are to construct the fence.

—David M. Greenwald reporting