It was heartening to see a strongly-worded response by a city that is often far too timid in advocating for residents on a regional level. “The city is extremely disappointed that UPRR has chosen to proceed with construction of the fence to block these gates,” a statement read
The Vanguard notes that, immediately, residents of the Olive Drive area were hopping the fences, showing the futility of it all. Some fear that the fenced-off gate is a prelude to the larger fence to be constructed by the railroad.
They note the strong fence, surrounded by weaker and older fences, suggest that at some point a breach will occur and it will lead to the railroad having the justification for fencing off the entire three-quarter mile stretch that theyhave proposed.
Wrote Alan Miller, one of the chief proponents of a safe crossing route for Olive Drive residents, on the Vanguard on Monday, “They know if you put a solid metal barrier in a weak fence line, the fence is breached at the edge of the barrier; they have seen it a thousand times. When this happens, UP will use that as an argument to build the entire fence, demonizing and finger-wagging at the ‘trespassers’. Totally predictable.”
The city has opposed such a construction of a fence without an at-grade crossing. However, the railroad owns the right of way and does not need city approval or public funding to continue.
The city said on Monday, “Cutting off access at this time does not promote the process of determining a safe access to the station and downtown Davis for the Olive Drive area, and potentially allows pedestrians to cross at less safe locations.”
The railroad has used the safety issue to push this project forward, but as Alan Miller has shown, the issue of safety is probably a secondary consideration.
In January, Mr. 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.” Union Pacific had been seeking the assitance of public funds throught the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority.
It is our view that Alan Miller’s analysis is correct. Not only is the argument about safety misplaced, but “The issue is that the fence would likely create a more dangerous situation.”
In fact, the brief observations we made at Slatter’s Court on Monday demonstrate it. People were not finding alternative routes to their homes, they simply jumped the fence.
As Alan Miller would argue in a comment on the Vanguard, “That people ‘should not’ does not change the reality that people *will*. The idea here is to acknowledge human behavior and design a crossing that is within the ability of government to build with available funding as soon as possible and that will create the safest situation possible.”
The city is not condoning trespassing, as some suggested. Nor is the city blind to the need for a safe crossing alternative. Toward that end they have pursued an at-grade crossing.
Wrote Alan Miller, “The at-grade crossing is by far the safest, most doable, and most affordable solution.”
However, at this point, the railroad has said it will not consider an at-grade crossing. Instead they favor blocking off access to the tracks with no alternative.
Wrote Alan Miller, “People will not live peacefully behind this barrier, no matter that the finger waggers and railroad say they ‘should’. If built, the railroad will create a permanently unstable and unsafe situation.”
He added, “The fence as planned will end at two points that are not in and of themselves legal public crossings (Richard’s also creates a diagonal crossing over the tracks at the bridge as well as the legal path). Many people will indeed go to Richard’s Blvd. tunnel. Many will go to the edges of the fence. Others will find ways over, under and through the fence. I am not condemning nor condoning this, it simply is. That is human nature, and for an effective solution, all sides must acknowledge that reality.”
The city may have to pursue grant funding for a tunnel below the tracks. Effectively cutting off Richards from downtown is not a good solution.
When I walked the tracks in early December, it was remarkable how different the layout of the city appears from that vantage point as opposed to driving the streets, which puts on a lot of distance to a foot or bike trek. Walking from Olive Drive to Downtown goes from a five minute stroll to a ten to fifteen minute hike.
From our standpoint the key now is the city. The city needs to keep raising a fuss over this in order to force UP or the Capitol Corridor to help fund or find the funding for a safe-route alternative.
The city’s commitment to the Olive Drive residents and access issues was made clear on Monday: “The city believes that the Olive Drive area residents should have a safe at-grade crossing that is part of an overall safety plan for that area.”
The city maintains it will continue to pursue an at-grade crossing “regardless of the obstacles created by UPRR.”
The key now will be their continued vigilance on this issue. Residents who do not live in the Olive Drive area ought to get involved as well and help the city continue to do the right thing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The RR says no at grade crossing. The city insists there must be an at grade crossing. It is the RRs property, so they can build the fence if they want to. The city does not have money on its own for an at grade crossing, and in these hard economic times, it will be hard to come by. Not only that, I assume the city would have to convince the CCJPA that an at grade crossing in Davis is necessary and should come before many other “equally necessary” projects in the CCJPA’s jurisdiction. So I suspect an at grade crossing funded by public monies is a long shot. But the city has little choice but to pursue that alternative at this point no matter how remote the chance…
What’s particularly sick about UP’s behavior is that they’re clearly baiting Olive Drive residents with the fences. I’m sure that they’d love nothing more than for residents to tear it down, in order to justify building the massive, expensive, heavy-duty, sub-contracted fence which they were trying to drain our public funding for.
Union Pacific apparently doesn’t care about City planning or the rights/comfort of Olive Drive residents to access their community. This is what corporate monopoly does to humanity! Profit over people is a gross and evil thing.
[i]”This is what corporate monopoly does to humanity! [b]Profit[/b] over people is a gross and evil thing.”[/i]
Profit? How does UP make profits by spending its own money to try to prevent its neighbors from illegally crossing onto and over UP property, an act which, on its face, seems dangerous?
It seems to me on the face of it like it would be easier to argue that this attempt is just the opposite, more for the safety of people over profit. If it inhibits anyone from making this dangerous and illegal crossing–and surely it will inhibit some from doing so, at least at Slater’s Court–then it will have succeeded to that extent.
Union Pacific made $3 billion in profit and paid out $750 million in dividends in the last year. They can afford to build a crossing that meets the needs of city at their own expense. They don’t want an at grade crossing and will fight forever to not have one. The line along I-80 is one of the busiest and therefore most profitable routes in the nation. Crossings mean stopping trains and that equals large increases in the use of fuel. Another alternative would be a compromise. Demanding an at grade crossing just prolongs the fight indefinitely.
….more for the safety of people over profit….
That’s what I thought too until I actually walked the proposed extent of the fence which does not include the areas where the majority of the deaths have occurred and seems likely to lead to people attempting to cross at even more dangerous sites. At the best, I would say that the UP planners have not adequately assessed the area. At the worst, which I would prefer not to believe, the real motive is avoidance of legal responsibility. Either way, I do not feel that the fence alone, without a comprehensive solution is likely to be protective.
Mr. Toad: “Another alternative would be a compromise. Demanding an at grade crossing just prolongs the fight indefinitely.”
I would be interested to know what compromise you have in mind. I agree that a fight over an at grade crossing seems like a long shot and will result in a long drawn out battle.
I don’t know what Mr. Toad has in mind, but since I will soon be ib the neighborhood, I would like to see a jointly funded overpass or underpass. I have been told that this will not happen because it would be prohibitively expensive. I have not however heard any actual numbers projected for how much a modest overpass for foot and/or bike passage would cost.
To medwoman: Trust me, if it is the city of Davis doing it, they will find the most expensive option! Bit of tongue in cheek, but it has certainly worked out that way in the past…
You should see what they have in mind for the 5th St reconfiguration – it is in the multi-millions when some suggested a few cans of paint would do it!