One of the not-so-subtle differences in this new council has been the willingness for the city to go to bat for its most vulnerable residents, even in the face of policy opposition from Union Pacific Railroad.
The city took the first strong step by opposing public funding for the railroad fence. That forced Union Pacific to drop its efforts to gain public funding from the CCJPA (Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Agreement). In response last month, the railroad fenced off an access gate at Slatter’s Court.
“The city is extremely disappointed that UPRR has chosen to proceed with construction of the fence to block these gates,” the statement read
Mayor Joe Krovoza also issued his own strong statement, “This unilateral action by UP flies in the face of what the city believed was progress, and only makes more difficult a permanent, safety-enhancing solution”
The city knows that it lacks the power to prevent a fence from being built. It also knows that the railroad believes, for issues of liability, that it must build one.
Moreover, legal issues aside, it is not good policy to have people trespassing and crossing the tracks illegally. The city knows the ultimate answer is to get safe and legal crossing options for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The cheapest route to go is to get an at-grade crossing. In January at a city council meeting, 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.
Nevertheless, this city is not going to take no for an answer. On Tuesday council will approve a plan that will be included in the application for two at-grade crossings.
On June 7, the council will have a public hearing and be asked to grant official direction to submit the CPUC application.
According to the staff report, city staff is recommending two crossings.
The first would be a bike/ pedestrian-only crossing which is at the depot, lining up with the main access to the platform.
The city staff describes it as “generally” across from the Slatter’s Court gate.
They describe the following, “The crossing would connect to a new path (on the south side of the tracks) that runs parallel to the tracks connecting to Hickory Lane on the east and city property on the west (just past Davis Mobile Estates). The existing property fences would remain in place and a new short fence (5-7’) would be added between the path and tracks. This would funnel all bikes/pedestrians to the new at-grade crossing. This fence would need to extend from Richards Blvd. to a point east of the Olive Drive off-ramp from I-80 in a manner that makes it difficult for bikes/pedestrian to go around.”
The second location would be for emergency vehicles only and it would access the crossing connecting L Street to Olive Drive. Writes city staff, “This crossing would be fully gated and locked such that only emergency responders could use the crossing during emergencies for access to the Olive Drive neighborhood or used as an evacuation point if no other options exist.
The city staff adds, “This access point addresses a real concern that any fencing of the tracks from the Olive Drive neighborhood creates safety issues since the south side of the East Olive Drive neighborhood is bounded by I-80, with the Richards/Olive.”
The city’s concern at this point is Union Pacific’s notification to the city that they will build a 3800 foot long, 8 foot high fence on the south side of the tracks “in an attempt to barricade Olive Drive residents from crossing the tracks.”
As the city notes, “The fence would not stop residents from crossing the tracks but rather push them to less safe locations where historically fatalities have occurred. The city at-grade pedestrian/bike crossing would mitigate the impact of the Union Pacific Railroad fence.”
The city is also concerned that the fence would harm downtown business by making it far more difficult for Olive Drive residents to gain access to the downtown.
From a fiscal standpoint, this effort is costing the city a small amount of money.
Writes the city staff, “The preparation and submittal of an application to the CPUC was an unanticipated expense for this year’s and next year’s budgets. The work to date on this project includes, staff time, surveyor work, traffic consultant, consultant with expertise on CPUC application processing, engineering consultant and legal costs.”
The report continues, “A Capital Improvement Project (CIP) has existed in the city budget for the last couple of years and was used to fund documents for the unsuccessful grant application to SACOG for a grade crossing several years ago. For this year there was $10,540 (RDA funds) in the CIP in the event there was staff available to begin looking at crossing options.”
“In January the City Council directed staff to prepare an application to the CPUC expediting the crossing project,” according to the staff report. “Approximately $40,000 has been spent so far with the Redevelopment Agency paying the additional cost for consultants. For the project to proceed, a budget adjustment is necessary to provide sufficient funds in the CIP to complete the CPUC application process. It is estimated that $50,000 should cover staff, legal, additional engineering and CEQA filing fees.”
As we reported earlier, back in January the representative from the CPUC told the city it was unlikely that such a crossing would be approved.
The city is already anticipating opposition to the city application from the railroad.
“It is anticipated that UPRR will oppose the city application which will mean the request will be automatically forwarded to an Administrative Law Judge,” the staff reports.
The city eventually would have to come up with a far more expensive alternative, likely an underpass that would cost millions to construct and require either serious grant money or the use of redevelopment money to complete.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
