Much of the discussion on the railroad fence has focused on the construction of some sort of protected crossing. It is something that makes a good deal of sense, given that most people believe that crossing train tracks is not the optimal solution to the odd geographic layout of Davis.
However, all of this is really an aside. What should scare people is how little say either they or their elected local leaders in this city really have in this matter.
Mayor Joe Krovoza, as strong an advocate as there has been on this issue, literally threw up his hands saying there is nothing he can do.
Residents will be holding a rally on Sunday at 11am at the plaza at the Amtrak to discuss the installation of the fence and “any possible action” that can occur.
Short of a massive effort at civil disobedience and obstruction, it is difficult to imagine how citizens would be successful where the city leadership has not.
The city asked for cooperation on building the fence and allowing them to apply for a crossing and having their California Public Utilities Commission hearing first, and Union Pacific thumbed their nose at them.
Union Pacific Railroad has repeatedly failed to inform the city of their decisions, has often been evasive as to their intentions, and has gone an additional step to oppose an at-grade crossing.
The City has repeatedly requested that UPRR not build this fence until the City’s at-grade crossing application is determined by the CPUC and a safe “state of the art” at-grade crossing can be built in conjunction with a safe fence.
The city has come to the realization that the railroad owns the right of way and the city has no legal resource or power to stop them from building a fence that will cut off residents of Olive Drive from the downtown.
It is remarkable that a community is given absolutely no right to object or right to any legal recourse against a railroad company’s decisions.
The railroad company is based in Omaha, Nebraska, and represents the largest railroad network in the nation. The railroad has a long history, dating back to 1862 when President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 to construct railroads from the Missouri River to the Pacific as a measure to win the war and preserve the union.
It operates as a quasi-governmental body, with even its own police who operate as special agents with jurisdiction over crimes against the railroad. They are certified state law enforcement officers with investigative and arresting powers both on and off railroad property, if so authorized by the state they are operating within. They also have interstate authority, pursuant to federal law.
The Vanguard has heard that a large number of people have been arrested for trespassing on the tracks by the UP Police, but generally speaking, the local courts have dismissed charges.
Against this power, the city has always recognized that they had little ability to negotiate and little leverage. The city attempted to use the public financing process of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority to at least get a fair shake in the process, only to see the railroad abandon efforts at public financing of the fence and move on their own.
Repeatedly, the city has attempted to get the railroad to wait or cooperate, and repeatedly the railroad has operated on its own time frame.
Perhaps such a heavy-handed approach would be less concerning if the railroad had a real issue and the fence would make the tracks safer – but that does not appear to be the case.
On Thursday, the city reiterated its support for safety in the form of an at-grade crossing.
“The City is committed to public safety in the vicinity of railroad tracks that traverse the City,” the city said in a release from Anne Brunette, the city’s Property Management Coordinator on Thursday.
“The City is committed to moving forward with the at-grade crossing to address access and safety issues for the Olive Drive residents. The City has a long history of investing local public dollars in crossings of the railroad tracks in Davis, including Covell Blvd. overcrossing, Mace Blvd widening, Dave Pelz pedestrian/bike overcrossing, Pole Line Road overcrossing, Richards Blvd. interchange improvements and Putah Creek I-80/RR undercrossing.”
“The city continues to adamantly oppose UPRR’s decision to fence off the Olive Drive neighborhood from its historic access to the city and its historic ability to cross the tracks,” the statement continued. “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 nor does it promote safety for the Amtrak and freight trains that use this corridor.”
“The city is concerned that the fence, as currently proposed, may decrease public safety rather than increasing safety because it may encourage crossing the track at more dangerous locations and because it will impede emergency access to the Olive Drive area,” the release continued.
Alan Miller points out that while fences in other cities end at legal crossing points, “In Davis, the fence will end at points with no legal crossing. Many people will use the legal undercrossing, a smaller number will find the endpoints of the fence and cross there.”
“This is a flaw in UP’s fence design,” Mr. Miller said.
That the city has facts on its side seems to be of little consequence. Union Pacific is concerned about the liability they face with respect to fatalities on the tracks, and the tragedy back in June only punctuated their concern. The individual who perished at the end of June, Danny Fergusen, was said to have been intoxicated and to have stumbled.
However, as the Mayor and residents like Alan Miller continue to point out, there is little that a fence would have done to prevent the accidents that have occurred on the train tracks. It was said that Mr. Fergusen had approached the tracks from the northwest side, so the fence, to be constructed on the southeast side of the tracks, would not have saved him.
“Over the last 20 years, 14 track fatalities have occurred in the Davis area,” the Mayor said at the time of the most recent fatality. “Only two — until today — have occurred in the stretch of tracks near the Depot. Of these two, one was a suicide and one involved intoxication. The circumstances and location are always unique, and so prevention is a challenge.”
“Most of the train strikes in the Davis area took place beyond the limits of the proposed fence,” Alan Miller said. “This points out the flaw in UP’s fence location. More people have been killed immediately south of the proposed fence location than adjacent to the fenceline.”
In addition, a lot of the train strikes are not mere accidents, they have been due to to suicide, murder, mental illness, auto accidents and/or intoxication.
“Not one [fatality] has been a sober citizen of Davis crossing the tracks along the fenceline,” Mr. Miller said. “Few of the strikes would have been prevented had the fence been installed twenty years ago.”
Mr. Miller believes that the current fatality rate, of three deaths every four years in the Davis area will continue even after the fence is built.
“The vehicle crossings remain,” Mr. Miller added. “People will continue to walk along tracks as they do today, and continue to use the undocumented paths across the tracks beyond the limits of the fence; they will walk inside the fence; they will go around the fence. Those determined to use the railroad for their own end will not be deterred. Some of the intoxicated may be blocked, others will not.”
In fact, Mr. Miller believes it probable that the fence would increase the accident rate.
Mr. Miller points out that no one wins on Monday when the fence construction commences.
“The City has a shiny, new, metal blight a few thousand feet long. Residents of Olive Drive will be forced to pass through the Richard’s tunnel, drive, or find a way over, under, through or around the fence. UP loses $1/4 million in public funds. UP creates liability for itself when someone is struck near the endpoints of the fence, a hazard point the railroad will have created,” he said.
Meanwhile, although the city has pushed for an at-grade crossing, Union Pacific, CPUC, and the CCJPA all oppose it.
“I agree with CCJPA and CPUC statements that a grade-separated crossing is safer than an at-grade crossing,” Mr. Miller pointed out.
However, he also added, ” I also believe if I had a rocket ship I could go to the moon. Everything in transportation is about available funding.”
And that is the ultimate problem that Davis faces – we are powerless to stop this, and there is no common sense to making the area safer. So we end up with an eyesore that blights our community, cuts off residents from the core, and no one can stop it and no one can fix it.
The residents can protest all they want on Sunday, but unless they are actually willing to take action, their words will, as the city’s, fall on deaf ears.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How about a public arts grant to paint the fence?? Just kidding.
How about they at least put up a green colored fence so it doesn’t stand out as much? Not kidding.
Perhaps Alana de Hinojosa knows someone who could paint it gratis 😉
It’s kind of hard to graffiti a chain link fence 😉
[quote]”I agree with CCJPA and CPUC statements that a grade-separated crossing is safer than an at-grade crossing,” Mr. Miller pointed out.[/quote]
So take up the offer of the CCJPA/CPUC to find financing for a grade-separated crossing – what does the city have to lose at this point? At least that would be a constructive effort to do something about this problem… you would be surprised at how much grant money is floating around out there…
Yeah, let’s get some of that Obama money before he blows it on some solar panel company.
http://torontoist.com/2009/03/vandalist_fence_sitter/
[i]”we continue to believe that the construction of a railroad fence, without the construction of either an at-grade or grade-separated crossing, will [b]make things less safe[/b], as people will still attempt unsafe crossings.”[/i]
This makes no sense. The fence, no matter what, will greatly reduce the number of illegal crossings, even if it does not reduce them to zero.
The reason that a handful of Slatter’s Court area residents have traditionally illegally trespassed across the tracks is because it was more convenient for them. It is human nature to take the most convenient path.
These scofflaws are not taking this route because there is no other option. They are not taking it because it is safer.
If a complete fence is in the way–and it will be for those who find climbing a fence too difficult, especially if they are toting a bike–they will use Richards Blvd for bike and pedestrian trips downtown.
Your [i]this will make things less safe[/i] argument is based on a very small subset of the Olive Drive population which currently carries their bikes over the tracks for trips to Old East Davis. You have stated before that you think this group will ride up Olive Drive to the end-point of the new fence and cross the tracks blocks east of L Street onto E. 2nd Street. And you have said you think that crossing point is more dangerous than it is crossing illegally at Slatter’s Court.
[img]http://www.davisenterprise.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/fence1W.jpg[/img]
I can buy the notion that a few people will actually do this. But for most people who are now tresspassing, Old East Davis is not their destination, and so it makes no sense for them to take that route.
Further, there is no reason to think that section of tracks is more dangerous than a Depot crossing is. They are both illegal and unsafe. However, because trains stop at the Depot to take on and let off passengers, it seems to me an illegal crossing there is more dangerous than one east of L, because the stopped trains block the view of oncoming trains from both directions which do not stop.
[img]http://joekrovoza.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/DSC_7721.jpg[/img]
Biddlin, I can top that:
[img]http://www.woohome.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/amnesty_international_guerilla_campaign1.jpg[/img]
This matter will be a good test of Darwinian thinking… I grew up near tracks that were used much more than in Davis… admittedly, there was no curve in the vicinity… rare fatalities making random crossings… others have pointed out that most incidents involved WUI and/or suicide by train… they are correct… the railroad “created” Davisville/Davis… the crossing issue is at least 90 years old… the fence AND the reaction to it are not intelligent thinking…
Thanks for the reminder, SODA. I recently had the opportunity to make a roundtrip to Sacramento, and slowly cruised by the water tank both directions. We couldn’t see much of the tank either way. The small portion visible from I-80 or the exit ramp sure doesn’t look as though it offers much potential for advertising the city or for displaying artworks. There’s no way that people could have viewed much of anything there, let alone if they weren’t really looking for it and if they were exceeding 20 mph.
We did spy a couple large blobs of yellowish paint over a tan primer coat. So, my question: whatever came of our much-debated, potentially expensive water tank art contract? We were out of town just after the “what is art?” and “why should anything expensive go at that spot anyway?” discussions got underway at council and commission meetings. And, we never did hear how it was resolved.
Was the project cancelled? Did the funding get directed to a more suitable art project? A couple of 100-yard murals isn’t such a bad concept at all, SODA. At least someone would be able to see them.
“This makes no sense. The fence, no matter what, will greatly reduce the number of illegal crossings, even if it does not reduce them to zero.”
The belief is that the number would be fewer, but those that occurred would be more risky.
“So take up the offer of the CCJPA/CPUC to find financing for a grade-separated crossing – what does the city have to lose at this point?”
I don’t know why you think there is an offer to finance the grade-separated crossing. Most estimations is that it would take at least ten years to secure the funding. That’s a long time to have a less than ideal situation.
[quote]I don’t know why you think there is an offer to finance the grade-separated crossing. Most estimations is that it would take at least ten years to secure the funding. That’s a long time to have a less than ideal situation.[/quote]
And the alternative? Give up? Am I missing something here?
CCJPA offered to help. That does not change the availability of funds. Several times since the late 1990’s the City has applied for funds for a grade separated crossing. They have not succeeded and some believe there is no scenario under which they can succeed. Grade separation is ‘safer’, but if it cannot be funded, a signalled at-grade crossing is preferable to what we have today.
As to what we will have with the eight-foot fence, I reject the idea that people will be safer by crossing Richard’s twice at bad intersections and going through the tunnel. I do agree there is no chance they will be hit by a train, unless one derails on the Richard’s over-crossing and falls on them. After the fence is built, there will still be people crossing and walking around on the tracks. Less people, but still plenty of people. Those going via Richards, less likely to be hit by a train, more likely to be hit by a car. Those that will be hit by a train will still find a way to do so, and those that would not are not only inconvenienced daily, but are forced through a highly imperfect, though legal, option. All else being equal, were this costly and poorly thought-out fence in place over the last 20 years, about 13 of the 15 people hit by trains in and around Davis would have been hit regardless.
Union Pacific has succeeded in holding true to its nature, which is to accept public funds when it benefits only the railroad, and reject public funds when the public asks for something in return, at which point “UP” spells “NO” as “FU”.