On Tuesday, the City of Davis put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) “from parties interested in assisting a regional civic partnership in determining opportunities and challenges presented through a potential realignment of several existing rail lines within the County of Yolo.”
The partnership working toward the concept of rail realignment includes the cities of Davis, West Sacramento and Woodland, the county of Yolo and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA).
According to the RFP, the project has yet to be “scoped” but “the partnership would like to better assess the following objectives prior to project scoping: a) the increased redevelopment opportunities that can occur in the cities and county by removal of the existing Sierra Northern and California Northern Rail Road alignments (see Attachment A for map); b) the increased use of rail for transport of goods to/from the Port of Sacramento and throughout the County; c) establishing rail service to the County landfill through a newly combined rail alignment to the east of Davis; d) increased flood protection through removal of the Fremont Trestle and use of the new rail alignment; and e) increased safety and improved circulation for surface transportation through removal of at-grade crossings by changing the existing alignments.”
To better assess these objectives, that partnership is looking to assess three areas: 1) Redevelopment Opportunities; 2) Economic Impact Modelling; and 3) Strategies for Funding of a realignment project.
As the Vanguard previously reported, “The partnership has received an US Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant to accomplish these three areas of assessment. As such, the partnership is asking for fixed price proposals that maximize the funding that is being provided.”
Back in September the partnership received a grant for $171,170. The city at the time explained, “The grant is for technical assistance in preparing a rail line relocation study that will include an economic impact study and strategic implementation plan, including a stakeholder and public outreach component.”
According to the city, the multi-agency, collaborative study will analyze the economic potential of relocating the existing rail line, that currently runs through the center of the cities of Davis and Woodland, and extending rail service to a 900-acre industrial park in the City of Woodland and to the west side of the City of West Sacramento and the Port of West Sacramento.
The study will focus on the opportunities for economic growth related to increased rail access for agribusiness and industry, redevelopment of urban corridors presently impacted by rail lines, and new sustainable employment.
“This is very exciting as our Yolo County communities work together for the betterment of our region,” stated Davis Mayor Dan Wolk. “It enables us to assess the potential economic benefits and redevelopment opportunities that might result from the removal of the rail barriers currently dividing our cities and downtowns. The grant will also allow us to more thoroughly assess impacts from flooding that might be addressed through rail line relocation in several parts of Yolo County. Pursuing a comprehensive analysis of the enhanced economic opportunities that rail realignment may offer will allow us to create solutions that will better our Yolo cities and our region.”
Beyond the potential economic opportunities arising from relocating the rail line, the city indicated, “The relocated line will improve and increase rail safety by eliminating more than a dozen at-grade crossings in Woodland and Davis.”
Furthermore, “The proposed rail relocation alignment will allow for the removal of the short-line rail trestle over the Yolo Bypass providing increased flood protection for the entire Central Valley.”
It was during the 2013 Sacramento Metro Chamber Capital-to-Capital trip that Congressman John Garamendi (D-CA-03) encouraged the City of Davis and its regional partners to apply for this grant and he has been strongly supportive throughout the process.
“This EDA technical assistance grant will allow Davis, West Sacramento, Woodland and Yolo County to move forward with a project that has the potential to generate significant economic development and jobs and provide numerous other benefits, including increased public safety and flood protection,” said Congressman Garamendi. “This project is a great example of regional cooperation – several government entities coming together to tackle a large economic development project that has the potential to lift the economic prospects of the entire county. I commend city and county officials on securing these funds. I look forward to continuing to partner with them as we build a regional economy that creates opportunities for hardworking Yolo County residents.”
On September 18, Rob White, in a column in the Vanguard, noted, “Potential opportunities that would result from this project could also include: A) viable rail connections to underserved areas of commerce in Woodland, West Sacramento, and north of Davis; B) rejoined blocks of land in downtown Davis and Woodland that could be redeveloped; C) potential for a bikeway connection from North Davis to Woodland; and D) increased flood protection from a new raised berm track alignment to the east of Davis and Woodland.”
Mr. White explained, “To demonstrate that this project does not serve any one community more than the others, Davis is taking lead on the economic development studies because we have the most to gain from a realignment of the north-south tracks out of our downtown. Other agencies have taken lead on the parts that most specifically impact them, though the benefits will accrue to all communities.”
He noted, “These financial drivers are borne by significant flood control improvements, new connections for commerce for our county’s industrial areas and better rail service to our region’s ag industries and food processing.
“Though there are likely many other reasons for this project to continue to be assessed, the most significant driver for the project is that we have unified collaboration of the five major public agencies and we have willing railroad operators and landowners in the discussion. So maybe a better question is ‘why wouldn’t we want to assess this opportunity?’”
Responses are due before January 19, 2015, at 5 pm. “The partnership intends to conduct review of proposals during late January 2015 and may tentatively select awardee(s) by February 2, 2015.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
That’s one I haven’t seen mentioned before. Can someone explain how this would work? Given the relatively few miles from Davis and West Sac to the landfill, I wouldn’t think that the increased transport efficiency would overcome the cost of transferring trash from truck to rail and then from rail to truck again at the landfill.
JF,
This is very much a possible commodity for the landfill by rail. The Yolo Landfill apparently has a huge amount of capacity that it can sell to other agencies that need to dump their garbage somewhere. Putting in a spur from Swingle (32A/101) to the landfill would be quite doable and probably necessary as transfer to truck of a unit train of garbage is quite costly, and the spur could be built right into the landfill, in the $10 give-or-take-a-few million range. The UPRR and/or CNRR are not going to wait decades for the so-called cluster-F Yolo rail relocation to occur if the market opens up with a large contract for this. One separate but related question Yolo County should be having is whether we want to sell off the next generation’s landfill capacity so the county can take in revenue now, to spend on . . . . . pension backfill, “schools”, “the children” . . . who knows? And should the county be working to find subsidy to build this spur line as a portion of some cluster-F pipe dream, when the railroad and/or the agency with the garbage to bury should be footing the bill. Incidently, unit garbage trains from Napa to Utah ran through Davis for many years, and they smelled foul.
The county would probably have to invoke eminent domain, since the route would seem to have to run north through ag fields west of Road 105 in order to avoid the city’s wastewater treatment facility. And the cost of bridging the Willow Slough Bypass wouldn’t be trivial. But I suppose they can get it done if they really want to.
If there are no willing sellars at the price offered for land, yes. Apparently, Angelo Tsakadopoulous is willing to “give” the land under his influence to the city with “no strings attached”, because he is such a philanthropic sort of guy.
We love seeing and hearing trains in downtown Davis . An occasional wait for a passing train is not a big deal.
Speak for yourself! There have been times when a train is coming through, I need to get someplace urgent, and have to sit and wait for a good 10-15 minutes if it is very long cargo train.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
So national taxpayers should give yolo county upwards of $100 million because we have ONE long train each morning and afternoon that causes inconvenience?
There are hundreds of communities all over the country that have literally dozens and dozens of daily 100+ trans passing through on level crossings. And DAVIS is so special that we deserve a subsidy of that massive size when few to none of these communities can score their own federally-subsidized relocation scheme? I don’t think Davis is that “special”.
Having said that, CNRR runs their trains unnecessarily poorly and they need to clean up their act, as they not only block the crossings unnecessary long, it is a safety issue.
Regardless, A Non, get used to it, as even if every brick in the scheme falls together perfectly, and it won’t, the so-called rail relocation scheme is one to two decades out. Far better to deal with the railroad itself if you want to see anything done prior to 2025-2035.
“WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!”
this seems to be denigrating the views of another poster and would seem to be a violation of the comment policy.
I don’t care about the wait so much as I would like to make redevelop that land and the block of G Street and the block of H Street into a tree-lined pedestrian mall/promenade with shops and restaurants with outdoor seating.
“I don’t care about the wait so much as I would like to make redevelop that land and the block of G Street and the block of H Street into a tree-lined pedestrian mall/promenade with shops and restaurants with outdoor seating.”
Frank Lee, I am actually appalled. You tout fiscally conservative values that I often applaud, but when it comes from redevelopment money for Davis from higher up in government, you are OK with using other people’s money for Davis.
In this case, We are are talking $100 million out the gate for the the project as whole, just for the track realignment, and not remotely guaranteed, nor is the use that you site guaranteed, nor is the value of any very rare linear corridor for future transportation use considered (“rail banking”). There are so many other places to focus on that could be improved.
For some reason, the questionable use of flood control and transportation federal dollars is OK with you for use on Davis redevelopment. That seems fiscally wasteful which in most other areas you are concerned about the misuse of taxpayers dollars. Do you not see the misuse? Do you not see the enormity of national taxpayer dollars spent, for your desire to see a tree lined block of shops in Davis for 2030?
“this seems to be denigrating the views of another poster and would seem to be a violation of the comment policy.”
In case there is any doubt, I AM denigrating the whining of another poster.
I am also calling out (denigrating) DP as a tattle-tale (child term) and a snitch (adult term).
Most of us know the approximate train schedule…usually pretty predicable… and either take Covell, Richards, or 113, or just schedule our “critical” tasks to not coincide with the ‘normal’ train schedule.
Alan has brought up some of the issues he refers to as “a scheme” [good choice of word in my opinion]. Here you have a private business owner, successfully (so far) getting somebody else (public agencies and taxpayers) to champion their vision, get public grants to do the studies, and later, acquire the right of way (on their behalf, not the public’s) [obviously studied the history of the trans-continental railroad — nice land grab, that], and build the infrastructure (that the private operator would own), in ‘exchange’ for all for the “public benefits’ claimed to follow.
Problems. Cal Northern only leases the existing N/S rail line. UP owns it. After the public has funded the new, private rail line, the cities can then begin negotiations with UP to buy their land, take up the tracks, cleanup any toxics that may have accumulated in the railroad ‘bed’ over the years, regrade the land, and then turn it over (probably for free, or nearly so) to private developers to re-develop and make their profits. If anyone thinks that UP would settle for less than current Core Area business fair-market land values, much less spend any money on removal of facilities, any toxics, or regrade the land, give me your names and I can get you on the “ground floor” for an investment that will provide for “transporter” travel. Within 5 years.
H. Pierce, thanks for a pretty decent summary of the balance of the equation. You lay it out pretty accurately. One thing that I would add about Union Pacific is that the claim that “we have willing railroad operators” is a stellar example of where positive thinking can bite you on the ass. UPRR is indeed in the room and monitoring the situation. When there is a plan mature enough for them to study — and they will only do so when someone pays them to — the engineering departments in Omaha will draw up their demands and tell the cheerleaders what their demands and costs are. That is when it gets real.
Then the CPUC will examine what the project needs to do to for the safety of the dozen plus NEW grade crossings that have to be built and funded at taxpayer expense, and that is when it gets really real (and really expensive). You also cite the toxics issues, which I guarantee are there and will have to be dealt with, and toxics issues are massively expensive and can take decades to resolve.
PIERCE: Problems. Cal Northern only leases the existing N/S rail line. UP owns it.
That is not a problem. That is just a fact.
PIERCE: After the public has funded the new, private rail line …
Wait a minute. Where does it say that the public is going to “fund the new private rail line?” I have not seen that anywhere. If UP* needs a new line–due to the Fremont Trestle situation–UP will have to fund its own new line.
*Note: Even though UP has a leasee, Sierra Northern, the Fremont Trestle problem is UP’s. That problem makes UP’s rail line worth much less, and that has to be reflected over time in how much rent UP can get from its tenant.
PIERCE: … the cities can then begin negotiations with UP to buy their land.
Keep in mind that UP likely would want to sell this land in order to finance the purchase of its new exurban rail line. It’s possible that the sale(s) of the land would be concluded by negotiations. However, it’s also possible, even likely, that the government agencies would buy the land through a forced sale through eminent domain, especially that portion of the land which would be used as a new public road or pathway.
I would think then that the governments would resell to private developers any of the urban land on the old rail line which gets zoned for urban development.
PIERCE: … take up the tracks, cleanup any toxics that may have accumulated in the railroad ‘bed’ over the years, regrade the land …
Insofar as any or all of these things need to be done, they amount to costs for UP, not the buyers. In other words, either UP improves its land prior to the sale, or it sells it as-is for less money. If a court were to set a fair market value price in eminent domain, that price would be much less if the land has toxic waste or needs other changes to make it usable/developable.
PIERCE: … and then turn it over (probably for free, or nearly so) to private developers to re-develop and make their profits.
That won’t happen if the cities expect to recoup their investment. My expectation is that the cities sell off the most valuable land. In Davis that is the stretch from the train depot to 5th Street. And then they would use that revenue to improve the trail from Davis to Woodland, assuming it will no longer be a rail line. That is pretty much what New York City did when it bought and built the High Line.
PIERCE: If anyone thinks that UP would settle for less than current Core Area business fair-market land values …
They will get a fair market value price. That is how eminent domain works. However, that is not the same as other Core Area land which is zoned for commercial development and ready to build on. The land inside the City of Davis will become far more valuable once it is rezoned, transformed and ready for development.
(Note: The land which actually can be redeveloped for commercial use is a small fraction of the total land on the rail line. Between the cities, the land could either become a path of some sort, or it could be sold to farmers who own the proximate parcels. It’s not as if that remote land could ever be developed. And as a result, it is not that expensive, compared with the price of land in Davis.)
PIERCE: … much less spend any money on removal of facilities, any toxics, or regrade the land …
Again, insofar as there are costs associated with prepping this land to make it developable, those costs are the problem of UP. They will either improve it themselves (unlikely), or be forced to sell it for far less than nearby land. That is how real estate works.
RIFKIN:…Wait a minute. Where does it say that the public is going to “fund the new private rail line?” I have not seen that anywhere. If UP* needs a new line–due to the Fremont Trestle situation–UP will have to fund its own new line.
*Note: Even though UP has a lessee, Sierra Northern, the Fremont Trestle problem is UP’s. That problem makes UP’s rail line worth much less, and that has to be reflected over time in how much rent UP can get from its tenant.
A couple of factual corrections … the Fremont Trestle is not on the UP-owned right of way from Davis to Woodland, it is part of the privately-owned right of way from West Sacramento to Woodland owned by Sierra Northern Railroad. Therefore the trestle problem is not UP’s … and because of that the Fremont Trestle flood impedance situation has no impact on UP’s rail line worth.
With that said, the point you make in your first paragraph is fundamentally valid.
RIFKIN:…Keep in mind that UP likely would want to sell this land in order to finance the purchase of its new exurban rail line. It’s possible that the sale(s) of the land would be concluded by negotiations. However, it’s also possible, even likely, that the government agencies would buy the land through a forced sale through eminent domain, especially that portion of the land which would be used as a new public road or pathway.
I would think then that the governments would resell to private developers any of the urban land on the old rail line which gets zoned for urban development.
UP’s business to subcontract movement of the north-south freight conveyance to shortline carriers (California Northern from Davis to Woodland and points north, Sierra Northern from West Sacramento to Woodland and no further) includes some risk for UP that the shortline subcontractor’s service will drop below UP’s standards. UP currently mitigates that risk by owning the right of way and exclusively leasing it for limited durations to the shortline carrier who successfully bids for the UP subcontract. If service quality drops, UP awards the next subcontract to a different bidder. Owning the right of way gives UP the necessary leverage. As such UP may well make a decision that its business interests are best served by owning the newly created right of way … and the scenario you have described will happen in a slightly modified form.
Thanks for the correction.
My pleasure. It doesn’t change your fundamental point. Market factors will determine how this all plays out and each of the private sector players have readily identifiable goals. How they value those goals is the unknown.
As Alan Miller has pointed out in past posts (possibly others as well) the UP line running north through Davis is really a sideshow in this drama. However, if the new line is built east of Davis to (A) accomplish the rerouting of the northbound Sierra Northern trains (currently going from the UP main line in West Sac across the Fremont Trestle to Woodland), and (B) provide regional rail access to the Yolo County Land Fill, then a voluntary decision by UP to relocate its current north-south traffic from Davis to the new line would make good business sense for UP, especially if they own the new line once it is completed. Currently they have Sierra Northern as a sole source subcontractor for their customers along the Sierra Northern right of way. Having those customers served by a UP owned right of way would mean that UP could competitively bid that business rather than sole sourcing it.
“As Alan Miller has pointed out in past posts (possibly others as well) the UP line running north through Davis is really a sideshow in this drama.”
I wouldn’t call it a side-show. I’d call it a way of getting political support for the trestle removal and West Sacramento’s dream of removing the east rail access to the port by making up a “need” for a new rail line in order to “attract” federal dollars earmarked for flood control and transportation in order to open up land in all three cities for redevelopment as MASSIVE federal taxpayer expense. Not a side show, the core of the scam.
“However, if the new line is built east of Davis to (A) accomplish the rerouting of the northbound Sierra Northern trains (currently going from the UP main line in West Sac across the Fremont Trestle to Woodland), and”
Unnecessary, as a simple connection in Woodland would allow the removal of the trestle at MASSIVELY lower cost. This is feasible especially because Sierra Northern has a very small traffic base.
“(B) provide regional rail access to the Yolo County Land Fill,”
This can be accomplished with a spur in the range of $10 million, which can be accomplished without so-called rail relocation, and will be years or decades in advance if the market opens up, and won’t be used even with rail relocation if no market opens up. If it was accomplished via rail-relocation, it would just be the national taxpayers paying for the rail access rather than the railroad and customer.
“then a voluntary decision by UP to relocate its current north-south traffic from Davis to the new line would make good business sense for UP, especially if they own the new line once it is completed.”
Why? It’s a longer, more convoluted line and UP doesn’t serve it directly, only owns it.
“Currently they have Sierra Northern as a sole source subcontractor for their customers along the Sierra Northern right of way. Having those customers served by a UP owned right of way would mean that UP could competitively bid that business rather than sole sourcing it.”
The Sierra Northern only has a couple of small customers, primarily the Tomato Plant. Passenger service would be discontinued (or massively shortened to the point of probably not being viable) if the line were owned by UPRR. UPRR used to own the Sierra Northern line, and sold it, as UPRR has no interest in switching limited-traffic lines.
Alan: “I’d call it a way of getting political support for the trestle removal and West Sacramento’s dream of removing the east rail access to the port by making up a “need” for a new rail line in order to “attract” federal dollars earmarked for flood control and transportation in order to open up land in all three cities for redevelopment as MASSIVE federal taxpayer expense. Not a side show, the core of the scam.”
When you look at a dog Alan, do you regularly have trouble understanding which is the head and which is the tail. Every time you talk about this project you focus almost 100% on the tail (the transportation components) and completely ignore (sometimes denigrate) the head (the flood control components). As a result you misread where the “political support” for the project is coming from. The City of Davis has virtually no 100-year flood exposure from the Sacramento River, and what exposure it does have is from the combination of Cache Creek and Sacramento River (via the Yolo Bypass) waters flowing over their levees in Woodland and then those escaped waters flowing south toward the Davis Wastewater treatment Plant (not toward the City of Davis). The political support for this project is coming from all the non-Davis partners. As a result, any “political support” from Davis is also a sideshow to the main event … flooding in Woodland, flooding in Yolo County, reducing the hydrostatic pressure on the East Side Sacramento River Levee at Natomas, eliminating extended (3 weeks to a month) shutdown risk for I-5 north and east of Woodland in a 25-year or greater flood, reduced hydrostatic pressure on the West Side Sacramento River Levee at West Sacramento. Those are the key issue components of the “head.” Your point about the West Sacramento is so far out on the tail of this project that it has been discussed as an optional component that will require its own independent funding stream.
Alan: “… and UP doesn’t serve it directly, only owns it. UPRR used to own the Sierra Northern line, and sold it, as UPRR has no interest in switching limited-traffic lines.”
In this statement you are concentrating solely on operations. You are absolutely correct that UPRR does not want to operate limited-traffic lines. However, in subcontracting out those operations, UPRR does not relinquish control of the customer relationship. The fact is that the customers whose freight goes through the subcontracted operations are still very much UPRR’s customers. The subcontractors have only one customer … UPRR. The reason is simple. The origination/terminal shipping point for all the freight is somewhere down the line in UPRR’s owner-operated rail system. If the subcontractor messes up a freight delivery, the customer doesnt call the subcontractor to complain. They call UPRR. UPRR then deals directly with the subcontractor. Whatever the resolution ends up being, it is conveyed by UPRR’s customer service department to the customer.
Train traffic is way way up from five years ago. There’s a lot of building supplies going north towards Woodland. Good to see!
What are you basing this on? Train E-W traffic was noticeably greater up until 2008 when the bubble economy crashed, and when BNSF trains were no longer detouring through Davis.
“Davis Mayor Dan Wolk. “It enables us to assess the potential economic benefits and redevelopment opportunities that might result from the removal of the rail barriers currently dividing our cities and downtowns.”
Rails are Barriers?
No talk on the commuters that COULD use the way between the towns to reduce traffic and parking, it seems they are doing everything to haul more garbage into the community and then build more stuff on that property to clutter up downtown even more?
I cannot fathom how we don’t turn these rails into light rail, and resurrect the reasons they put the rails in place in the first place. Yolo county could run a spur to Cache Creek Valley, Davis could reduce parking and traffic, and the AMTRAK lines usage be increased.
But this conversation sounds like a short sighted look at how to sell some property, rezone some land, and clog the roads and downtown with even more traffic, while making everyone MORE miserable try and get around Davis than before. Bicycle lanes on Road 98 are not going to balance the increased traffic from Woodland, or Dixon, and people are living further away from Daivs while the CC tries to pad its bank account with more property taxes while it remakes the last annoying vestiges of the reason Davis was even conceived.
PLEASE tell me how this decreases downtown traffic, makes it easier for people to get to Davis, or work in town? Hauling garbage past the dump? Scenic!
If you cannot afford an overpass or an underpass and the PUC will not permit an at-grade crossing, then yes, a rail line is a barrier. We face this in a few places in Davis.
The demand for passenger service from Woodland to Davis is not there. And it has not been there for more than 50 years. Over the last many decades entrepreneurs have tried to operate Woodland-Davis passenger rail service–the last one was about 20 years ago–but they have failed due to lack of interest. I think a big part of the problem is that driving is much easier, faster, cheaper and convenient for those who have cars. If someone lives in west Woodland, for example, and he works at UCD, he can drive to his job in 10 minutes or so and park next to his office. If there was a rail line, and he instead chose to take the train, that 10 minute trip would be at least 40 minutes each way–a 5 minute drive across Woodland to the (no longer existing) train station, a 5 minute wait for his train to arrive, a 10 minute train trip to downtown Davis, a 5 minute wait for a Unitrans bus to campus, a 5 minute bus ride and a 10 minute walk across campus to his office. No one would bother with the train. That’s why a Davis-Woodland line cannot work.
For those who like to ride bikes, cycling is a superior commute option. Meanwhile, there are a few people who choose to ride the Yolo Bus back and forth from Davis to Woodland. It is cheap, and it is more convenient, as it winds through town the way the train cannot. However, it takes a lot longer than driving a car, if that is an option.
What?!
Light rail is not cheap. Such systems always require big subsidies and they require thousands of daily riders to make a dent in their costs. That is totally impossible for a Davis-Woodland line. Economically, it makes far more sense, if you really want passenger rail, to stick with the present tracks and find several million dollars to subsidize a train to go back and forth.
The reason that rail line was put in place originally was to haul wheat and other grain crops. It was not put there in “the first place” to move people. That was a side benefit, done at a time when most did not have automobiles and riding a horse was much slower and more difficult.
You mean the Capay Valley? There is no such thing as Cache Creek Valley. And while there really is enough demand for train service up to the casino in Brooks, one problem is that the farmers/landowners don’t want to give up their property to build a rail line. I am also doubtful that the beneficiary, the casino Indians, want to pay for it, either. However, I think a rail line there is a good idea–especially if it ran from say Suisun to Vacaville to Madison to Capay to Brooks and back. That would relieve the massive traffic jam on the highway up the Capay Valley, it would be a pleasant and fast ride for the gamblers, and it would not be a time waster for them.
The situation in Davis would not change appreciably having passenger rail to Woodland.
Well said Rich. Very well said indeed.
Thank you Rich, very good comments.
Yes, my keys were adding the Cache Creek Casino and Capay Valley into one. But each is a resource, and the volume of crops may not be so much that a rail line is needed, but would be an addition to the constant stream of cars of the people who work and gamble at the Casino.
Yes, I am in West of Woodland, and that is my reality. Also what is so dumb about ONE train station or no feeder lines. I imagine driverless YoloBus vehicles (maybe I dream too much) that will pick you up to deliver you at your station, OR a work address.
As mentioned in other parts of this thread, Davis has closed some avenues and are afraid to make the changes necessary after someone has goaded them into making a mistake. This is not the City Council of thirty years ago, but they seem to want to ignore the changes of time that puts pressure on them now.
“Over the last many decades entrepreneurs have tried to operate Woodland-Davis passenger rail service–the last one was about 20 years ago–but they have failed due to lack of interest.”
Really RR? I’ve lived in Davis for 35 years and never heard of such a project. Those would be some pretty stupid “entrepreneurs”, as they would go flat broke in a few weeks.
Well, that is, unless they were attempting to extort tens or hundreds of millions of federal taxpayer dollars to support their scheme, in which case they might actually make a profit. Like those pushing this so-called project.
“If you cannot afford an overpass or an underpass and the PUC will not permit an at-grade crossing, then yes, a rail line is a barrier. We face this in a few places in Davis.”
Davis built around the so-called “barrier” without adequate crossings as it grew, not the other way around. As I have stated many times, I went to city council meetings many years ago before the Lexington was built and warned the council at that time that the developers should be required to partially fund a crossing of railroad at or near the Amtrak station.
When the “unofficial” crossing from Slater’s Court was cut off by the rail fence, the city was caught with no viable solution. The roots of the problem were created long ago.
Miwok, with respect to your suggestion above, that alternative has not (to the best of my knowledge) been eliminated from consideration in any way shape or form. Also to the best of my knowledge, the rail right of way has already been approved as a “rails to trails” corridor. With that said, the major challenge to a Davis-Woodland Light Rail connection is that there is not enough ridership between those two points to cover the cost. If it were a Woodland-Davis-West Sacramento-Sacramento Light Rail (connecting to the existing light rail system in Sacramento, then you would be talking a very different ridership picture. Adding Cache Creek Valley could also add considerably to potential ridership. However, the key to that ever happening has virtually noting to do with the North-South Davis to Woodland corridor … rather is hinges on the appetite that exists to create a Sacramento to Davis Light Rail.
“Also to the best of my knowledge, the rail right of way has already been approved as a “rails to trails” corridor.”
It has? I seriously doubt that, considering the embryonic stage this so-called project is at (and may well emerge stillborn). Please enlighten me as to what agency has approved the designation.
If it has, those who believe this land will be available for redevelopment are in for a rude awakening, as you can’t build permanent structures on rail banked land.
Alan, my understanding is that Yolo County successfully made the application for qualification for that designation as long ago as 10 or more years. That is my recollection, and it is possible that I am wrong in that recollection, but I don’t think I am.
Thank you Matt, I am interested in that, because of the people putting their children at risk playing in the dirt in these places. They should be off limits until the toxics are cleared, costing way more than a trail will cost, let alone building a house or business where people sit above the percolating fumes and chemicals.
Developers in the Bay also think they can build on top of a Dump, until people started seeing old tires and metal objects coming up through their soil.
Bottom line, either people want Mass Transit, or not. The alternative is more truck traffic in the Downtown, without rails, or more buses and cars. At this stage in my life, you are not gonna get me on a bicycle. You either have a plan and implement it, with all the people’s support, or not.
“Rails are Barriers?”
This is the rhetoric that is being used in this project. I find it outright offensive, coming from a transportation perspective.
This is like building your house on one side of creek and creek and your barn on the other side of a creek and then raising a stink that the creek presents a barrier and demanding that a culvert be built at high-level taxpayer expense to divert the creek around your property, so that you don’t have to build a bridge, and so that you can convert the creekbed into pasture-land for private use, at public expense.
The city built around the private railroad tracks, and now is part of a coalition designed to extort federal tax money for the purpose, in Davis, of opening up some land for private development. If you are looking to have someone else move the creek so that you may profit, that creek is a barrier. In my eyes, the creek is beautiful, long may the water flow.
“Yolo county could run a spur to Cache Creek Valley, Davis could reduce parking and traffic, and the AMTRAK lines usage be increased.”
That’s a bit convoluted on a few levels, but the general idea of running people to the Cache Creek Casino by rail is not completely far-fetched due to the sheer quantity of people going to a single location at all hours, a perfect scenario for rail service. There also exists the linear path of an old right of way that used to run from Vacaville through Winters and Esparto and on through the Capay Valley to Rumsey. It is in the hands of many owners now, but could be reclaimed, with massive effort, through eminent domain.
There are a few problems, however. First, a friend several years ago presented the tribe with a plan to do just that, as opposed to their proposal to widen Highway 16 (which, by the way, would also require considerable taking of adjacent land by eminent domain, and from looking a map would actually harm many more private structures and farm land). The tribe showed no interest.
Worse yet, several years ago the city of Esparto built a housing development smack on the old right of way, meaning any re-acquisition of the right-of-way just skyrocketed in cost, time and complexity.
And this is exactly why old linear rights-of-way should NEVER be redeveloped. They are invaluable diamonds that should be recognized, appreciated, saved and cherished for their value. One SINGLE permanent structure on an otherwise preserved linear corridor virtually ensures that corridor is destroyed forever. Usually such a move is done at the behest of a greedy developer and a naive or uncaring government body.
“I cannot fathom how we don’t turn these rails into light rail, and resurrect the reasons they put the rails in place in the first place.”
For the most part, RR covered the reasons well. Light rail is very expensive to build, requires density, and there are competitive formulas in receiving grant money. Davis-Woodland would be so far down the list so as to be in the “never” category.
Having said this, there is a noticeable, glaring pooch-in-the-ointment when the city staff declares the bike lane would start at “north Davis” towards Woodland. A linear corridor for transportation is a rare and valuable asset. Were the scheme to move the rails actually realized, to build upon the right-of-way would be a crime, a sin, a betrayal to the public interest. The bike trail starts at the Amtrak station, and goes to downtown Woodland, period. The line should also be “rail banked” for future transportation use that may present itself in the future, no matter the mode. A linear corridor, once lost, is, for all practical purposes, lost forever.
Responsible city leaders would ensure any talk of filling in the right-of-way is dead at the starting line. Bicycle advocates should be especially wary of this “north Davis” starting point. Amtrak riders, exiting the Capitol Corridor, should be able to get right on the bike path at the station, avoiding city streets except at the four current rail crossings, and have an otherwise grade-separated path to downtown Woodland.
Beware of any “well, we haven’t decided yet” talk. If they are saying north Davis, someone is already plotting this all out, and it needs to be brought to the public light, so that we may destroy it now.
Thank you Alan. I see someone thinks like I do, because all the people “selling air” like consultants and developers never see a downside. They profit from using other people’s money, and as soon as they have a friend in the CC or State, they exploit it. They are not really interested in profit, not accomplishments.
If Davis and Woodland are too small to be profitable, and it has been mentioned light rail is not profitable at ANY level, then we need to know why we even have them. Costs run in many directions in things like this. ONE train station in town means access to the train station has to be facilitated. This is not factored in or presented as a system of transportation. It is why YoloBus and SolTrans is supplemented by ASUCD Unitrans.
In Rio freakin Linda, they had sense enough to use the old rail line for a bike path. Will Davis?
The cheer-leading city staff and consultant reports omitted the toxics issues and new crossing issues as challenges to the project, but paint rosy pictures of the benefits. Should not consultants and staff present not only the possible, perceived “benefits” of this so-called project, but also give an clear and honest assessment of possible, nay likely, nay almost-certain, severe macro-challenges? These are so obvious to anyone with any knowledge of such projects that to omit them would be, in my view . . . a . . . L . . . L . . . L . . . dare I say it . . .?
When you say over a dozen crossings will be removed and that will improve safety and remove costs, and your report fails to mention the costs and safety risk of the over a dozen crossings that will need to be added . . . then . . . dare I say it? . . . (or will I be accused of abuse in the current Vanguard climate)? . . . are not these consultants and city staff . . . dare I say it? Could such an omission be called anything less? I have pointed out these facts at numerous city council meetings, with the Vanguard present. The Vanguard regurgitating the same quotes from city staff without first calling or emailing me to at least ask me for “the rest of the story” and allow readers to judge for themselves — is failing to do so actually, dare I say it . . . the, y’know, L . . . L . . . L . . . -ing to their entire readership? Take what city staff says and it’s gospel, because we want it to be. Investigative reporting be damned.
I accuse the whole lot: consultants, county government, all three city governments, our congressman who said to ask for the federal grant, (some) city staff, (some) city council, and the Vanguard . . . the whole lot . . . L . . . L . . . L . . . oh, I won’t say it, don’t need the headache. I’ll passively-aggressively imply it, since that’s OK and more civil (my ass). Cower at my accusations, accuse me of abuse and omit my post. That seems to be where the Vanguard is headed. Or consider that maybe what I am saying needs to be considered when we are talking about a project with an impact on Yolo County on the level of the construction of Highway 113!
Reality will set you free.