On Sunday, Eileen Samitz wrote that “your articles continue to ignore and side-step the serious problems and impacts by a mega-dorm project like Lincoln40 and try to simplify it to a numbers or ratio issue.” In her comment, which we re-printed as an article on Monday, she raised a number of points that we have begun addressing over the course of the coming days and weeks.
We have previously addressed the issue of the “toxic plume” and “traffic impacts.” Part 3 looked at the proposed pedestrian crossing.
Here we will examine two additional issues raised.
First, “What about the safety issues of placing a mega-dorm at the east end of Olive Drive which will at some point become a cul-de-sac since Cal Trans plans to close off the Olive Drive exit and would make it a firetrap. How are fire engines to get to an emergency there, particularly with all the backed-up traffic? What if there were a train derailment for instance there?”
And second, “Plus, Lincoln40 will be expensive, luxury apartments designed exclusively for student housing only primarily with 4- and 5- bedroom ‘suites’ with single-room-occupancy renting by the bed, rather than being a traditional 1,2, 3 bedroom apartment complex which would be for non-students as well like families and local workers needing rental housing.”
Part of the plan with the corridor changes is to reconfigure the I-80 interchange into a tight-diamond and then close down the westbound exit at Olive Drive. The city sees that as a way to help restore Olive Drive to a residential street. But from a safety standpoint it may not actually change that much.
Currently, while one can exit I-80 on Olive Drive, the only way to get off that stretch of road is through the Richards-Olive Drive intersection. So, while there are two ways onto Olive Drive, there is only one way out. Shutting down the freeway exit would only allow one way in, one way out.
According to the city, the fire department has not expressed any concern whatsoever about safety concerns as the result of shutting down the freeway off-ramp.
The off-ramp shut down would be bundled with the freeway interchange on Richards upgrades. “Can’t really do that (the off-ramp closure) without the interchange because we need the additional queuing capacity that the interchange reconfiguration and the Olive Drive intersection reconfiguration will provide.”
The city staffer explained, “We wouldn’t do the off-ramp closure first” as it would cause “more problems to the existing interchange.” They added, “If you close the off-ramp and leave the 
interchange as it is, it does create level of service problems. But we’re not proposing to do that. When we reconfigure the interchange into a tight diamond, it preserves operational level of service that we can close that off-ramp without producing additional problems.”
However, the staff told the Vanguard that “we could design that (off-ramp) closure in such a way that it could provide emergency vehicle access if it was necessary.”
The staffer told the Vanguard that they are in the process of designing the changes now. They said it really hasn’t been an issue that has been raised by the fire department as being significant. However, there is plenty of land available to allow for emergency access if needed.
It was described as a minor design modification to allow emergency vehicle access. For example, when the university developed West Village they did not allow for normal vehicle access from Russell Boulevard, but there are bollards that can be removed to enable emergency vehicles to come directly from Russell Blvd.
At the same time, the staffer was a bit skeptical of the need, noting that it seemed unlikely that emergency vehicles would need to access Olive Drive from the east anyway, as the two closest stations would be the Central Fire Station and UC Davis Fire Department, both of which would access Olive Drive from the north and west.
Meanwhile, Paul Gradeff addressed the issue of the “luxury” apartments.
“The position taken that we are building luxury apartments is completely erroneous,” he told the Vanguard in an email. He noted that two-thirds of the 708 beds “will be developed and designed for rooms with two beds.”
He explained, “Providing double ups in the market will provide a cheaper alternative for students who can’t afford single occupancy rooms. Double ups in the market that we have identified are renting at approximately 35% cheaper than the single occupancy bedroom, bed rents.”
He added, “By accommodating this arrangement — and letting market forces alone determine the outcome of asking rental rates, L40’s weighted average bed rental rates could be 20% lower than if we stuck to the one bed per bedroom model.
“Just because we are building a pool and providing some amenities, it doesn’t mean that we are catering to the wealthy, it’s quite the opposite,” he said.
When we met with the students last spring, the students noted that it was much more affordable for students to live off campus. Even when the students have been allowed to double up in the rooms, the university has increased the rent for the room itself.
You end up reducing the rent, Daniel Nagey told the Vanguard, “but they charge you $500 to share a room that’s already too small for a single.” He feels like UC Davis is exploiting first time renters who don’t realize that $500 “is actually a lot for a room I have to share.”
The students end up paying for a lot of services subsidized through rent that they don’t need.
Students are hopeful that, by adding additional housing in town, the housing crunch will be eased, helping to make apartment rentals more affordable.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Ha ha, Part 4
Now cut and paste all the comments from the last three days and everyone can be done for the day.
Read the other articles
BP, may I cut and paste your deliciously snarky comment? I was about to post virtually the same thing. Because great minds . . . snark alike.
Actually, it’s not the Vanguard’s “job” to address (resolve) the impacts – which remain unresolved. The Vanguard has (once again) taken on the role of a “booster” of the proposed development, rather than an independent reporter.
This essentially drives the conversation into one in which legitimate concerns are (sometimes) angrily downplayed. (Not necessarily by David, personally.)
I disagree. We have tried to reach out and get answers to the issues that Eileen has raised.
Not unless people driving into Olive Drive during a conflagration is a good thing. Or people running out onto I-80 during a conflagration is a good thing. Or people driving backwards onto a freeway during a conflagration is a good thing.
People can still evacuate via the east end by taking the bike trail, so I don’t see the issue. Unless the bike trail is burning but the highway is not.
Development fees are supposed to be based upon the impacts/costs resulting from the number of PEOPLE in a given development (e.g., the need for capital improvements/capacity). (Not entirely sure what all of the costs/fees are used for.)
Are you sure? Can you show me that documentation?
David: I can probably find references (including multiple discussions on the Vanguard itself), but are you stating that this is incorrect? I suspect that you already understand this subject (at least) as well as I do. (Probably more so, although you’ve been reluctant to discuss this.)
Go ahead and correct me, if I’m wrong. It’s not going to hurt my feelings.
I suggest you go ahead and provide an answer to the question what are impact fees supposed to mitigate whether it is in the discussions of the Vanguard or in city documents. And then we can go from there.
Here you go:
” . . . but by using impact fees on PEOPLE that cause the need for the new service it helps to not cause a tax on everyone and allows those that are not using the service to be excluded from paying the fee.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_fee
Considering the amount of hyperbole, opinion presented as fact, and obviously false information that you post here on a daily basis, Ron, your notion of using the VG comments as evidence is hilarious.
Here, though, these might help you.
http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/short%20overview.pdf
http://www.revenuecost.com/blog/dif/calculation-of-devleopment-impact-fees-under-ab1600-11
From the first link:
http://www.dca.ga.gov/development/PlanningQualityGrowth/programs/downloads/DevtImptFees.pdf
Mark: As usual, I could have done without the insult. As always, I don’t know why the Vanguard thinks this is “o.k.”
In your communications with Howard, I recall that you finally acknowledged that these fees are ultimately based upon the impacts of new residents. Howard backed that up with a document which clearly stated that (which he isn’t sharing, this time).
In any case, thanks for the links. One of those links included the following statement.
David: I’ve got to run, but I’ve responded to your “qualifier” regarding my invitation to “correct me”, if I’m wrong. (Have I now met your “requirements”?)
Again, it seems that you’d prefer to not discuss impact fees, for developments which are DESIGNED for double-occupancy, per bedroom.
Ron –
When you stop using hyperbole, innuendo, personal attacks, false statements and repetitively asking questions you may easily find answers to with Google, I will no longer have reason to make negative comments on your approach to communication.
Mark: Another example of an unnecessary, personal attack. Again, not sure why these are allowed on the Vanguard.
Regarding finding the answer on Google, I had already done so. (Actually, you didn’t know the answer either, until Howard specifically pointed it out to you, in an earlier, rather lengthy Vanguard exchange. The document that Howard referred to at that time is the one document I couldn’t find.)
Development impact fees are based upon the impacts/costs of NEW RESIDENTS. This particular proposed development is designed from the start for double-occupancy/bedroom.
David seems to continuing to avoid acknowledging this, even though I’ve met his qualifier to “be worthy” of a response, from him. (That’s how this whole thread started.)
Ron –
Howard didn’t post the article, I did. Howard made a response to one of my comments indicating that I was wrong. I did the Google search, read the results and posted again stating that he was correct and included the link so that others may choose to enlighten themselves.
Sorry to join a ‘pile on’, but seems appropriate…
Ron quoted wikipedia… useful at times, but…
Is patently untrue… a new house is built… a couple, committed to a pedestrian, bicycle way of life would per person pay the same transportation impact fees as a couple who have two cars and drive everywhere they go.
Using your argument, logically, if the developer of Lincoln40 pays the entire cost of a crossing, then they should be the ONLY ones allowed to USE it!
If you consider this a personal insult, I care not.
Howard: No – I don’t take that as a personal insult.
P.S. – Bicyclists “often” use streets, as well. (And, they don’t pay any gas taxes for such use, to help maintain those streets.) Nor do they pay any “special fee” (unique to them) to maintain bike paths.
Regardless, it does not negate the point. Development impact fees are supposed to offset the costs/impacts of NEW RESIDENTS. The development in question is designed for DOUBLE-OCCUPANCY per bedroom, for the start.
Ron… bicyclists “use” the streets, true… but don’t “impact them”… not on the capital side. There is a practical difference (and a legal one) between “benefit” and “impact” (causation or ‘nexus’).
When you quote a ‘source’, as you did, in making a point, I believe you then strongly imply you believe in it. That’s maybe just me.
As far as I’m concerned, we’re at peace, and have exchanged opinions, and hopefully, facts that will benefit others in forming their opinions…
I just read through the Finance Department documents posted on line, and I can find no evidence of the number of residents in a development being used to determine the fees. Only the number of dwelling units, as Howard has stated multiple times. This actually makes sense if you think about it because the City has to be able to fully justify the fees as being based on the City’s actual costs, and there really is no way for the City to determine the number of residents who will be living in any one specific dwelling, so there is no way to calculate the per person costs in advance.
So no, Ron, the development fees are not based on the impacts/costs of new residents, but rather on new residences. The premise of your argument is false.
That is not accurate, regarding this proposed development. The developer has already provided this information. The current method of determining the appropriate amount of development fees do not account for this type of planned, double-occupied rooms.
That is not accurate, based upon the documents provided above (including those provided by you, both in this article and in previous articles). I recall that you have previously acknowledged this fact, in a prior Vanguard article. I’ve also provided a citation which confirms this in your own article, above.
When commenters repeatedly deny facts, those facts need to be repeated. Especially for something as important as the appropriate amount of development fees, which impact the entire city.
I agree. The fact is, that the City has to be able to prove that the fees match the specific costs, and do so in advance. The City does not have a cost accounting system in place to allow for that level of specificity, so it cannot justify development fees calculated on a per resident basis. From my reading of the documents, it appears that the City did not calculate the specific costs, but rather has chosen to use the method of comparing the fees to similarly sized cities in the region to make sure that they are appropriate. The ‘everybody else is doing it this way’ method.
Your statement of facts is simply wrong (as is your recollection of the previous discussion).
If true, not having an adequate cost account system in place is not a “justification” for failing to (more accurately) calculate fees on a per resident basis. (Especially when the number of planned residents is announced, in advance. It is likely that the existing system incorrectly assumes one resident/bedroom (among other concerns, which are apparently already being examined by the council).
Failure to accurately assess costs creates a high likelihood of “someone else” picking up the tab for new developments.
Well, you know what they say about “everyone else” does it that way. The planned double-occupancy rooms are likely rather unique to Davis.
Stating that I’m wrong, without backing it up is meaningless. You’ve provided zero evidence that anything I’ve stated is incorrect. In contrast, I’ve provided evidence, as noted above.
Facts need to be repeated, for those who continue denying them.
Ron: Bicycle trips save the city money. Car trips are subsidized by everyone through general taxes. I’ll pay a nickel etc. for every bike trip if you pay $8/gallon for gas.
Todd: My comment was really just intended as a response to an example posted by another commenter. It was not intended to spark a debate regarding appropriate fees for drivers. (However, that probably would be an interesting article, if someone ever wanted to create one.)
Howard: Bicyclists also do not (uniquely) pay for capital improvements that they use (e.g., streets, bike paths, overpasses, underpasses, phased signals . . .). (Even though some of these structures are specifically designed for bicyclists’ use.)
These structures also have a limited lifespan, regardless of the type of use (or lack thereof).
There’s more that one source referenced, above.
I am always at peace – at least when I’m not personally attacked.
The impact fees have always been based on DUE’s (Dwelling Unit Equivalents)… pretty accurate in the aggregate, but not for any specific DU. This is typical in all agencies…
Howard: I recall you having an online conversation with Mark, in which you pointed out that impact fees are supposed to based upon the impacts of new residents. (So far, I have not found the document you referred to, at that time.)
In this case, we have a complex which is designed to be double-occupancy/room, from the start.
Re-read my post that you just responded to. That should answer the main part of your question.
“People can still evacuate via the east end by taking the bike trail, so I don’t see the issue”
Unless of course they are of limited mobility. No snark or personal criticism intended, I am just unsure of this issue and tend to take a very health and safety point of view.
I think you are correct, but the evacuation route closing down the freeway off-ramp doesn’t change, only the access of emergency vehicles.
Well, with current fire codes for new construction, ‘conflagrations’ (particularly at the proposed project) are highly unlikely even if it takes 15 minutes for FD to arrive with equipment… last MF ‘conflagration’ in Davis that I’m aware of was the Drake Apartments, and that was ~ 30 years ago… Olive Drive is not the SF of 1906, nor Chicago in the 1800’s.
If Lincoln40 was taken off the table, the risk would be about the same as it is today.
If Lincoln40 was taken off the table, the tight diamond configuration would still be pursued, and the possibility/probability of the closure of the OD off-ramp would be exactly the same.
I don’t understand. The east end of Olive Drive will not be sealed. The bike path still allows an escape route. You can even drive on it if need be. You couldn’t exactly drive onto the freeway backwards, safely, in an emergency. So what is any issue at all?
I guess folks here have never heard of collapsible bollards.
Not just those, but with ‘camouflage’ and or ‘mountable curbs’, etc, etc… EVA via a ‘closed ramp’ is not rocket science…
Main things are to remove the exit sign(s), and make sure that from the fwy, there is no obvious ‘path of travel’…
And even with the proposed tight diamond, I’m not convinced of the ‘need’ to remove the exit…
Hi Howard,
“with current fire codes for new construction, ‘conflagrations’ (particularly at the proposed project) “
A building conflagration is not my biggest concern. Living as I do within 1/2 block of the tracks, & within a stones throw ( ok, by an outfielder, not me)of Lincoln 40, my bigger concern would be with a railway mishap. A few years ago I had a conversation with then Chief Trauernicht which allayed some of my concerns. However, Lincoln 40 was still a gleam in a developers eye at that point in time. I am not sure how, if at all this changes the equation. Any ideas ?
Not on risk of an event… Lincoln40 does not increase or decrease the chances/likelihood of a mishap. Even then, the severity of a mishap can vary.
The additional ‘risk’ posed by, or to, the proposed project is infinitesimal in my opinion… near non-existent.
The only additional risk is that there are people there. You can’t really in any sane world deny a project because if there are people there stuff might happen to them. By that logic, move everyone out of places that stuff could happen to. In other words: return Davis to a marsh. Not a bad idea, actually: less politics.
Nor (using your same conditional statement) should we deny a project because ‘stuff’ might happen to the people who live next door (or down the street, or across town) after the new people move in, yet we do it all the time.
Stuff might happen to impact my quality of life.
Stuff might happen to change the character of my neighborhood.
Stuff might happen to slow my drive downtown to buy my morning latte.
Stuff might happen if we allow ‘those’ people (as in other people) to live here.
No need to take my comparison to the ridiculous and apply it to all things you believe in your simple singularity of values. I believe in the balancing of values, you believe in a singularity, as do those polar opposite to you. Singularity thinking makes everything so simple, so clean, so . . . predictable. But the reality is that all these values (though very few of the arguments used to support them) are valid and all part of the mix.
So, I’m curious – what the are the rents per bed going to be? (For the 2, 3, 4, and 5-bedroom apartments for single occupancy and for double occupancy.)
As it says on the menu for lobster: “Market Rate”.
Judging by current rental rates, adjusting for the 35% savings mentioned, considering the range of options and amenities, I’d guess $650 – $1000+. More or less.
Don: The 35% “savings” refers to existing apartments, in which a room is shared. The existing/current rental rates are not mentioned, nor is any information regarding what the new development would be.)
In other words, there’s no real information, here.
I’m sure they will do what all other apartment owners do, which is to set the rates based on the market conditions. The information I provided reflects current advertised rents in the area.
Don,
So it sounds like you are saying that a 2 bedroom apartment with 2 students (1 person per bedroom) would charge $2,000+ for the apartment, which would be $1,000+ per student at Lincoln40. If so, this does not sound like affordable student housing at Lincoln40.
Eileen:
What I said exactly was:
Here are current rents in Davis.
https://www.apartments.com/davis-ca/
I’d be curious how you define “affordable student housing.” I would not expect new apartments in Davis to rent for below the market rate.
“this does not sound like affordable student housing at Lincoln40.”
It does make me wonder when the last time you tried to rent in Davis was and if you don’t think $1000 is affordable, well maybe you will realize what students have to deal with.
Don and David,
What I am asking is based on Don’s comment. He is estimating that the range of the rent per bed at Lincoln40 would be $650 – $1,000+. Since there are no one bedroom apartments at Lincoln40, that would mean that a 2 bedroom apartment would be $2,000+.
Again, I would not define this as affordable student housing at Lincoln40 which is what the students are asking for. The students have been saying that costs in this range is too much on campus.
Tanglewood, right now:
1 Bedroom $1,550 – 1,975 2 Bedrooms $2,200 – 2,300 3 Bedrooms $2,425 – 3,100
Are you expecting anyone to build apartments for below market rate?
I don’t think you’re aware of what rental housing in Davis costs now.
Don,
What I am pointing out, is students have been saying housing on campus in this same range (or less) is too expensive. Students have testified at City Council a a few weeks ago when Lincoln40 Draft EIR and they stated the need for affordable student housing, and they were clearly believing that, that was what Lincoln40 would bring. But evidently that is not the case.
The first question we have to ask is what is market rate for new apartments in Davis
Maybe we should start with average rent.
https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-davis-rent-trends/
I’m beginning to see a big part of the problem in this discussion. The main opponents of the proposed developments of rental housing have absolutely no idea what tenants in this town are dealing with.
Tanglewood strikes me as a pretty “fancy” place. (Even “sounds” fancy.)
Is Lincoln 40 on par (or even “fancier”, than that)? (Honestly, I don’t know.) If so, is that would should be built?
Is sharing a room the only way to construct an affordable complex? Or, are the planned amenities at Lincoln 40 making it costly?
You must be kidding me. Tanglewood is typical.
Do you know or talk to anyone under 30 who is trying to rent in Davis?
Yes.
Don: “You must be kidding me. Tanglewood is typical.”
No – I’m not “kidding” you. Tanglewood looks like a nicer (and more expensive) place than many others. I noticed that a long time ago.
Is Lincoln 40 planned to be “nicer” (fancier) than Tanglewood?
Don:
From the website you referenced above:
It appears that your referenced website also describes the area around Tanglewood as one of the most expensive areas. (Looks like there’s an opening there, now.) 2-bedroom, 2-bath for $2,300.
I hope Lincoln 40 isn’t this expensive (or more so).
https://www.rentjungle.com/this-will-be-a-modern-2bd-2bth-downstairs-renovated-apartment-home-rental-details/d000d26d3fbbd220c590ef80d553847a/
Don,
Quite the contrary, there is great empathy for tenants in town. The problem in this discussion is that the proponents of Lincoln40 don’t seem to understand that Lincoln40 is not a solution for the need for affordable student housing. Plus, what comes with Lincoln40 is no rental housing for non-students and significant impacts (including a plume migrating towards it) and costs to the City.
Fact: http://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=1799
Should the entire schedule been updated? Contact CM or Finance Director as to why or why not…
Note that there were no updates during the Pinkerton years, nor since Brazil came on board. (according to the citation I gave)… the increase in fees needs to be consistent (no higher than) what is required by AB 1600.
Usually based on projects listed in the adopted plan, adjusted for changes in the CCI (Construction Cost Index.
The “impacts” are for capital improvement costs…. not O&M, present or future. Usually for big-ticket items. And only to the extent that it is the proportionate share of the new development… nexus.
As it should be…
And, remember, this year’s new housing is next year’s ‘existing City’…
Anyone buying/renting a residence constructed before 1986-87 got a “free ride”… fully subsidized by then current ‘taxpayers’, or reflected in the cost incurred by developers to construct the required improvements, and passed along in the purchase price.
https://davisvanguard.org/2017/03/sterling-comes-back-revised-proposal/#comment-354915
https://davisvanguard.org/2017/03/sterling-comes-back-revised-proposal/#comment-354920
For the sake of maintaining a civil tone on the Vanguard, I’ll assume that Mark “forgot” about the earlier conversation.
Prior to acknowledging the facts in the prior article (but subsequently denying those same facts today), Mark had also posted the following (from the link, above). I added the “emphasis”, below.
And to maintain a civil tone, I’ll repeat…
In other words, an approximation of existing and future people/DU.
Which, in fact, is likely inadequate for a proposed development with planned double occupancy, among other concerns (e.g., regarding the appropriate fees for a multi-bedroom unit).
Sure is tiring when someone (not you) won’t even acknowledge their own previous postings and previously acknowledged inaccuracies. Also creates some unnecessary and duplicative effort, and (in this case) inaccurate personal attacks.
True story…
Howard: I know – the story is referenced above. You were there, and were a witness. (In fact, you’re the one who set the record straight, at that time. Probably would have saved some effort, if you had reconfirmed it, today. Perhaps you’re only willing to support some commenters.)
That’s o.k. – your previous posting with Mark set the record straight. (And, in fact, Mark’s own referenced document did, as well.)
Or, Ron, it could be because, surprisingly, I have a ‘life’ other than the DV… may not seem like that sometimes, but…
Ron –
I will try to make this simple. The development fees are based on the added costs arising because new residents will live in the development, but they are not calculated on a per person basis. They are calculated on a per residence basis (subdivided by type and size). The fees must be the same for every new development, and may not be adjusted on a per project basis. It doesn’t matter how many people actually live in the new development as that will not impact the fees. Your premise that Lincoln40 should pay higher fees because some rooms are intended to be double occupancy is completely bogus (and likely illegal).
If you read the first link I posted today you will learn that there are two standard methods for determining fees. The first, and most accurate, is to calculate actual costs and match the fees to those costs. This requires a level of cost accounting that Davis currently does not seem to possess. The second is to set the fees at a level that is comparable to a group of similarly sized cities in the region. This second approach is apparently how Davis is functioning, though I am willing to be corrected if that is not right. It doesn’t really matter, however, since neither approach is calculated on a per person basis as you seem to believe.
My postings today are consistent with my previous posts you referenced.
And, Ron, wasn’t…
a pretty ‘cheap shot’?
I do only, however, support comments that are accurate and/or insightful… I neither support nor oppose ‘commenters’, per se… but there are some who are generally accurate/insightful, and those who are not… some who approach the diametric opposite.
I do tend to comment negatively to comments that are inaccurate or insipid.
The fees are being examined for other reasons, as well. (Including the fact that they don’t accurately reflect the impacts of multi-bedroom units.)
Actually, there may be some difference in our arguments, which is accounting for (part) of the discrepancies between our statements. You’re now stating how the fees are currently calculated, while I’m stating what the fees are supposed to cover.
Please supply factual information for the Commission & CC to remedy that… but not on-topic about closing the Olive Drive exit.
Howard: You’re already familiar with those facts, since you’ve cited them yourself. A 2-bedroom unit pays the same fees as a 3-bedroom unit, 4-bedroom unit, and 5-bedroom unit. And, yet, the fees are supposed to be based upon the impacts of new residents. As the number of residents increases, so does the impact/cost.
Generally, there are more residents as the number of bedrooms increases. The current rate structure does not account for this.
Apparently, city representatives are already aware of this, and are re-examining the fee structure. I’m not sure why you’re suggesting that I need to provide information to the city regarding this, nor do I know why you’re challenging it.
The same type of problem occurs when a new complex proposes “doubling up” the number of residents in each bedroom.
At least, I hope that city representatives are aware of this, and are re-examining the fee structure. (I’ve only heard this second-hand, on the Vanguard.)
Will Part 5 deal with the gas, particle and noise pollution caused by automobiles and other vehicles using I-80 and how it affects nearby residents?
Also, regarding the dismissive comments about the safety concerns related to Lincoln40, here is a very good article from last year by Alan Miller titled:
“Davis at greater risk for oil train explosion”
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/davis-at-greater-risk-for-oil-train-explosion/
It discusses the derailment possibilities in great detail, and it does not need to be an oil train specifically for a derailment to be disastrous to an additional 708 residents at Lincoln40.
Here is another article discussing the many railway defects being detected on our nations more than century old railway system which has not had the upkeep and maintenance that it needs.
http://site.iptv.org/mtom/story/26419/thousands-defects-found-oil-train-routes
Seems to me that the Vanguard started addressing the broader issue of health risks of residential development alongside freeways a few months ago. This is one of the reasons that makes me wonder if Olive Drive is better-suited for service-type commercial development (as already exists, to some degree). Access would not be as large of a concern, either.
Eventually, the remaining businesses may be displaced, as the city pursues residential development along Olive. Every city needs areas to house blue-collar type businesses (auto repair, HVAC businesses, etc.). Davis has very few locations for them. Seems to me that streets surrounded by freeways and railroad tracks are a suitable location for them, compared to residential development.
Yes, as I recall the Vanguard brought it up in relation to some new research in L.A. in one or two articles – but since then stories about Sterling and now Lincoln40 haven’t mentioned it in the least.
Thing is that there is so much that can be done at a local or regional level to reduce pollution with current technology and systems, from dedicated bus lanes to quieter pavement, to incentives (at least) for carpooling, even electric-assist bicycles are suitable for some trips. A hanger or roof paid for by a toll or a new faster, electric railway are better and expensive-to-build solutions – and no rocket science needed for either – but so much can be done sooner.
A collective despair, dark and heavy: We allow children (and others) to live so close to the highways. It’s so terrible that it’s nearly impossible to acknowledge.
Newsweek magazine, August 2027: “How Davis tamed its freeway” Cover photo of future City Council lying naked on the asphalt at the site of what would have been the “tight diamond” false hope.
From Alan’s article (referenced by Eileen, above):
Just wondering if there’s any update regarding this issue.
“Davis at greater risk for oil train explosion”
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/davis-at-greater-risk-for-oil-train-explosion/
Benicia blocked the oil trains.
http://www.kcra.com/article/norcal-city-blocks-oil-train-project-from-moving-forward/6432904
More accurately/precisely, Benicia denied a permit for “a crude oil off-loading facility“.
Which was within their purview… stopping trains from ‘just passing through’ is not.
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/09/21/benicia-valero-crude-oil-by-rail-facility-rejected-by-city-council/
Accuracy (and precision) are fundamentals of journalism…
You are correct that without that, the previous proposal is dead… in Benicia…
Martinez/Richmond area may eventually approve a proposal for a facility that will use the same trains, and no permit would be required from any City/town on the route.
David,
As I mentioned in my post, a train derailment catastrophe is not limited to an oil train. Any derailment would be disastrous in the Lincoln40 vicinity.
And, what is the probability of a train derailment on as stretch of track that is particularly well maintained due to carrying Amtrak and particularly Capitol corridor?
And, if such a derailment occurred within, say, 1000 feet of the proposed project, what is the additional probability of such a derailment would result in explosive/toxic exposure to residents?
Yes, it could happen. but the probability of two such events, happening concurrently… well I hope you don’t play golf any day there is a single big cloud in the sky…
The risk exists, but is infinitesimal. But, stuff happens…
Your logic/argument fails… else, anyone residing within 1000 feet of the site should be evacuated ASAP. That would be a substantial risk reduction… more than 750 people live/work within 1000 feet of your ‘area of concern’, today.
How(ard P) do you surmise that it’s particularly well-maintained?
All I know is that all passenger trains stop here, freight trains are heavy but go rather slow, there’s a curve, a few switches, mostly wooden sleepers, that if passengers evacuate to the south side of a train they’ll be trapped by the safety fence, similar to the situation where Lincoln40 residents can’t evacuate to the north if there’s a fire or some toxic spill on the I-80. Hey! That’s an idea! Make an ADA-compliant high capacity emergency escape route from Lincoln40 across the UPRR a requirement of construction!