City Does Have Ability At Least to Work on Details –
Residents are concerned that the fence will make things less safe and create a barrier cutting them off from the rest of the city.
She said that the JPA has no authority in term of the fence, and that they can only decide whether or not to finance it for Union Pacific who owns the tracks and the right of way.
She told the Council and public, “No, whether or not we participated or whether the JPA would give funds, the railroad was going to do it. The question is just how much control we would have and how much cooperation in making it somewhat nicer.”
She also said there was no possibility of an at-grade crossing. She said, “They said no. That’s not going to happen. For an at-grade crossing to happen, in the few occasions when they’ve allowed them it’s because they’ve managed to actually take away crossing not just at existing locations, but actually lead to a net reduction in the people that cross the tracks. That could not happen here.”
One thing the representative from Union Pacific did mention, according to Councilmember Greenwald, is that he would take a suggestion – a recommendation to his superior, and suggest that they put the fence as close as reasonable to the railroad tracks and perhaps consider allowing the city of Davis a right-of-way to allow a pedestrian-bike path that would hook up with the Lincoln Highway which takes you over to Harper Junior high and Pole line Overcrossing. This has not been approved but it was something that they might consider.
“It looks like an exciting option that would help with the pedestrian and bike connections to the other side, Olive Drive,” Councilmember Greenwald said.
Interim City Manager Paul Navazio reported that there is a possibility of some collaborative discussions with representatives from the railroads and other jurisdictions.
Alan Miller, a local resident in Old East Davis residing near the tracks, who has been one of the key organizaers on this issue, wrote in a post on DavisWiki, “The railroad continued to state their opposition to an at-grade crossing. The railroad expressed doubt that the fence would create greater safety problems.”
He mentioned, “In fact, the fence will cut down on the number of crossings, the legal alternative is less than ideal, and a certain number of individuals will circumvent the fence in dangerous and exotic ways. Realistically, the relative safety of as-yet-unbuilt solutions to this complex situation can be speculated on by those wishing to makes a particular point, but are not easily measured, and the points made by all involved parties are valid and should be considered as part of a ‘best scenario’ solution within available funding sources.”
He added, “The railroad made it clear they will not be building the fence during the 2010 December holidays. All parties are fully aware of the City and citizen concerns and the depth of concern the issue raises in Davis. A public workshop with all involved parties may be held early in 2011 to solicit citizen input and disseminate information on design and funding possibilities/limitations.”
Mr. Miller argued that more people have died at or very near legal crossings in and around Davis in the last few decades than have died adjacent to the proposed fence line.
At a rally a week and a half ago he told the crowd, “There is a problem, people cross these tracks and they do really stupid things. You have to do something,” he told the assembled crowd. “The problem is if you just put a wall up… people are going to go down to that end [pointing towards the Olive Drive freeway offramp] and cross the tracks in a more dangerous place or they’re going to walk across this bridge over Richards, so they walk along the tracks even more, or they’re going to cut a freakin’ hole in the fence in which case the whole thing is a waste of money anyway.”
“This isn’t the solution. What we need is a way over the top of the tracks,” Alan Miller said.
As Mr. Miller noted a week and a half ago, it is questionable how much benefit this would give the safety aspect. Of all the deaths, he thinks perhaps only the one which involved a drunk employee of Murder Burger might have been prevented by having a wall. Many of the deaths are suicides and such individuals would simply avoid the stretch of track walled off on the south side, or would be able to enter the track from the north.
As Mr. Miller wrote in his op-ed in the Davis Enterprise, “Of the dozen person-vs.-train accidents in Davis proper over the past couple of decades, fewer than half were adjacent to the proposed fence, and only one or two might have been prevented by this fence. Most have been suicides, very intoxicated people, vehicle incidents, crimes or other random events. None that I can recall were happy sober persons crossing the tracks, who, like the proverbial chicken, simply wanted ‘to get to the other side.'”
Councilmembers Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson came to the event as well and spoke.
“Union Pacific has put us in a very difficult position,” Mayor Pro Tem Krovoza argued on Sunday, “Union Pacific has not supported an at-grade crossing here at the station. That’s the obvious thing to be done, and they haven’t done it.”
He said now they are turning around, trying to get public money to pay for a 3800-foot fence all along Olive Drive. He said that Union Pacific is pushing the problem onto the City of Davis to spend millions of money that is tight right now, when they have failed to offer their own solutions to the problem for years.
“How is UP going to solve this?” he asked rhetorically. “They are going to take public money that’s available from the State of California, they’re going to solve their liability problem and they are going to let the City of Davis spend millions to work around what they’ve decided to do.”
Mayor Pro Tem Krovoza agrees there is a problem, but he sees the problem as that of providing residents and children of South Davis a way to come to the downtown safely and effectively, to keep our downtown vital and get to school.
“Putting up this fence does not solve this problem,” he said. “Putting up this fence does not create a safer environment for the residents or these kids because if they go to the West side as we’ve heard, they’re going to have to make four crossings through busy intersections which are absolutely less safe than walking across two train tracks where you can see everything coming.”
He added, “Or they can go to the east, and where’s the break going to be at the east? It’s going to be right at the Olive Drive offramp where you’ve got cars going 60 miles an hour coming across, that is less safe.”
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson spoke, as well.
“You hear a lot of talk about it’s safety,” she said. “Yesterday I spent a couple of hours out here and I would challenge anyone who thinks this is the safe alternative, to go stand at the end of Olive Drive just at the end of the 3800 feet and stand there and watch the cars come off.”
“As adults standing there at the crosswalk counting the time it takes for cars to come off is about 5 to 6 seconds – best conditions, fully aware,” she continued.
She added that initially, “My visceral reaction to this is a fence that is going to separate Olive Drive from the rest of Davis. That is disconcerting on a number of levels.”
The good news is that at least Union Pacific seems willing to at least partially work with the city. The fear that activists have is that a wall on one-side of the tracks may induce people to act even more foolishly trying to save time. Depending on where people are headed, being diverted to Richards Blvd or east of the freeway off ramp would add a lot of distance – and it could make things more dangerous particularly if kids are crossing in front of the off-ramp.
It appears a wall is coming, the question now is whether the city can create some access points, which appear to have to be over-the-tracks rather than at-grade.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Ms. Swanson certainly came of age as as a strong council member on this, and a half-dozen other agenda items, last night. Very impressive performance on many issues in my opinion. Looks like she’s going to work out just fine after all, now that she’s found her voice and confidence.
[i]As Mr. Miller wrote in his op-ed in the Davis Enterprise, “Of the dozen person-vs.-train accidents in Davis proper over [b]the past couple of decades[/b], fewer than half were adjacent to the proposed fence, and only one or two might have been prevented by this fence. Most have been suicides, very intoxicated people, vehicle incidents, crimes or other random events. None that I can recall were happy sober persons crossing the tracks, who, like the proverbial chicken, simply wanted ‘to get to the other side.'”[/i]
In his argument published by The Davis Voice ([url]http://www.davisvoice.com/2010/03/the-most-dangerous-half-mile-in-davis/[/url]), Greg Kuperberg shot down this argument very peresuasively.
One thing I notice in this quote is that Mr. Miller had to go back 20 years to make the case that there are other places as deadly as the Olive Drive track corridor? That seems like a stretch, given that 20 years ago large swaths of what is now incorporated Davis were tomato fields in 1990. In fact, most of present-day South Davis was undeveloped then. All of the deaths Mr. Kuperberg referenced are since 1998.
The principal point Kuperberg makes is that having a fence–he also advocates an overpass for pedestrians and bicycles–will discourage all types of crossings. They won’t eliminate them. But they will discourage them. And by doing so, that reduces the likelihood of suicides and the deaths of those who are drunk. You might not feel any sympathy for the suicidal or the drunk, but when you take away the opportunity for those people to harm themselves, you reduce the chances of harm.
Mr. Miller says of those deaths, “Most have been suicides, very intoxicated people, vehicle incidents, crimes or other random events.” If that is any kind of reason to not fence off the railroad tracks where people, largely juveniles, are making illegal crossings, then it is also an argument for not fencing off Interstate-80 on the other side of Olive Drive. Afterall, the most likely people to get killed wandering onto the freeway would probably be those who are suicidal or intoxicated. But we don’t want to do that, because we know that a fence discourages people, especially children and those not in their right mind, from walking across the freeway. We should have as much sense with regard to the heavily used rail corridor.
P.S. The last few days my dog, Truman, has been suffering from digestive troubles. He spent almost all day Monday and almost all day Tuesday at the Midtown Animal Clinic. While there, we took him out onto the lawn which abuts the railroad tracks to try to pass wastes out of his system. What I observed is that every few minutes one or another person illegally crossed the tracks there on foot, most walking from 4th & G toward 5th and I. That corridor, AFAIK, has less train traffic, and hence less danger, than the tracks near Olive Drive. Nonetheless, it struck me as idiotic to take that shortcut.
“[i]… most walking from 4th & G toward 5th and I.”[/i]
Correction: “… most walking from [s]4th & G[/s] [u]6th & G[/u] toward 5th and I.”
Rifkin: “That corridor, AFAIK, has less train traffic, and hence less danger, than the tracks near Olive Drive. Nonetheless, it struck me as idiotic to take that shortcut”
Rifkin, you should see all the idiots illegally crossing 5th street. What we need is more public money to build more fences to stop all illegal crossings. You are right: we have a moral perogative to protect idiots with public money. I’m with you Rifkin. It is all about using public money to limit private liability.
[i]”Rifkin, you should see all the idiots illegally crossing 5th street.”[/i]
Hopefully the so-called “road diet,” which I support, will reduce the dangers for pedestrians on 5th Street. …
It sounds from your tone that you think it an unwise use of public money to discourage people from making bad choices, like crossing the rail tracks illegally. I understand that sentiment. However, it seems to me that the benefit is worth the cost and that, if nothing else, some of those who will be discouraged from endangering themselves are kids, who often lack judgment just due to their lack of experience. (Sadly, I should note that all of those I saw crossing the tracks between Midtown Animal Clinic and Hibbert’s the last 2 days were adults.)
dmg: “The good news is that at least Union Pacific seems willing to at least partially work with the city. The fear that activists have is that a wall on one-side of the tracks may induce people to act even more foolishly trying to save time. Depending on where people are headed, being diverted to Richards Blvd or east of the freeway off ramp would add a lot of distance – and it could make things more dangerous particularly if kids are crossing in front of the off-ramp.
It appears a wall is coming, the question now is whether the city can create some access points, which appear to have to be over-the-tracks rather than at-grade.”
There is an opportunity to discuss this problem w the RR. It would behoove people to voice concerns in as constructive a manner as possible, and try and listen to what the RR says w an open mind. I don’t want to see this devolve into a mess, the RR just goes and does what it wants bc it cannot reason w detractors, and everyone loses.
I should clarify that the CCJPA was planning to apply for state funds.