According to a pointed press release from the City of Davis, city staff and the mayor met with Union Pacific on Thursday April 21st to discuss safety issues at the Depot and the Olive Drive area, and the City’s application to the California Public Utilities Commission for an at-grade crossing between the Olive Drive neighborhood and the Depot.
“The city also requested 48-hours’ notice before Union Pacific initiated any construction work to close the gates or begin building a fence,” the release said. “The city is extremely disappointed that UPRR has chosen to proceed with construction of the fence to block these gates.”
In an equally pointed statement from Mayor Joe Krovoza, the mayor told the Vanguard, “The fences that now block access at Slatter’s Court and Davis Mobil Estates are counter to the City’s concerted and good faith efforts since January to work with UP to find an overall solution to Depot access by Olive Drive residents.”
“This unilateral action by UP flies in the face of what the city believed was progress, and only makes more difficult a permanent, safety-enhancing solution,” the mayor continued.
“If the new fences are ignored, the only product of this action will be bad will. That’s unfortunate and unproductive,” Mayor Krovoza concluded.
The Vanguard spoke to a couple of residents near the gate that is directly across from the Amtrak platform. They expressed outrage, anger, and frustration.
They also unwittingly demonstrated the futility of the gate as they quickly and without difficultly hopped the fence and proceeded to the other side.
The city’s press release was unusually pointed for a communication from the city, which generally tends to be pro forma and subdued. They reiterated their commitment to addressing issues for Olive Drive residents.
“The city continues to adamantly oppose Union Pacific’s decision to fence off the Olive Drive neighborhood from its historic access to the city and ability to cross the tracks,” the press release stated.
They continued, “The city believes that this action will, in fact, create a dangerous condition, more dangerous than the current unfenced condition. Should an emergency occur in the Olive Drive area, the fence will cause significant emergency access and evacuation issues.”
The release added, “Cutting off access at this time does not promote the process of determining a safe access to the station and downtown Davis for the Olive Drive area, and potentially allows pedestrians to cross at less safe locations.”
Union Pacific had sought public money from the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority to build a fence. However, when the city came out in strong opposition to the fence, the railroad pulled its application.
Back in January, they seemed to agree that any effort to build a fence would be done with cooperation and working with the city. However, that mood has changed.
The city has opposed such a fence, only in so far as it seeks an at-grade or other crossing alternative.
Lisa Stark represented Union Pacific at the January meeting and emphasized the need to work with the city and maintain open communications.
Ms. Stark concluded, “We understand that people want safe and easy access to get somewhere, but in our mind, public safety comes first. It’s very close to a legal and safe grade crossing, and we would prefer using that first.”
A spokesperson from the Public Utilities Commission said that the CPUC has authority over at-grade crossings and the city would have to file an application through the CPUC if they wanted an at-grade crossing.
However, he argued that everyone would protest that proposal, citing other crossings, which are less convenient for people who are walking.
He argued that the primary goal is protecting public safety and each new crossing increases the number of crossings and thus injury risk. He believes that the current area is problematic for the number of trespassings and that the railroad and the CPUC are unlikely to agree to an at-grade crossing.
In the release from the city, they accuse Union Pacific Railroad of refusing to “allow the city surveyor on the UPRR property to prepare the topographic plans for the CPUC application. Despite UPRR indicating that it would like the city to expedite the CPUC application process, Union Pacific has refused to expedite the city’s request for access to the railroad right of way to conduct surveys needed to complete the at-grade crossing application.”
They add, “UPRR recently conducted a survey on its right of way at the Davis Train Depot. UPRR has allegedly discovered that portions of the buildings on Olive Drive and the existing fences and gates encroach on the UPRR right of way.”
The City, according to their release, believe that this determination is in error. They have had surveyors and civil engineers review the new map. According to the city, “These surveyors and engineers have indicated that the encroachment determination appears to be erroneous and that a closer review of deeds should be made. “
The City communicated this information to Union Pacific Railroad and the private property owners.
“UPRR has, however, elected to proceed, notwithstanding the disputed property lines and the lack of an alternative approved at-grade crossing,” the release charges.
However, the city maintains it will continue to pursue an at-grade crossing “regardless of the obstacles created by UPRR.”
The release closed by reiterating the city’s commitment to the Olive Drive residents and access issues. “The city believes that the Olive Drive area residents should have a safe at-grade crossing that is part of an overall safety plan for that area.”
This was always the fear that the city had. They could take a strong stand here and deny UP public money, but the city has limited ability to stop UP from building a fence if they deem it necessary.
The gate is obviously a clear message to the city and its leadership – a shot across its bow that more is coming and that the city better cooperate.
It is refreshing to see the very pointed statement from the city in response.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If you lived on Olive Dr. would your argument still be the same ?
My guess is it would be totally opposite , because you would be worried that your kids could walk out a gate and be standing on a railroad track .
The railroad did what needed to be done , close the gates that people shouldn’t of built in the first place !
Good job UPRR …
“If you lived on Olive Dr. would your argument still be the same ? “
Do you understand that the people who are complaining the most are the people who live on Olive Drive?
dmg: “This was always the fear that the city had. They could take a strong stand here and deny UP public money, but the city has limited ability to stop UP from building a fence if they deem it necessary.
The gate is obviously a clear message to the city and its leadership – a shot across its bow that more is coming and that the city better cooperate.
It is refreshing to see the very pointed statement from the city in response.”
And how exactly did that “pointed statement” help the situation? Seems to me all it did was harden UPRR’s resolve to do what it has a right to do anyway. This is the sort of contentiousness Davis is reknowned for – pugnaciousness that becomes DEstructive rather than CONstructive…
So now my question is this: what are the chances of Davis getting an at-grade crossing? I would guess slim to none… but is the City Council going to pursue that course vigorously with the CPUC? From what I can tell, it would seem to be the city’s only option…
Sometimes you have to send a message.
I think they will get an at-grade crossing and I think the council will vigorously pursue their course for it. I think to answer the first part, the statement was setting up the fight for the at-grade crossing rather than attempting to deal with UPPR. That’s obviously failed.
If your house or apartment backed up to a freeway , would you put a gate in the fence so that you could walk across the freeway ?
From the header photo, it looks like U.P. posted their no trespassing signs facing the wrong way. It looks like Slaters put up the signs to keep people from entering their property. Legally speaking, those signs should be removed.
No matter, that fence looks like it will remain for maybe two weeks before some clever trespasser gets tired of jumping the fence on a daily basis and breaks out the old oxy/acetylene torch. One cut at the base of the middle post and one vertical cut down through the wire mesh, and that fence becomes an open gate. They could lean a 4X8 sheet of plywood against the track side to hide any light from the torch, while they work.The job would probably take about ten minutes. I wonder if U.P. is willing to post a 24 hour guard on their flimsy fence.
In the past I’ve crossed these tracks at many different points. This gate thing is just going to be an inconvenience for those at Slater’s and The Mobile Estates. There is a prominent northward dirt path at the east of the old Giuseppe’s. It crosses directly to the rose garden behind Cable Car Wash. I feel for the lower income resident’s with children that have to cross there to get their kid’s to Korematsu School. This situation has gotten stupidly outrageous!
Of course the City of Davis could give the Union Pacific a hold harmless agreement that shifts the entire liability of pedestrian injuries/death occurring on the railroad right-of-way railroad through Davis. Naturally, the people using the right-of-way as a passage into downtown want free access to cross the tracks while retaining the right to file a lawsuit should anything happen to them while they are in the railroad right-of-way.
[i]”I feel for the lower income resident’s with children that have to cross there to get their kid’s to Korematsu School.”[/i]
According to the DJUSD maps, the Olive Drive neighborhood kids go to Montgomery, not Korematsu. It is true that the junior high students attend Harper, but that can be reached easily by taking the bike path from Olive to the Mace overcrossing and then riding downhill to Harper. It’s a safe and easy ride, but likely not the route the kids take.
As to the new UP fence … it seems to me the most important point is that it is illegal and seemingly dangerous* to cross those tracks from Slater’s Court to the SP Depot. It does not seem unreasonable to me for the railroad company to do its best to prohibit tresspassing at that point on their tracks.
That said, I can understand why those who have been illegally crossing at that point for decades are upset by this interference. I suspect they don’t think it is dangerous. To them, it is convenient. In my neighborhood, most houses which abut Willett Elementary cut open the school fence and built gates, allowing them easier access back and forth. I have no idea if any of them got permission from the school district. They surely would be upset if the district erected a barrier blocking that route they have always used with impunity.
*I suppose a fair counter to the danger argument is that, as far as I know, no one whose intention was to pass from one side to the other has ever been hit by a train. But all it would take is one misstep at the wrong moment.
Rich,
As a long time resident, I’m confused how Olive dr. merges to the Mace overpass? Is there a bike path that runs between I-80 west bound and the UP tracks. The last time I checked Olive dr. peters out at the exit. Are you making reference to the Dave Pelz pedestrian overpass to the east of the Olive dr. exit. How does one access that from the north side of the I-80?
The City is dead wrong on this; someone is going to get killed on the UP tracks, and that person will be a sacrifice the idea that prevention of trespassing is somehow discriminatory.
Trespassing on the railroad right-of-way is already illegal. There isn’t an easement or grade crossing agreement in place. For the City to condone the conduct is irresponsible.
In February, I watched a kid dragging his bike across the tracks, in the fog, wearing an IPod. When one of those “poor kids” is killed, who is going to get blamed.
Right now, both the City and UP are on the hook. I can understand UP wanting to put an end to it. If the City wants another crossing, put a tunnel in at L.
It seems like the comments here are a retread of the previous arguments, not a comment relevant to the latest news item. To Avatar- notice the fence in place already behind the fence they just put up. So, little kids couldn’t just wander onto the tracks there anyway.
[i]”Is there a bike path that runs between I-80 west bound and the UP tracks.”[/i]
Yes.
Just before Olive Drive (heading east) ends, there is a very nice bike path which runs between I-80 and the tracks. You can either take it under the Mace overcrossing (and continue on toward West Sacramento) or you can ride up the Mace overcrossing on the bike path. When I bike to Sacramento, I will often use this path on my return home. (I generally take East Covell to the Mace Curve to County Road 32 going east.)
[img]http://image76.webshots.com/176/7/25/4/2695725040103478098QxKswJ_ph.jpg[/img]
The Davis bike group, Davis Bicyles!, which used to be headed by Joe Krovoza, wants an extension of the Dave Pelz overcrossing to run down to this bike path.
Old Skool: my image link above seems to have failed. Here is a picture of that bike path ([url]http://image76.webshots.com/176/7/25/4/2695725040103478098QxKswJ_ph.jpg[/url]). I think it was built in the 1960s.
[url]http://image76.webshots.com/176/7/25/4/2695725040103478098QxKswJ_ph.jpg[/url]
Many of the comments above make no sense.
The City is not condoning trespassing, it is looking to unite the three major paths that are used near the station into one path, put up an attractive fence rather than an 8′ military-style fence, and funnel everyone to a single, legal, at grade crossing.
Fifteen people have been killed along the tracks from the Causeway to South Putah in the last twenty years, but only one would have been stopped possibly by this fence, and they were intoxicated. This is not an excuse for either argument, but shows how disingenuous UP’s argument is regarding safety. Had this fence been in place for the last twenty years and all other factors the same, 19 of those deaths would have occurred anyway.
The issue is that the fence would likely create a more dangerous situation. You have to know the area and map pedestrian patterns to understand this. That people ‘should not’ does not change the reality that people *will*. The idea here is to acknowledge human behavior and design a crossing that is within the ability of government to build with available funding as soon as possible and that will create the safest situation possible.
A tunnel would likely be a preferable solution, but is enormously expensive; it would take years to apply for and fund and may continue to be kicked off into the future. The at-grade crossing is by far the safest, most doable, and most affordable solution. It is true the City Council’s of past years created this situation with complancency in building more housing and making the problem one for a future City council. For that, the present Council should not be criticized; this is the City Council of 2011 and they are the ones who are saying, ‘the buck stops here, we are going to solve this.’ I have never seen such a pointed press release by our City, and it is right on target.
Union Pacific is only ‘correct’ in a strict legal sense, and even some of that is questionable, morally they are doing what most huge corporations do best, measuring worth by their own dollars. The railroad is not working together with Davis to find the best safety solution.
Unwitting allies of the railroad are the finger waggers: “it’s illegal to cross the tracks”. If finger waggers were gods, there would be no need for a fence. And yes, the City’s solution requires a fence as well to funnel people to the safe crossing. Despite what others have accused, I am in favor of a fence, because human behavior will not change. The difference is that the railroad will not consider an at-grade crossing, and safety and economic realities dictate that as the best solution for the next decade or so until a grad separation is possible.
I walked behind the fence at Slater’s Court yesterday and a man walked up to me and said, “I’m pissed. I feel like a caged animal.” People will not live peacefully behind this barrier, no matter that the finger waggers and railroad say they ‘should’. If built, the railroad will create a permanently unstable and unsafe situation. The fence as planned will end at two points that are not in and of themselves legal public crossings (Richard’s also creates a diagonally crossing over the tracks at the bridge as well as the legal path). Many people will indeed go to Richard’s Blvd. tunnel. Many will go to the edges of the fence. Others will find ways over, under and through the fence. I am not condemning nor condoning this, it simply is. That is human nature, and for an effective solution, all sides must acknowledge that reality.
The railroad and the finger waggers will not acknowledge this reality, and to that end the railroad and the finger waggers are the problem and the City is on track for a realistic, safe and affordable short-term solution.
The California Public Utilities Commission: do they understand reality and will they grant Davis an at-grade crossing? I hope the CPUC board is made of courageous problem-solvers, rather than railroad corporate plants and finger-waggers.
I meant 14.
This is really stupid. Any kid could get around that fence in a flash. I’ll give it a week before someone has breached it in some way.
I quite imagine UP planned it that way. They know if you put a solid metal barrier in a weak fenceline, the fence is breached at the edge of the barrier; they have seen it a thousand times. When this happens, UP will use that as an argument to build the entire fence, demonizing and finger-wagging at the ‘trespassers’. Totally predictable.
“Do you understand that the people who are complaining the most are the people who live on Olive Drive?”
Thanks for the chuckle, David.
Anyhow… quite frustrating to see this. I’ve always seen this fence change as nanny state type crap. It isn’t needed and hasn’t been a historical problem. Thanks for giving the city the proverbial finger, Pacific.
How can UP assert right of way claims against property that has been developed for decades. If ever there was an adverse possession claim this would be it. The property in question has been used by others for decades who paid taxes and were not hiding their use. It seems that UP is playing hardball but has already lost control of the property in question.