The City of Davis announced yesterday that it has formally submitted an application to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to construct an at-grade pedestrian/bike crossing at the Davis Train Station, also known as the Southern Pacific Depot, to provide safe and convenient access between the Olive Drive neighborhood and the downtown/depot area.
Mayor Joe Krovoza noted that, “The City of Davis has a strong commitment to improving public safety over or under the railroad tracks.”
“Over the past 20 years Davis has invested millions of dollars of local money in providing safe access across Interstate 80 and the railroad tracks,” the Mayor said in a statement in the city’s press release. “Past projects have included the Mace Blvd. widening, Dave Pelz pedestrian/bike overcrossing, Pole Line Road vehicle/pedestrian/bike overcrossing, Richards Blvd. interchange improvements, Putah Creek pedestrian/bike undercrossing of I-80 and the railroad tracks and improvements at the train station. A safe crossing at the Depot represents the last access link between a residential area south of the tracks and the remainder of Davis. The residents of Olive Drive deserve safe access to the rest of town.”
Although Union Pacific Railroad had constructed concrete plates providing a smooth pathway across the tracks from the Olive Drive neighborhood to the Davis platform, recently Union Pacific Railroad removed those plates and informed the city that it intended to construct a 3800-foot-long fence. Union Pacific allowed the city to provide input related only to the color of the fence.
The city contends if its application is approved, it will provide for improved safety for residents, particularly in contrast to the fence proposed by Union Pacific Railroad.
Moreover, the city argues “that a fence by itself is more dangerous than a fence with an at-grade crossing. A fence alone would push pedestrians/bikes to the ends of the fence for crossing purposes at locations where trains are traveling faster and where there have historically been fatalities.”
The city states, “It is hoped that a fence in conjunction with the at-grade crossing would prevent situations such as the most recent fatality along the tracks, while allowing access to and from the Olive Drive neighborhood.”
Unfortunately, as the Vanguard reported back in June, the State of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) along with the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Association (CCJPA) have opposed an at-grade crossing.
The CPUC argues, “Union Pacific Railroad proposes to build an 8′ high 3800 foot long fence. Union Pacific Railroad has not provided any studies or documents showing that there is a safety issue with the existing condition. Nor has Union Pacific addressed safety issues that will be caused by the proposed fence. The Union Pacific fence proposal does not address ways to mitigate its perceived safety concerns that do not create new or additional safety concerns on the railroad tracks and in the tracks. There was no analysis of how train traffic and patterns would affect the safety of your proposed at-grade crossing.”
In contrast to the city, the CPUC staff is of the opinion that a grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing is the safest mitigation measure for this location. They write, “A grade-separated crossing would eliminate all potential conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclist and trains.”
They add, “There, is no substantial evidence in this MND [mitigated negative declaration] to support the City of Davis proposal for an at-grade pedestrian crossing as opposed to a grade-separated pedestrian crossing, because it is feasible to construct a grade-separated crossing. While the City states that the most logical location for any crossing is in the vicinity of the SP Depot train station, there is no safety analysis provided in the MND to support this proposal.”
CPUC notes that they disagree with the statement, “The at-grade crossing in the vicinity of the depot would provide a safe, cost effective crossing for users at this location.”
“While it may be less-expensive, an at-grade crossing does not eliminate all hazards when compared to a grade-separated crossing,” the CPUC adds.
“Additionally, improving the existing pedestrian routes to improve overall safety would appear to be warranted,” they note. “Numerous persons at the January 11, 2011 City Council meeting expressed concern over the safety along City of Davis streets in the vicinity of Richards Boulevard and the roadway underpass beneath the tracks there. A more widely beneficial project to improve those pedestrian routes should be further examined and analyzed.”
In addition, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority sent a letter to the city stating, “While the CCJPA was aware the City of Davis was contemplating an at-grade crossing, we had not been consulted regarding the statements that we now see in the mitigated negative declaration.”
They add, “While CCJPA withdrew its funding support for the fence project leaving UPRR to pursue a fence project at their discretion, we believe all parties, including the City of Davis, understand that the existing pedestrian crossing situation is unsafe and that it should be modified to eliminate the unauthorized access of pedestrian traffic across the right-of-way with the yet unresolved question being what design would create a safe pedestrian crossing situation.”
They note, “Any time the public crosses a rail right-of-way at a grade crossing there is a risk of accidents or delays to trains. Incident rates at various grade crossings nationwide vary widely, but the average is not zero. The design and very operations of the proposed at-grade crossings will directly create rail impacts.”
They also come out in support of a grade-separated crossing, “In the opinion of the CCJPA, a grade-separated crossing would in fact be feasible and promote greater pedestrian/bicyclist safety. While implementation of a grade-separated crossing would likely cost more than an at-grade crossing, it would nevertheless be feasible. In fact, on more than one occasion, the CCJPA has offered its support to assist the City of Davis in securing funds for the design and construction of any such grade-separated crossing.”
The city press release also notes that the city has submitted a letter to Union Pacific Railroad requesting that it refrain from constructing a fence until the city application has received a hearing before the California Public Utilities Commission where all parties have an opportunity to provide expert testimony and the Commission has made a final decision on the crossing.
The city anticipates that the application process could last from nine to eighteen months before the CPUC makes a final decision.
The city has also asked the CPUC to take action to stop the railroad from constructing its proposed fence until the CPUC has made a decision on the city’s at-grade crossing application.
The ultimate way to go, I think, is a grade-separated crossing. The problem is, as resident Alan Miller suggested back in June, “Grade separation is probably not a funded reality of the next decade.”
Perhaps the city hopes to forestall the construction of the fence until they can get a grant application in. If the process will really take up to a year and a half, perhaps that buys the city the time they need to look for funding sources.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]They also come out in support of a grade-separated crossing, “In the opinion of the CCJPA, a grade-separated crossing would in fact be feasible and promote greater pedestrian/bicyclist safety. While implementation of a grade-separated crossing would likely cost more than an at-grade crossing, it would nevertheless be feasible. In fact, on more than one occasion, the CCJPA has offered its support to assist the City of Davis in securing funds for the design and construction of any such grade-separated crossing.”[/quote]
I’m assuming an at grade crossing is at street level, whereas a grade-separated crossing is an underground tunnel or overpass? If the CCJPA is in favor of a grade-separated crossing, and is willing to help find funding for it, why wouldn’t the city take them up on this offer? I’m perplexed by this…
I am not sure how much it will cost to construct an at-grade crossing, including the dollars which go into getting the CPUC to agree to the change. However, I know that of the $18 million the Davis RDA borrowed in March, $50,000 has been set aside for the Olive Drive at-grade crossing project.
You can read more details about how the $18 million of RDA bond money is being allocated by checking out my Enterprise column ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/we-may-need-scale-back-our-wish-list/[/url]), which is now online and will be printed in the Wednesday Enterprise.
To me a crossing would be a much better use of the RDA monies than the garage.
Excellent point, SODA. I wonder how many other projects will turn out to be higher priority and, hence, get funded instead of the planed projects. Did we really need this RDA slush fund at such high interest rates for so long.
“willing to help find funding for it”
Because this part is not true Elaine. They have never expressed a willingness to help fund it.
[quote]Because this part is not true Elaine. They have never expressed a willingness to help fund it.[/quote]
So are you saying they are lying?
SODA: [i]”To me a crossing would be a much better use of the RDA monies than the garage.”[/i]
One thing to consider about spending big money for an at-grade crossing or even an overpass–how much either will cost I don’t know–is that very few people, as a share of the total population in Davis, will ever use that crossing.
Davis has roughly 65,000 people and perhaps a few hundred residents along Olive Drive will use the at-grade crossing to the Depot.
By contrast, more parking spaces in the core area will be a benefit to everyone in Davis who drives downtown.
I’m not saying that the fact that so few will benefit from a RR crossing is enough reason to deny it; or that because more downtown parking will benefit all of Davis is the ultimate argument in favor of that project. But I think those are things to consider when the City Council decideds how and where to expend public monies.
I assumed that would mean they would write a letter in support, not fund fund the project.
[quote]I assumed that would mean they would write a letter in support, not fund fund the project.[/quote]
I assume what they meant was they will assist the city in hunting for grants or some OTHER source for the funding. I did not for one minute think the CPUC would fund the grade-separated crossing itself. So I still ask the question why the city never took them up on their offer to help find a source; or did the city take them up on the offer and nothing came of it; or is there just no funding of this sort out there right now?
Rich
I think the key to your statement is “anyone who drives downtown”. To me, this thought process that places convenience in the use of the automobile above other considerations such as safety, health ( smog free air as well as benefits of walking, biking) and community is outdated. While some communities are focusing on promoting walkability in their core areas, we give this style of living lip service while continuing to plan future development based on an automobile based model. Given that the entirety of downtown Davis is located within a six to seven block rectangle,
I would again propose that locating a parking structure combined with overpass at the train depot would adequately meet the needs of parking downtown while providing safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists over the tracks. It would have the further advantage of removing some of the congestion from commuter train parking from the nearby neighborhoods, still an issue although improved by the neighborhood permit requirement.
[quote]I would again propose that locating a parking structure combined with overpass at the train depot would adequately meet the needs of parking downtown while providing safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists over the tracks. It would have the further advantage of removing some of the congestion from commuter train parking from the nearby neighborhoods, still an issue although improved by the neighborhood permit requirement.[/quote]
Excellent points…
A parking structure south of the tracks with a cantilevered elevator on the north side. Ride up, walk across, ride down. Fun!
Kind of like Mr. Toads Wild Ride ?
Elaine,
You are far more eloquent than I in person. How about a presentation for the City Council ?
The idea of a parking structure on Olive Drive with a pedestrian bridge to the Amtrak station has been around for over a decade and would probably be viewed as the preferred alternative by the City of Davis. This would help with City parking, commuter parking, would allow Amtrak buses to access the station without coming into downtown, and would allow grade-separated pedestrian access. The cost of the parking structure and the cost of the pedestrian crossing could be combined.
I have been advocating for this for over a decade, and presented this idea a couple of times before the council.
However, the issue is funding. This is an incredibly expensive undertaking and money for such projects is not readily available. The application should be made, and this is the sort of effort that CCJPA would assist with. It benefits the CCJPA and the City.
However, this is a long shot, a very long shot, and probably a decade or two or three in the future if the land remains available. Note: What the City NEEDs to do today is preserve that land.
I advocate for the at-grade crossing because it is (barely) within the realm of fundable by the City. Criticism of the number of residents on Olive ignores the interconnectivity with the rest of Davis for bikes and pedestrians, especially with the openings to the path on both ends parallel to the railroad, and most especially once a bicycle connection ramp is built from the east end of Olive drive up to the pedestrian path on Mace Boulevard, a distance of less than 1000′, allowing access to both East and South Davis.
I know some of you refuse to understand this, but I favor the building of a fence along the south side of the tracks and the City plan includes this. This is necessary to funnel people to a legal crossing. What I do not favor is an 8′ steel mesh fence, nor a solid 3800′ fence with no public access points. Such a barrier is not only unattractive and smears the character of this area of Davis, but such a solid barrier with no access will encourage by its nature a larger number of persons to go under, over, around or through the barrier. Some would argue they “shouldn’t” do this, but then again they “shouldn’t” cross the tracks either, so the point is to do something that is effective in creating a safe, convenient and legal crossing for the vast majority of persons who will use it. I favor a solution in harmony with the character of the area and the nature of human beings.