Does the Olive Drive Fence Make Sense?
On Sunday, December 5th around 25 protesters gathered at the Davis Amtrak station to protest the fence that Union Pacific is trying to build along Olive Drive. Among the protesters were families, City Council members, and members of the press. The gathering facilitated a discussion about the objections the protesters have to the fence. Check out Susan Lovenburg’s recent post that describes the history and context of this matter.
Olive Dr. residents have many concerns. Safety is a major issue. If the fence does go up, the residents will have to go to the Richards Blvd. intersection to cross the train tracks. One resident, holding his son expressed concerns about having to cross at this busy intersection saying that he had witnessed many vehicle and bicycle accidents there. He also mentioned that the intersection scared his young children, whom he had had to comfort on several occasions after they were frightened by the loud noises of the intersection.
Another key issue for some is real estate values. One resident said that he and his family bought a new home on Olive Dr. last year. He said that if the fence is constructed, the value of his home will go down because it will be a much farther traveling distance from downtown.
Councilmembers Joe Krovoza & Rochelle Swanson speak with constituents at the rally.
Another issue is the business front. One protester stated that the Olive Dr. residents may have to find new places to shop that are closer to home. He also worried that the downtown businesses near the fence would suffer because the Olive Dr. residents would not be able to frequent them so easily. Another issue is the interruption of daily life. Residents said that they cross the tracks to visit their neighbors, to walk their dogs, and to get to work, the fence would severely inhibit these activities.
The City Council members present, Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson, both stated their support for the protest. Mr. Krovoza attacked the motives of Union Pacific. He said they are claiming the fence will increase safety but he does not agree with them at all. As stated by the protesters, he thinks the Richards Blvd. intersection, the place where residents will have to cross the tracks after the fence is constructed, is much more dangerous than crossing the tracks near their homes as they do now. He said, “Anyone who thinks the fence is making this situation safer is dead, dead wrong”. Ms. Swanson said her primary concern is the separation of Olive Dr. residents from the rest of Davis. She worries that the fence will disrupt the cohesive Davis community.
An organizer of the protest combated the safety argument with statistics. He stated the facts of the deaths that have occurred on the railroad tracks in the past 25 years. Only one of the 15 or so deaths would have been stopped by the fence. The others happened beyond the limits of the fence, in cars, or from the opposite side of the tracks than the fence would be. He concluded that the fence would not increase safety of the tracks by much. Greg Kuperberg would disagree as evidenced by his March 16th, 2010 post on the Davis Voice, “The Most Dangerous Half Mile in Davis”, detailing that this transportation corridor has experienced the most fatalities of any in Davis in the last fifteen years.
Protesters offered a solution. They seemed to agree that an at-grade pedestrian crossings with bells and barricades would make the tracks safer and would disrupt the community much less. The protesters are hoping to get Union Pacific or local and state officials to see their point of view and change their plans. If not, life could be radically different for residents of Olive Dr. and the greater Davis community.
If you are interested in getting involved in the protest, become a member of their Facebook group, the Olive Drive Preservation Society. Or, be a part of the conversation in the comments section below.
this is a wasted effort. The Railroad was there a century before the residents. The Railroad owns the property and has not ony the right but the obligation to its own liability to prevent pedestrians from crossing and active railway. I have seen people struggling to get everything from bicycles to babycarriages over those tracks. If one of them were hit by a train I’m sure they would argue it was the railroads fault. Have you ever considered the distance it takes to stop a train with 50 or 100 rail cars? It takes well over a mile at slow speeds. The passenger trains go by at 50 MPH. It takes a three car train about a mile to stop at that speed. There is no way a train could prevent hitting a person on the tracks. Use the sidewalk at Richards.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Krovoza, a man who usually has common sense, should state there is no reason to fence the railway, and no safety benefit from doing so. He blithely states those who assess trackside safety will be improved by the fencing are “dead wrong”. Perhaps Mr. Krovoza would like to repeat that to the families of the 15 victims killed crossing the tracksin the past 25 years. No, the track-crossing victims are dead, and it is Mr. Krovoza who is wrong.
@George Hayne: an at-grade pedestrian crossing would prevent many pedestrians from being hit by trains, a fence only blocks one side of the tracks, and only goes so far along the tracks, it is kind of an arbitrary solution.
Since this a university town, I hope that everyone can apply solid analytic skills to the safety question. There is a theory of accident prevention, even for alcoholics; there is a theory of suicide prevention; and there is a theory of how much to spend to save one life. The protest organizer in question, Alan Miller, ignored all theory and instead made the hand-waving statement that “only” one life would have been saved by the fence.
First, I don’t know how anyone knows that the fence will only be on one side. If that’s truly the proposal, then it’s wrong; it should be fenced on both sides.
Second, Miller wants to say that Samuel Carrasco would still have been killed, that Fred Nightbear Iyotte would still have been killed, that Patrick Allison would still have killed himself, and that “only” Nanda Butler’s life would have been saved. This is not a “statistic”, it is a wild speculation. Not to mention, a callous speculation. Miller only has a good argument in the case of Patrick Allison at the most, and only if the location where Allison died will not be fenced.
Third, let’s say that we did know that “only” one life would have been saved. We don’t know that, but let’s say that we did. According to Department of Transportation regulations, it’s worth spending $6 million to save one statistical human life. In other words, it’s worth vastly more than the actual cost of the fence.
The fence is a cost-effective, life-saving measure. If the city cooperates with Union Pacific to build this fence on both sides of the track, then it deserves thanks from the families of these poor men, and from anyone in Davis at risk of getting killed by a train.
Two other comments:
I count myself as one of many Davis friends of Joe Krovoza. I supported his campaign and I would support it again. If anyone understands the theory of transportation safety, Joe does, because he is a deputy director at the Institute of Transportation Studies. So I really think that Joe just got a little distracted with political rhetoric at the rally, when he said that “putting up this fence does not create a safer environment”. He didn’t make a schooled argument to back up that statement. He said that the intersection at Olive and Richards is “absolutely less safe” than the train tracks, but the actual fatality record says otherwise.
But I totally agree with Joe and everyone else that there should be a comprehensive solution. There should be a safe way to cross those railroad tracks.
Volume of words does not a wise man make. Yawn.
I-80 is very likely the most dangerous transportation corridor within the City of Davis, by annual fatalities or most other measures. It is also the corridor that sees the most illegal activity each day (excessive speed). CalTrans isn’t liable in quite the same way as UP (as I understand the situation), so we aren’t seeing the same effort to use public funds to treat one symptom.
All this writing, and very little progress towards a safe crossing from either East Davis or Downtown to Olive Drive.
Doug – I delved into this issue when I edited the “Tragic Events” pages on DavisWiki. I found basically every report in the newspapers of accidental deaths in Davis since 1997. My conclusion is that the railroad tracks are the most dangerous half mile in Davis. Yes, I-80 has more fatalities per year in total, but it extends for four or five miles within city limits. And, vastly more money has been spent to keep I-80 working, and to limits dangers, than for the railroad tracks.
In my article, I also had another point about the city of Davis which is worth repeating. Davis has in the past gone to bat for millions of public dollars, much more money than the cost of this fence, in the name of safety. Two examples are the 5th Street Corridor and the (failed) proposal to widen the Richards Underpass. But actually, all of these celebrated causes pertain to much smaller safety problems than this half mile. Public safety should not be a euphemism for public convenience. As far as I know, no one has died in the 5th Street Corridor stretch in the past 15 years.
To anyone quoting statistics from their armchair I challenge you to come walk the tracks with Allen, Joe, or myself. We will show you in person the exact planned placement for the fence, and you will see for yourself the dangers it represents to our community. Short of seeing it for yourself and having actually been at our protest ie allen suezanne and myself, nobody has any place to be commenting on this article the way they are. Joe will gladly restate all of his objections to the fence project and further explain the sound logic of our protest, call or email him. The only counterarguements that have been raised here so far have been grossly misinformed, and with a bit of direct observation of the UP plan all who have commented here would easily be swayed to join us in our struggle for a re-dedication of these public funds to a permanent safe crossing rather than a fence that causes people to cross at less safe places. One of those places is already accepted by city planning as the “Worst Intersection in Davis,” and the other end of the fence has people crossing directly onto Olive at the I-80 offramp where cars are traveling faster than any train has ever passed through the station. It’s a million dollar bandaid covering an infected cut that needs antibiotics and stitches. Yes it is only planned for the south side of the tracks, and only from the boy scout cabin to the east end of Olive meaning that 14/15 deaths in 25 years lie 100 percent outside of the bounds of this fences planned impact, but as importantly the 1 death Allen thinks it might have impacted was a ruled suicide. It is only Allens doubt in the polices ruling in that matter that lends any credibility to the above claim that 1 life could have been saved. What is absoluteley certain is that for a fraction of that lifes purported 6 million dollar value, a safe crossing could be established, and statistics show that the number of illlegal crossings diminish greatly when people have a safe legal alternative. So for anyone still clinging to the false belief that these deaths have direct causal correlation to the quantity of illegal crossings in the fence zone, our proposed solution should be logical even for you. The truth is every single incident in 25 years has been: A) Beyond fence boundaries, B) Persons entering tracks from the North including a murder victim (see fence plan and look at A), C) Persons in cars (again see A), D) Persons committing suicide on the tracks, E) Inebreated Homeless Persons (1 of whom entered the tracks from an unknown direction. The point is none of the incidences in 25 years are connected to any Olive drive residents daily routine crossings legal or otherwise. No child has ever been injured, though they cross to get to school daily. Kids have been in collisions with bikes and cars at Olive and Richards though thankfully none so far were fatal. My own children have been nearly hit by bicyclists traveling at high rates of speed through the tunnel on several occasions. Increasing the flow of traffic of all varieties to this intersection will be BAD, this is not speculation.
@ Greg Kuperberg- you completely contradicted yourself, the first page of arguments were OK, but the second made no sense and another thing you cant say the Joe mis spoke those were his words and he obviously believes them, and another thing, how many trains a day go on that rail road, i just went to Amtrak.com to see the different type of trains that go by Davis, there are only two the capital corridor which goes to San Jose and the California Zephyr, the capital corridor only goes from Davis to San Jose 8 times a day and from San Jose to Davis 12 times a day, all together that is 20 times a day, and the California Zephyr only goes through Davis 4 times a day through Amtrak that is 24 times a day, and that not including the up trains that go by and make every one wait for a terrible amount of time in their cars and on their bikes. i don’t know how many UP freight trains go through Davis a day but i do know that the railroad track near the old tomato factory is a place where freight trains usually rest, also the road on second street is usually packed with still freights. either way the Number of trains that go by Davis on that track are very very very slim compared to the 64,000 people who drive and bike the Richards Boulevard with both free way exits and including, other dangerous street such as, Cowell Blvd and Pole Line Rd and Lillard Dr.
now that that is on the table please give me another good reason why we should endanger the lives of our fellow neighbors and children.
thank you
and i don’t care that i don’t use punctuation, you don’t need punctuation to read the fine print, its a good argument with real facts and not just a list of 15 names of people who died on the tracks, if we cut the tracks off we will probably loose more of our friends and family
Taylor and Kevin: You guys are offering a grab bag of confusing claims that also don’t have good citations. For instance, which city planners call Olive and Richards the “worst intersection in Davis”, and what do they even mean by that? I know that this intersection used to have that name in DavisWiki, but what does that have to do with city planners?
But I do agree with you on two points: First, I totally agree that there is a lot that a fence only on the south side of the tracks wouldn’t prevent. There should be fences on both sides.
Second, I totally agree that there should be a safe, legal crossing point across the tracks next to Olive Drive. And a fence.
[i]“I challenge you to come walk the tracks with Allen, Joe, or myself. We will show you in person the exact planned placement for the fence, and you will see for yourself the dangers it represents to our community.”[/i]
Dangers? Instead of telling us you think there are dangers, tell us just what those dangers would be.
Yours does not seem to be much of an argument against having a fence. It’s more of an argument that the fence being planned could be better or more extensive.
Greg’s original Davis Voice essay on this topic–which I read for the first time last night–positively makes the case for a fence*. Properly designed, it would discourage people from crossing back and forth over the tracks, and that, by itself, would make the situation less unsafe compared with the status quo.
I don’t know how much a pedestrian overcrossing would cost. However, I think we need one–between Olive and L**–and I have an idea for how the City might pay for one: make ConAgra pay the freight.
Currently, any time a developer builds on our periphery, the City Council blackmails him out of an “agricultural mitigation fee.” Ever since Wildhorse was built, these fees have been used to enrich wealthy landowners 5-10 miles outside of Davis. We pay them $1 million or more each to not build houses on county land where it is illegal for them to build houses.
Instead, it makes far more sense to blackmail them to pay for a “public safety fee” which could be used to build a pedestrian overpass (or even better, a tunnel under the tracks, much like the one which runs from H Street to J Street near the Little League park.
*If the money is there for a fence on both sides of the track, all the better. However, it makes no sense to not build one and improve matters on the Olive side just because the money might not be there for a second fence right now.
**There is no need for a new crossing directly into downtown. The great danger at hand is for people crossing from Olive to E. 2nd Street. The Richards subway is a safe and convenient entrance into downtown for everyone in the Olive Drive area; and once the fence is in place, the residents who now illegally and unsafely cross the tracks will discover that.
Hi Rich. I certainly agree that one fence would be a lot better than none. And CCJPA and Union Pacific deserve praise for getting this issue moving when the city has been complacent for such a long time. People are up in arms about the cost of this fence. Not only will the fence not cost all that much, it won’t even be the city’s money.
On that note, the city should not rush forward to build something when state funds could be available for the same purpose. CCJPA explicitly said that it’s willing to talk to Davis about a legal crossing project at Olive Drive. The city should get its ducks in a row and make the right case for regional and state transportation funds. Only then, at the end of the negotiations, should the city dip into its own funds as needed.
By contrast, the Olive Drive protesters want the city to take a completely untenable position with the rest of the state. Even setting aside the major safety argument for this fence — a much stronger safety argument than for the 5th Street Corridor, the high school stadium, etc. — crossing the train tracks is also illegal. The city would do immense damage to its regional credibility if it said, “Yeah, the way we travel in Davis, we sometimes have to break state laws.” If Davis stuck to a position like that, it could invite an answer like “either clean up your act or get lost” any time the city applies for transportation funds.
This is one reason to say that Rochelle and Joe got carried away with the crowd at the protest. The city just can’t tell people outside of Davis, as Joe told the protest, that trespassing on the tracks is better than going to Richards Boulevard. It also can’t complain, as Rochelle did, that the fence will “separate” Olive from the rest of the city, since legally the train tracks themselves already create that problem. They should have stuck to a stand against complacency and promised action on a legal way to cross, instead of feeding sentiments that will inevitably reach a dead end. In fact, as the two new members on the council, they could have said, “we’re new to this job, and we see that the city should have attended to this a long time ago.”
@Greg Kuperberg: Good points, what you fail to address is that the protest did come up with a legal way for Olive Dr. residents to cross, an at-grade pedestrian crossing. I believe Joe and Rochelle supported this idea.
Suzanne: Where would you put the at-grade crossing? At the Depot?
I don’t think that’s the worst idea. It could be combined with a fence which effectively feeds foot and bike traffic to that point.
However, without a fence, it does not solve the issue of the junior high children crossing the tracks to get to E. 2nd Street at L Street or other illegal and dangerous crossings of the track along Olive Drive.
And if you are going to have an at-grade pedestrian crossing* combined with a safety fence, then that raises the question, why is that better or safer than a safety fence combined with a pedestrian tunnel or overpass?
Also, an at-grade pedestrian crossing at the Depot appears to my inexpert eyes as inherently dangerous, because the train traffic there includes many commuter trains which stop and many freight trains which don’t stop. If a pedestrian presumes in advance that the train is going to stop, he might just be presuming wrong. And that is not good.
*You can read about pedestrian at-grade rail crossings here:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/GRAPHICS/83568.PDF
I just briefed through that document and it addresses fencing at an at-grade pedestrian crossing:
“In order to prevent trespassing along the railroad right-of-way, it is recommended that fence heights be greater than 4 feet, and preferably 8 feet, high in order to act as a significant barrier to pedestrians.
“Designers should be aware that fence height may need to be limited near a crossing to maintain sight lines along the track.
“In determining the appropriate fence type, the designer should consider vandal resistance and the difficulty of climbing. The costs of both construction and maintenance also will be a consideration. While typical chain link/cyclone fencing is cheaper than other types of fencing, it
is not recommended because the higher cost of its maintenance and lower vandal resistance, compared to other types of fencing.
“At a sidewalk crossing with a pedestrian gate, a pipe-rail barrier/fence may be appropriate to channelize pedestrians and prevent them from easily walking around the pedestrian gate by stepping off the curb. Such a barrier is typically only necessary in the quadrants where gate arms
do not lower across the roadway.”
The dangers of pedestrian crossings are also addressed by the CPUC. Here is an excerpt:
“A major factor in many pedestrian incidents is the pedestrian being unaware of a second train approaching from behind a train immediately in front of them. Too often, pedestrians walk over the tracks as soon as the train in front of them passes, and then are struck by the second train.
“A study was conducted on graphical Second Train Coming signs for a light rail pedestrianrail at-grade crossing adjacent to a station in City of Vernon in Los Angeles County. The study did not conclusively determine that pedestrians understood the directional or second-train indications on this sign. However pedestrians indicated that they did feel it provided additional warning of approaching trains. Additional research is necessary to develop new technology or designs that effectively warn pedestrians of an approaching second train.”
Suzanne – If the protesters asked for any legal way to cross the railroad tracks, then more power to them. But the tracks still need to be fenced.