Crossing location |
A few days
ago, I wrote about an upcoming hearing on a proposed at-grade
crossing in Santa Rosa.
The proposed
crossing would confirm and reopen an existing pedestrian/bicycle connection
between the two halves of Jennings Avenue, passing over railroad tracks that
were recently returned to use. It was a
crossing that, although never official, had long served as a route between
homes, businesses, and schools on both sides of the track.
During the
many years that the tracks were unused, no one had taken notice of the
crossing. But with freight service and
now SMART trains returning to the tracks, the crossing had become a concern for
the California Public Utility Commission.
After considering options, including the possibility of an $8.2 million separated
grade bridge, the City of Santa Rosa applied for approval of an at-grade
crossing.
In the
earlier post, I advocated for the at-grade crossing. I also expressed concern that the rule-bound
rigidity of the process was so time-consuming that many of the students who could
have used the crossing to reach elementary school will have driver’s licenses
before a decision is rendered.
I attended
the hearing two evening ago. Nothing in
the process caused me to change either earlier assessment. But I nonetheless came away feeling optimistic
about people and about urbanism.
I felt energized
because I watched a neighborhood of modest means and little influence rally
together in large numbers and with enthusiasm to argue for an amenity that they
found essential to the well-being of their lives. And also because the amenity that the
neighborhood wanted was walkable urbanism.
It was a naturally occurring, unselfconscious advocacy for a more walkable
urban world. And that makes me happy.
On my way to
the hearing, I stopped by the location of the proposed crossing. The sun and fence didn’t allow a good photo
of the tracks, but the signage was clear enough to give a mirthless chuckle.
Detour sign |
The City,
responding to the closure by the PUC, suggested a walk-around of 0.6 miles and
15 to 20 minutes to replace the crossing, a length of walk that usually deters walking. And that’s without noting that a segment of
the recommended walk would be along a five-lane arterial without a sidewalk,
for which the walking route is a narrow sliver of bare dirt behind a curb and
perched above a steep slope declining to a creekbed.
Give a
moment to ponder that. The PUC is
suggesting that students on their way to elementary school walk on a two-foot dirt
path between quickly moving cars and sometimes quickly moving water. And they make that suggestion for the sake of
public safety.
It was with
that absurdity still vibrating in my head that I arrived at the hearing.
The evening opened
with the City summarizing the steps to date, the different alternatives that
were considered, the environmental process that was followed, and the
application to the Public Utility Commission for the at-grade crossing. The location of the elementary school west of
the tracks and the growing number of elementary school students living east of
the tracks were also noted. It was an
unexciting, but factual and necessary, summary.
An engineer for
the Safety and Enforcement Division of the PUC then made what was the most unhelpful
presentation of the evening. He noted
that the PUC policy is to reduce the number of at-grade crossings, that many
more deaths occur at at-grade crossings than at separated grade crossings, and that
the City should have pursued the $8.2 million separated grade crossing when the
funds might have been available.
It was a
presentation which left a wealth of unanswered questions. Would people actually use the separated grade
crossing or would they revert to cars?
Would students cut the fences and continue crossing at grade, without
the safety measures? How would the City
justify plopping an $8.2 million dollar concrete structure into the middle of a
residential neighborhood, a physical juxtaposition that would much like
plopping a tyrannosaurus rex into a petting zoo? Were the fatality totals adjusted for the
deaths that were ruled suicides?
It was a
perfect example of a solution that looked at the problem through a pinhole
rather in its entirety, which is the antithesis of good urbanism. Luckily, the neighborhood effectively
destroyed most of his arguments as the evening continued.
Acknowledgement:
Due to my poor stenography skills, the following “quotes” are imprecise. I’ve assuredly missed words and probably even
combined the sentiments of multiple speakers.
But, regardless of attribution, all of the points below were made during
the public comments, which began with City representatives and elected
officials, and then continued with neighborhood residents.
“The
crossing, although never approved, has been in use since the late 19th century,
predating cars. And not one single
fatality has been experienced in that century plus.”
“Speaking as
a wheelchair user, I could never climb the separated grade crossing and would
be isolated unless an at-grade crossing is provided.”
“As a
parent, I’d never let my child use the separated grade crossing because they couldn’t
see around the corners and wouldn’t know what dangers might be waiting for
them.”
“If we want
to reduce greenhouse gases, we must provide useful walkable solutions.”
“As a researcher
on the issues of a post-carbon world, we need to encourage pedestrians by providing
facilities that meet their needs.”
“I’m now 46 years
old, but remember being a student at this school and crossing the tracks with
friends on a Saturday afternoon to see movies.”
“Listening
to the speakers this evening, we’re hearing common sense swamping rules.”
“If we wish to
encourage seniors to give up driving when they’re no longer safe behind the
wheel, we must provide walkable alternatives.”
“The
at-grade crossing has been in multiple City of Santa Rosa plans, from the General
Plan down, for many years.”
“The concern
with the railroad tracks is 32 trains per day.
But nearby Dutton Avenue, which students also cross while walking to
school, has 32 cars every 110 seconds during morning peak. And the cars will be traveling faster than
the trains. Are we even asking the right
question?”
While none
of the speakers may have been overly eloquent, the overall voice of the
neighborhood was highly eloquent.
The
remaining question is whether that eloquent voice will be heard. After the now completed hearing, which was
targeted toward collecting public comments, a more rigorous evidentiary hearing,
complete with testimony and cross-examination, will be held in San Francisco in
mid-April. PUC staff will then draft an
order for consideration by the full Commission during the summer. Overall it seems a welter of decision-making
in which the desires of the neighborhood might be lost.
Having little
prior experience with the PUC process, I don’t know what to expect as a final
result, but hope that a neighborhood arguing with a unified voice for an urbanist
solution won’t be lost to a blind reliance on rules that shouldn’t apply to a
changing world.
I’ll keep
you advised.
I recently
glanced at my notes from the recent StrongTowns/Urban3 visit to the North
Bay. I spotted a quote from Chuck Marohn
of StrongTowns that I’d written down, but somehow still not really heard. Coming across it again, it spoke to me in a
whole new way, with deep implications about urbanism. I’ll ruminate in my next post.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment