mook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Possibly, the original crossing agreement with the RR was (x) feet wide, and over the years that was used up and probably stretched a little to squeeze in the modern street. But not the sidewalk(s).
Widening further for sidewalks might require a new agreement with the RR and a new set of crossing gates, which often (UP is aggressive about it) requires closure of more crossings than are added/improved.
Recent story about Sacramento getting a deal allowing them to add one new crossing if they close another - and the sacrificial lamb is one that on closure will make bicycle access to the river more roundabout and dangerous due to more traffic on the replacement streets. And that was a gracious gesture on UP's part after much jawboning - they originally wanted 5 crossings closed for the one new one.
City to Union Pacific: We’ll trade you C Street for Ramona Avenue
The city of Sacramento and Union Pacific railroad have a strange-bedfellows type of relationship that often frustrates local officials.
[
www.sacbee.com]