By John Palminteri of KEYT News
New pedestrian crossing arms have gone in by the railroad tracks on State Street. Part of the $1.3-million cost, about $314,000, was paid for by the nearby Hotel Californian as part of the condition of approval for the project.
There are also many other new safety features, including railings and signage, on Milpas Street at that crossing.
Read more on keyt.com
In the 2 years Moxi has been open no children have been killed or injured by trains. Find another target to channel your negativity.
Yet.
When my children were young and I could finally afford to buy a house, I looked for one not on a busy street. I trusted my children, but that possible moment in time when he might chase a bird or butterfly across the street, I wanted to reduce the risk that he would be hurt by a car. Always trying to reduce risks when raising, or caring for, children. Drama and tragedy can happen in seconds. Have you ever lost your child temporarily in a grocery store, museum, or big box store? You always hope they haven’t run outside.
At least distracted texting pedestrians will walk into a barrier instead of a train.
The Arms of Darwin.
People do a lot of stupid things.
Great spot for a Children’s Museum, and many excited youngsters.
Same railroad, UP, same city, SB, same issue crossing safety and……yes, part of the same 1.3 million dollar contract.
I agree with you, Flicka. We do stupid things on a daily basis. I’d like to add that the more society tries to protect us, the less aware many of us become. I roll my eyes when I see people through an intersection against the light and assemble int the street astradle their bikes around a dark street corner. It’s like, do you really want an ambulance ride that much?
The article states, in part, “New pedestrian crossing arms have gone in by the railroad tracks on State Street. There are also many other new safety features … on Milpas Street at that crossing.”
So what does Milpas Street have to do with the RR crossing under discussion?
You all realize this is for liability right? It has nothing to do with safety. This meant to reduce the liability cost of the inevitable death/injury/near miss law suit the city will be hit with at some point. If we truly wanted to protect people from trains we would need to elevate the tracks, put them underground, or find some other way of isolating people all together. We choose to live with trains running through our city because the benefits outweigh the risks for society. Unfortunately, we live in a society where individuals are quick to blame (i.e. profit) from risks we have decided to accept as a society.