Author Topic: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?  (Read 2351 times)

Megabox

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
I do. Railroad crossings are dangerous, and the crossing signals can fail to activate.

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3238
    • Facebook
I do. Railroad crossings are dangerous, and the crossing signals can fail to activate.

Apparently, you care so much about this topic that you can't remember you already started a thread on this subject months ago:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=33864.0
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

Megabox

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
If the railroad crossing is not commonly used by either trains or road vehicles, it can stay. Not practical to have an expensive bridge over such infrequently used crossings.

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3238
    • Facebook
If the railroad crossing is not commonly used by either trains or road vehicles, it can stay. Not practical to have an expensive bridge over such infrequently used crossings.

You're beginning to repeat yourself:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,33864.msg465954.html#msg465954
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
I thought no one would ever be able to top Noone's threads but this guy is quickly getting there.

acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
On a serious note about Flagler.  Sometimes guest we have in from out of town ask about "that old bridge" downtown.  It's kind of funny that of all of the things that shaped this state's history, that old bridge crossing the St John's probably had the biggest impact.  It's my favorite.

Overstreet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
No. Overpasses take too much acreage for city use.


acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
Re: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2019, 03:38:32 PM »
https://residentnews.net/2019/02/01/city-plans-to-close-two-railroad-crossings-for-pedestrian-path/

I like the people complaining about the train blowing their horns.  They're going to be in for a rude awakening when that doesn't change because the crossing they are taking out is 50 feet from another one  ::)  I wonder about some people...

Captain Zissou

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3605
Re: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2019, 04:25:43 PM »
I don't fully understand why they need to do this.  Adding a sidewalk on Nira requires them to shut down two vehicle crossings?

Charles Hunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
Re: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2019, 04:34:12 PM »
I don't fully understand why they need to do this.  Adding a sidewalk on Nira requires them to shut down two vehicle crossings?

I'm guessing the new bike/ped crossing will have its own set of crossing gates?  As the article says, the Gary Street crossing is closing anyway, due to the Overland Bridge project - there's nowhere for Gary Street to go east of the tracks.  Is a shame Naldo can't be turned to run parallel to the FEC over to Nira. But, that would require taking from that parking lot in the southwest corner.

acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
Re: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2019, 04:52:32 PM »
I don't fully understand why they need to do this.  Adding a sidewalk on Nira requires them to shut down two vehicle crossings?

FEC is calling the shots, it's their requirement.  If you look at the drawing it shows this new crossing separated from Nira.  I'm not sure what the big deal is though since it's a pedestrian path.  I'd like to see Naldo stay open.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29411
    • Modern Cities
Re: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2019, 05:49:47 PM »
It's pretty much standard protocol these days with railroads. When trains hit cyclist and pedestrians, pretty much the same happens as when they hit cars.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

bl8jaxnative

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
Re: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2019, 11:55:07 AM »
I don't fully understand why they need to do this.  Adding a sidewalk on Nira requires them to shut down two vehicle crossings?

I'm guessing the new bike/ped crossing will have its own set of crossing gates?  As the article says, the Gary Street crossing is closing anyway, due to the Overland Bridge project - there's nowhere for Gary Street to go east of the tracks.  Is a shame Naldo can't be turned to run parallel to the FEC over to Nira. But, that would require taking from that parking lot in the southwest corner.

The state's looking to change how they cross FEC's property.  You can do that if you do this other thing for me. 

Less crossings mean less risks.

Pottsburg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Always Carry Always Conceal
Re: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2019, 02:19:06 PM »
Can you imagine just one overpass? You realize they run double stack, they will never give that up. The bridge is around 80 years old and allows doubles to go through. Anyways the city should just sign up for  quiet zones, like they are doing down south. It crawls through the urban areas so no need to worry about major impacts. City would have to pony up the money though
Forza Napoli!  EPL has nothing on the Serie A