Author Topic: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?  (Read 3033 times)

Ocklawaha

  • Phd. Ferroequinology
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10429
  • Monster of Mobility! Ocklawaha is Robert Mann
    • LIGHT RAIL JACKSONVILLE
Re: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2019, 08:12:59 PM »
Crossing Closure increases safety, in order for a quiet zone chances are you'll have to have a Four Quadrant Gate System. Meaning a signal and gates on all four corners of a crossing. Gates with Channelization Devices and/or raised medians prevent vehicles from swinging into opposing traffic lanes to 'go around a gate.' There is a Federal $$$ Incentive to close crossings whereas the costs to rebuild or create a crossing can run anywhere from $30K - Several Million dollars each.

Pottsburg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
  • Always Carry Always Conceal
Re: Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses?
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2019, 10:54:41 AM »
Crossing Closure increases safety, in order for a quiet zone chances are you'll have to have a Four Quadrant Gate System. Meaning a signal and gates on all four corners of a crossing. Gates with Channelization Devices and/or raised medians prevent vehicles from swinging into opposing traffic lanes to 'go around a gate.' There is a Federal $$$ Incentive to close crossings whereas the costs to rebuild or create a crossing can run anywhere from $30K - Several Million dollars each.

This is all correct but there are exceptions, if there is only 1 land each way and there is a raised concrete median, you don’t need the 4 gate system. Which could be an option for the smaller crossings in San Marco. It’s cheaper
Forza Napoli!  EPL has nothing on the Serie A

Megabox

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Some railroad crossings would be pretty difficult to grade separate, like the one on Prudential near Baptist Downtown.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3162851,-81.6615762,3a,30y,87.59h,94.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRchredRXTP-E_BELbcJrbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 01:27:46 PM by Megabox »

sandyshoes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Say...what's to keep municipalities from charging the railroads a toll for passing thru their towns - for further upkeep of safety equipment, improvements, etc., etc.   It could happen, right?  They could also, if need be, be fined for lengthy obstruction of traffic, as in San Marco.  Something's bound to happen to improve the current situation, whether they get upset at such absurdity and find money to come up with a better solution or just take their trains and go home, where commerce is concerned.  But I'm sure someone out there knows of some obscure railroad laws that prohibit such things.  They could just clip a Railpass card to their visor in the locomotive.  (desperate times call for desperate measures).   ;)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 02:55:58 PM by sandyshoes »

Charles Hunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2652
Pretty sure you can't charge a railroad a toll for passing through their jurisdiction - but I don't have a citation.
Fines for blocking crossings are common, on the law books. However, I think that assessing those fines is spotty.  And, even if tickets are issued, the fine levels are too low to encourage the RR to change their practices - it is cheaper to pay the fine than to change the way they operate.  Given that RR companies have paid lobbyists, and contribute to local and state campaigns, and that Joe and Jane Motorist do not, this is highly unlikely to change.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29581
    • Modern Cities
Quote
Say...what's to keep municipalities from charging the railroads a toll for passing thru their towns

Federal railroad laws....

Quote
The reason federal control of rail transportation is important is clear – if every City, town, and state could put its own restrictions on rail service, it would cripple it and destroy any semblance of a unified national system.  The smooth operation of the rail system is protected by prohibiting states and municipalities from any requirements that would inhibit that system.  However, very  limited local or state regulation is allowed if the regulation is directly related to public health and safety, such as compliance with building and fire codes.

http://www.pullcom.com/news-publications-671.html
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Charles Hunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2652
Thanks, Lake!  I figured you would have an answer.

I-10east

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5248
Some railroad crossings would be pretty difficult to grade separate, like the one on Prudential near Baptist Downtown.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3162851,-81.6615762,3a,30y,87.59h,94.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRchredRXTP-E_BELbcJrbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That's the one that I think of in Jax, far as being the most problematic. Time to build an overhead trestle! (I'm not holding my breath)

Peter Griffin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
There is almost no way an overpass would be built there, Prudential at that location is nowhere near a major enough thoroughfare to warrant an overpass.

Pottsburg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
  • Always Carry Always Conceal
Some railroad crossings would be pretty difficult to grade separate, like the one on Prudential near Baptist Downtown.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3162851,-81.6615762,3a,30y,87.59h,94.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRchredRXTP-E_BELbcJrbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That's the one that I think of in Jax, far as being the most problematic. Time to build an overhead trestle! (I'm not holding my breath)

Building raised track for freight is not a reasonable solution. You could build a damn tunnel for the cars for a fraction of the cost. There might be a solution if they were to replace the railroad bridge over the St Johns. The bridge was built in 1925 and is in great shape. Speaking with a bridge guy he told me that it would take two years just to make the steel to build a new bridge. If they were to build a new one (which there is no land for IMO) they could make it higher and start raising the track around the 95 overpass. Just typing this I say there’s now way. Deal with it people. I can tell you when trains leave the Bowden hard and head over the bridge, they are clear the whole way. The only reason they stop is because CSX on the other side stops them
Forza Napoli!  EPL has nothing on the Serie A

acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2297
Some railroad crossings would be pretty difficult to grade separate, like the one on Prudential near Baptist Downtown.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3162851,-81.6615762,3a,30y,87.59h,94.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRchredRXTP-E_BELbcJrbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That's the one that I think of in Jax, far as being the most problematic. Time to build an overhead trestle! (I'm not holding my breath)

That overhead trestle would need to be a mile long and require replacing the bridge over the river.  People just need to get over the situation with the Prudential crossing.

Sonic101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • It's Coming
Trains are in the way and sea level's rising, the only real solution is to raise the street level. Before you call it absurd it has been done before, in Seattle no less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground

Now I know what you're thinking: "How can we enjoy the river from 3 stories above?" BECAUSE WE RAISE THE RIVER TOO. Locks will be installed up and down river from downtown to raise the river to the new street level. This will ensure our riverwalk remains a riverwalk and not a skywalk.

So let's make Jacksonville the Seattle of the South.

/s