Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[US 89]

Build higher overpasses!

If that were an option, they would have done it with this most recent project.

[hbelkins]

Has anyone ever done a profile of the guy who maintains this site? He's obviously gotten permission from building owners to place cameras in two different locations to record these instances of driver incompetence/illiteracy.

[NJRoadfan]

These people are really trying. Despite having a red light and the overheight sign flashing, they STILL drove under the bridge! Maybe some strobes need to be added to make it even more obvious one has to turn. Locally we have a 11 foot 9 in. bridge next to an industrial area with a ton of truck traffic and its rare to have one of these can opener incidents.

[1995hoo]

Has anyone ever done a profile of the guy who maintains this site? He's obviously gotten permission from building owners to place cameras in two different locations to record these instances of driver incompetence/illiteracy.

He works for Duke University and his office is in the building on the right side of that intersection as you face the bridge from where the cameras are.

[MNHighwayMan]

Has anyone ever done a profile of the guy who maintains this site? He's obviously gotten permission from building owners to place cameras in two different locations to record these instances of driver incompetence/illiteracy.

You know, you could just go to his website.

[hbelkins]

Has anyone ever done a profile of the guy who maintains this site? He's obviously gotten permission from building owners to place cameras in two different locations to record these instances of driver incompetence/illiteracy.

You know, you could just go to his website.

And find out ... nothing, except the guy's name. Lots of stories about the bridge itself, several with broken links, and the only thing that looks like it might have some detailed information (a WSJ story) is paywalled. And the FAQ at the site is about the bridge itself, not the video endeavor.

[1995hoo]

Here’s the most recent video proving the bridge is still in action. Not as frequently as it used to be, but it’s still unforgiving.

[kkt]

Can't believe they spent real money to raise the bridge when they couldn't raise it enough to fix the problem.
I see the "too tall" light did come on but not very long before the truck hit the bridge.

Maybe it should be a stop sign that requires all vehicles to stop and only proceed one vehicle at a time when the light turns green.

[Dirt Roads]

Can't believe they spent real money to raise the bridge when they couldn't raise it enough to fix the problem.

When I worked on the Triangle Transit project (2003-06), we were proposing to install an additional two-track bridge over Gregson Street.  Since the street slopes uphill leaving this part of downtown (southbound), the clearance issue could have been worse than the existing bridge.  I wasn't privy to the conversations, but there were a number of discussions about raising the existing tracks through downtown to improve the clearances.  In actuality, the issues at Gregson Street are relative minor compared to similar issues over the major thoroughfares Chapel Hill Street and South Roxboro Street (Bus US-15/501 NB) to the east of here.

Amazingly, locals were perplexed as to why the transit system couldn't fix their existing problems. 

Fun fact:  The bridge over Gregson Street is owned by the North Carolina Rail Road (which leases the tracks to Norfolk Southern).  All of the tracks through downtown are operated by NS, but back in the Triangle Transit days some of these overpasses were bridges owned by CSX Transportation (whose operating tracks are all east of downtown).  I'm not sure, but some may have also been owned by Norfolk Southern themselves.  Any discussions to raise tracks through downtown were much compounded by this fact.  I'm not sure, but I recall that all of these bridges are now owned by NCRR (which, like the old RF&P is a privately company whose shares are 100% owned by the State).

[goobnav]

Can't believe they spent real money to raise the bridge when they couldn't raise it enough to fix the problem.
I see the "too tall" light did come on but not very long before the truck hit the bridge.

Maybe it should be a stop sign that requires all vehicles to stop and only proceed one vehicle at a time when the light turns green.

The bridge is for and extremely active rail line and in Downtown Durham, just tearing out the bridge and rebuilding the road and the bridge is not as cost effective as having the warning system and ample, I live in Durham BTW, signage in the area warning of the bridge height is more cost effective.

Nevermind, that there are alternative routes in very close proximity that are higher or no bridge at all.  So that's another strike against a complete rebuild.

[1995hoo]

BTW, in that most recent video, watch the truck driver's reaction just after the 40-second mark. Good stuff.

[froggie]

Can't believe they spent real money to raise the bridge when they couldn't raise it enough to fix the problem.
I see the "too tall" light did come on but not very long before the truck hit the bridge.

The issue with raising it much higher is you have the at-grade Duke St rail crossing only 400ft to the east.  Any significant increase in the height of the bridge at Gregson St would negatively impact the Duke St crossing.

The project last year was able to raise it 8 inches...that's about as much as you're going to get without a massive changing of the entire road network in that area.

[Dirt Roads]

The project last year was able to raise it 8 inches...that's about as much as you're going to get without a massive changing of the entire road network in that area.

Just to be clear, last year's project raised the clearance.  NS used thinner steel for the stringers (and I highly suspect that they were also able to raise the base of the bridge by taking advantage of the fact that "mainline" track has been raised as much as two feet over the past three decades with additional ballast - ergo, heavy gravel).  IIRC, the project was supposed to raise the clearance by 12 inches (and it was posted lower).  Note that this is "mainline" for the NCRR and "branchline" for NS, but it is all rebuilt to mainline standards.

Can't believe they spent real money to raise the bridge when they couldn't raise it enough to fix the problem.
I see the "too tall" light did come on but not very long before the truck hit the bridge.

The issue with raising it much higher is you have the at-grade Duke St rail crossing only 400ft to the east.  Any significant increase in the height of the bridge at Gregson St would negatively impact the Duke St crossing.

The project last year was able to raise it 8 inches...that's about as much as you're going to get without a massive changing of the entire road network in that area.

The impact on one adjacent grade crossing is minimal.  It's the entire lineup of crossings and bridges to the east that make it complicated.  Furthermore, the Amtrak station is just east of Duke Street.  I will admit that the downhill roadway grade on Duke Street (which is one way northbound towards the crossing) complicates things in a different dimension.  When trying to add the Triangle Transit route through this crossing, we separated the proposed tracks on different elevations and modified the superelevation to tie-in the approach on Duke Street.  The same issue would arise on the freight side if the crossing elevation were raised heading into downtown.

[architect77]

The project last year was able to raise it 8 inches...that's about as much as you're going to get without a massive changing of the entire road network in that area.

And digging the roadway further down isn't an option because of some pipes or water/ sewer lines? Could these obstacles be relocated without it being a major undertaking?
Just to be clear, last year's project raised the clearance.  NS used thinner steel for the stringers (and I highly suspect that they were also able to raise the base of the bridge by taking advantage of the fact that "mainline" track has been raised as much as two feet over the past three decades with additional ballast - ergo, heavy gravel).  IIRC, the project was supposed to raise the clearance by 12 inches (and it was posted lower).  Note that this is "mainline" for the NCRR and "branchline" for NS, but it is all rebuilt to mainline standards.

Can't believe they spent real money to raise the bridge when they couldn't raise it enough to fix the problem.
I see the "too tall" light did come on but not very long before the truck hit the bridge.

The issue with raising it much higher is you have the at-grade Duke St rail crossing only 400ft to the east.  Any significant increase in the height of the bridge at Gregson St would negatively impact the Duke St crossing.

The project last year was able to raise it 8 inches...that's about as much as you're going to get without a massive changing of the entire road network in that area.

The impact on one adjacent grade crossing is minimal.  It's the entire lineup of crossings and bridges to the east that make it complicated.  Furthermore, the Amtrak station is just east of Duke Street.  I will admit that the downhill roadway grade on Duke Street (which is one way northbound towards the crossing) complicates things in a different dimension.  When trying to add the Triangle Transit route through this crossing, we separated the proposed tracks on different elevations and modified the superelevation to tie-in the approach on Duke Street.  The same issue would arise on the freight side if the crossing elevation were raised heading into downtown.

[bwana39]

Railroad bridges are a real problem.  The first railroad overpasses were built back before WW2 using tax incentives, CCC funds, or other tools for economic development. In some cases it was pressure from the cities by way of creating ordinances about train length, street blockage times, and even noise.  The railroads have closed most of the local ordinance loopholes. Public funds are rarely if ever being spent on the railroads.

Many of these bridges are still in place.  There is zero incentive for the railroads to do anything. The city, county, or state highway departments  can force them to do nothing.  Even if the governmental agency decides to bypass it at their expense, they would have to close, depending on the situation, the bridge being bypassed plus one (additional) grade crossing or If they left it open and rerouted the road across a new alignment, they would probably want to close two grade crossings. Why? They control (own) the vertical area over the trackbed.  They use this to their advantage.

When we deregulated the railroads, we created a huge need for highways. Trucks shipments replaced rail shipments.  Anyone who thinks the railroad is corporate and the freeway is for private use, doesn't look at the traffic. More of the traffic on rural highways and freeways is commercial, heavy trucks, company pickups, company cars.  I can assure you the percentage of the taxes we spend on highways and freeways for the benefit of corporations and other businesses far outweigh those spent for personal vehicles, even if we consider the car traffic in the cities.

[Dirt Roads]

Railroad bridges are a real problem.  The first railroad overpasses were built back before WW2 using tax incentives, CCC funds, or other tools for economic development. In some cases it was pressure from the cities by way of creating ordinances about train length, street blockage times, and even noise.  The railroads have closed most of the local ordinance loopholes. Public funds are rarely if ever being spent on the railroads.

Many of these bridges are still in place.  There is zero incentive for the railroads to do anything. The city, county, or state highway departments  can force them to do nothing.  Even if the governmental agency decides to bypass it at their expense, they would have to close, depending on the situation, the bridge being bypassed plus one (additional) grade crossing or If they left it open and rerouted the road across a new alignment, they would probably want to close two grade crossings. Why? They control (own) the vertical area over the trackbed.  They use this to their advantage.

When we deregulated the railroads, we created a huge need for highways. Trucks shipments replaced rail shipments.  Anyone who thinks the railroad is private and the freeway is for private use, doesn't look at the traffic. More of the traffic on rural highways and freeways is commercial, heavy trucks, company pickups, company cars.  I can assure you the percentage of the taxes we spend on highways and freeways for the benefit of corporations and other businesses far outweigh those spent for personal vehicles, even if we consider the car traffic in the cities.

Historically, North Carolina was aggressive in the 1940s and 1950s in constructing grade separations.  From what I can tell, pretty much all of the major routes of the this timeframe got reworked with (mostly) underpasses.  Unfortunately, underpasses are difficult to reconstruct.  By the late 1950s, these underpasses were already too narrow with horribly low clearances.  Truck traffic picked out alternative routes over grade crossings (officially they are "highway crossings at grade"), which did get upgraded quickly.  (There are a only a few such underpasses next to creeks that have adequate clearances for today).  By the early 1990s, NCRR took issue with the widening of existing grade crossings (thereby exposing more vehicles to rail traffic).  The NCDOT Rail Division works with communities to try to develop long-term plans for grade separations (and crossing closures).  But Durham is a particularly difficult issue for so many reasons.

By the way, it is the responsibility of the various Highway Departments to pay for improvements.  But most Class I railroads offer huge incentives (along with pro bono planning efforts) in order to help expedite this effort.  North Carolina is lucky that most of the development is parallel to the railroads.  Many states have mostly developed perpendicular to the railroads, which results in too many communities fighting for (or against) their grade separation projects. 

[architect77]

I saw a 60 Minutes story a while back that said that train conductors has to completely stop, get off the train and manually change the track direction at forks around the Southeast. They said no one can be sure if the switches successfully did their job. That’s pretty scary and impedes faster speeds. Please explain if this is true. Thx

[Dirt Roads]

I saw a 60 Minutes story a while back that said that train conductors has to completely stop, get off the train and manually change the track direction at forks around the Southeast. They said no one can be sure if the switches successfully did their job. That’s pretty scary and impedes faster speeds. Please explain if this is true. Thx

Sent an answer over into Forum>Non-road Boards>Rail Transit.

[froggie]

Resurrecting this thread to show the latest victim from yesterday.  The truck smokestack flying off was a nice touch.

[US71]

Resurrecting this thread to show the latest victim from yesterday.  The truck smokestack flying off was a nice touch.

Never ceases to amaze me how many drivers ignore the signs.

[Bobby5280]

I'm surprised they raised the bridge height at all. Railroads have to follow very very gradual grades. Highways will allow grades as steep at 6%, or even steeper on roads closed to commercial trucks. Freight rail lines typically have grades that don't exceed 1.5%, if even 1%. Gradients above 2% are rare. The BNSF line over Raton Pass maxes out at 3.3%, which is the steepest of active train lines in the US.

Raising the height of a railroad bridge also translates into raising the height of the track for a considerable distance on either side of the bridge. Lowering the road into a dip under the bridge would have to be a consideration for any additional increase in clearance. Such configurations are common, like this one here in my town:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6016201,-98.3904782,3a,75y,193.46h,75.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szLEHYuYuXY-_uolZhyhOQQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DzLEHYuYuXY-_uolZhyhOQQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D218.58179%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

[cowboy_wilhelm]

I'm surprised they raised the bridge height at all. Railroads have to follow very very gradual grades. Highways will allow grades as steep at 6%, or even steeper on roads closed to commercial trucks. Freight rail lines typically have grades that don't exceed 1.5%, if even 1%. Gradients above 2% are rare. The BNSF line over Raton Pass maxes out at 3.3%, which is the steepest of active train lines in the US.

Raising the height of a railroad bridge also translates into raising the height of the track for a considerable distance on either side of the bridge. Lowering the road into a dip under the bridge would have to be a consideration for any additional increase in clearance. Such configurations are common, like this one here in my town:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6016201,-98.3904782,3a,75y,193.46h,75.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szLEHYuYuXY-_uolZhyhOQQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DzLEHYuYuXY-_uolZhyhOQQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D218.58179%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Pretty sure they used shorter beams or plates or something to gain more vertical clearance below, but did not change the actual elevation of the bridge deck (much).

[wdcrft63]

Resurrecting this thread to show the latest victim from yesterday.  The truck smokestack flying off was a nice touch.

Never ceases to amaze me how many drivers ignore the signs.

At least the truck didn't get stuck and block the street for hours.

[SkyPesos]

Resurrecting this thread to show the latest victim from yesterday.  The truck smokestack flying off was a nice touch.

I wonder if the truck would’ve went through less damage if the driver continued ahead, instead of backing it up.

[rickmastfan67]

Just happened to run across this video of somebody that went to the bridge and 3d modeled it.  It's a pretty good watch!