Isn't it hilarious that highway projects get delayed because of the railroads?!

[tolbs17]

To be honest I find it hilarious!!!   

I-85 widening in Concord wasn't fully complete until about 2020 and it took forever to build because of the new railroad bridge.

Now the East end connector in Durham has been delayed numerous times because of the railroad bridge.

The same goes to the US-70 James City upgrade when I think NCDOT requested to remove the tracks so they can turn the existing road into a freeway.

I wonder if highways still get built like this - https://goo.gl/maps/88DMyS79QxwExFtX8

I only see highway projects get delayed if they are planning to make an overpass for the railroad or requesting track removal.

When NC 43 gets widened here, a bridge will be built going over the railroad tracks. I wonder it will affect this projects timeline as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/zktpxr2LZ38ZbZSEA

[Max Rockatansky]

Then you probably find the California HSR to be analogous to gold standard of movie comedy that is Airplane!

But then again I'm not talking about NC or supplied a Google Map image...

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/0Wf6L6

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/hZ87y4

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/21a852

[Rothman]

Not sure why this is "hilarious."

But, here in NY, the railroads are notoriously hard to coordinate with.  For a while just a few years ago, the couple of major railroads here even jettisoned their liaisons that were supposed to work with NYSDOT on projects that affected a track.  Have to say that for a while, one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.

So...no, not hilarious.

[kalvado]

one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.

So...no, not hilarious.

Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Hell, railroads often refuse requests to allow their bridges over public roads to be inspected.

[Big John]

^^ They are exempt from required 2-year bridge inspections.

[hbelkins]

Not sure why this is "hilarious."

But, here in NY, the railroads are notoriously hard to coordinate with.  For a while just a few years ago, the couple of major railroads here even jettisoned their liaisons that were supposed to work with NYSDOT on projects that affected a track.  Have to say that for a while, one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.

So...no, not hilarious.

Railroads are notoriously hard to deal with here, too, especially CSX. They flaunt their favored status in federal law, frequently hold up projects by not signing off on required permits or paperwork, charge outlandish fees for flaggers -- why do you need a flagger on the the railroad when there are signals along the tracks and the crews are in radio communication with the office -- and otherwise cause all sorts of issues. They're notorious for not notifying the state when they are going to close a road to do crossing repair, leaving the public unaware of the closures and the need to take detour routes.

The phrase "railroads are more powerful than God" has been uttered in many a KYTC office.

[odditude]

one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.

So...no, not hilarious.

Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen

no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.

[Rothman]

one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.

So...no, not hilarious.

Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen

no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.

^This

[kalvado]

one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.

So...no, not hilarious.

Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen

no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.

And isn't that the proper way to respond - or, rather, be prepared for an accident? At least my strong feeling that OSHA  would prefer deaths to the letter of the law to being safe against the law

[Henry]

I believe it would be less of a problem if the highway either went over the railroad or tunneled under it. Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.

[tolbs17]

Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.

Yes, which is relevant to this thread.

[Max Rockatansky]

Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.

Yes, which is relevant to this thread.

But did you find it hilarious?

[tolbs17]

Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.

Yes, which is relevant to this thread.

But did you find it hilarious?

Because they delay a road project numerous amount of tines?

[Max Rockatansky]

Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.

Yes, which is relevant to this thread.

But did you find it hilarious?

Because they delay a road project numerous amount of tines?

So, it is hilarious then?  I was concerned some sort of non-hilarious rail versus road talk would get into this thread. 

[tolbs17]

Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.

Yes, which is relevant to this thread.

But did you find it hilarious?

Because they delay a road project numerous amount of tines?

So, it is hilarious then?  I was concerned some sort of non-hilarious rail versus road talk would get into this thread.

Not really. it's more annoying. And I put it here because it was not directly related to rail projects.

Maybe I should change the title from "hilarious" to "annoying"?

[jeffandnicole]

I wonder if highways still get built like this - https://goo.gl/maps/88DMyS79QxwExFtX8

What does this have to do with railroad overpasses?

When NC 43 gets widened here, a bridge will be built going over the railroad tracks. I wonder it will affect this projects timeline as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/zktpxr2LZ38ZbZSEA

Is this projected to be widened with a railroad bridge installed (or a road bridge over the tracks)?

[tolbs17]

I wonder if highways still get built like this - https://goo.gl/maps/88DMyS79QxwExFtX8

What does this have to do with railroad overpasses?

When NC 43 gets widened here, a bridge will be built going over the railroad tracks. I wonder it will affect this projects timeline as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/zktpxr2LZ38ZbZSEA

Is this projected to be widened with a railroad bridge installed (or a road bridge over the tracks)?

First question: When a highway project comes in, they have to ask the company first if they can build an overpass for the bridge that goes over the highway? I'm sure it's based on development that leads to them doing that.

Second question: Road bridge over the tracks.

[GaryV]

At least the second link as a railroad crossing, several clicks into the distance.

Where's the railroad in the first link?

[tolbs17]

Where's the railroad in the first link?

https://goo.gl/maps/9rPE6CLjbRSenvyUA

[Mark68]

It's probably more ironic than hilarious.

[SEWIGuy]

one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.

So...no, not hilarious.

Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen

no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.

"Safety" usually falls under a greater umbrella of "risk," which almost always reports up through a corporate legal department.  Its more about compliance than it is sweeping problems under the rug.

[Rothman]

one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.

So...no, not hilarious.

Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen

no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.

"Safety" usually falls under a greater umbrella of "risk," which almost always reports up through a corporate legal department.  Its more about compliance than it is sweeping problems under the rug.

What I was talking about were railroads foregoing safety measures and shrugging the consequences off, deeming lawsuits as something their lawyers could get them out of or the tremendous legal framework that protects them.

I once worked for a law firm that was literally laughed off a call by BNSF when we tried bringing them into a lawsuit where one of their employees had asbestos exposure on-site.

[Rick Powell]

I believe it would be less of a problem if the highway either went over the railroad or tunneled under it. Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.

It's difficult but not impossible to replace an existing railroad bridge over a highway (such as when additional highway lanes are needed) but it can be done, and I have worked on a few. In general the railroads are sometimes difficult, but generally agreeable to, a highway over the railroad because there are minimal chances for disruption of rail traffic because the tracks can stay in place and the main risks are from setting beams, stuff falling from above during construction, or cutting signal/communication lines, all of which can be readily mitigated.

A new underpass under the railroad, where none existed before, especially in constrained conditions...good luck. Especially if you don't have enough room to work or build a "shoo-fly" run-around track to keep the trains moving and give yourself more freedom during construction. It's an order of magnitude more difficult than any other type of grade separation, and will involve getting track outages approved (often with time limits of how long the contractor can work before vacating the tracks), getting a crew from the railroad to remove and re-install the track multiple times, avoid hitting anything sensitive under the tracks like signal/communication lines, dealing with groundwater conditions and potential cave-ins during excavation, building things according to rigid railroad specs that may limit innovative construction methods if design variances aren't allowed.

[SEWIGuy]

one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.

So...no, not hilarious.

Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen

no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.

"Safety" usually falls under a greater umbrella of "risk," which almost always reports up through a corporate legal department.  Its more about compliance than it is sweeping problems under the rug.

What I was talking about were railroads foregoing safety measures and shrugging the consequences off, deeming lawsuits as something their lawyers could get them out of or the tremendous legal framework that protects them.

I once worked for a law firm that was literally laughed off a call by BNSF when we tried bringing them into a lawsuit where one of their employees had asbestos exposure on-site.

OK gotcha.  Isn't a lot of this due to railroads having exceptions built into a lot of labor law?