http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/07/they-still-havent-fixed-that-north-carolina-bridge-that-decapitates-trucks/399053/
Quote
Another year, another opportunity to check in with Durham, North Carolina's notorious truck-decapitating underpass.
Eleven feet, eight inches–that's all the room there is below the Gregson Street bridge. Glaring signs, flashing lights, and a bright-yellow crash bar all attest to the dangerously low clearance. Yet trucks continue to batter it like besiegers trying to take down the castle door. A thundering accident on July 9 marked the 95th crash since 2008, says Jürgen Henn, a local who's garnered worldwide fame filming the mayhem. "By the way," wonders one of his German YouTube fans, "do you prepare a small gift or a nice certificate for the 100th crash driver?"
Oh come on. They've placed ample warning devices before the overpass. If you miss all of those, you deserve to total your vehicle. GPS doesn't replace the necessity for paying attention to the road you are on.
This is just one of many bridges that rips trucks apart across the country. There is one on Elmora Ave. (NJ-439) in Elizabeth that has the same collection of warning signs that go ignored.
I agree that it is the driver's responsibility to not let this happen.
But it still behooves the question as to what should the DOT do as it is still happening. This is the only place I know of where these collisions occur with this type of frequency.
I would treat this like bad behaved children. If one misbehaves, the whole class could lose out on a privilege.
So I would put up signs to prohibit all moving vans, trucks, buses (except transit) and RVs from going under the bridge. Passenger cars and transit buses only.
Then, I'd redirect the trucks to turn left on Peabody, right on S Duke, and right on Memorial to continue their journey. The left lane of S Duke would have course need to convert to a southbound lane.
Quote from: mrsman on July 23, 2015, 06:06:49 AM
So I would put up signs to prohibit all moving vans, trucks, buses (except transit) and RVs from going under the bridge. Passenger cars and transit buses only.
If the three warning signs aren't helping, how will regulatory signs do anything? Perhaps on the approach to the bridge, there needs to be a
large (so you can't miss it) sign that states LOW BRIDGE WARNING or something similar.
The world is full of dumb asses! This poor bridge in NC solidifies this fact. :pan: :banghead:
Simple solution for this case....
If a truck triggers the overheight system, install some RR gates at the bridge to come down before the truck gets there. That should get their attention and prevent a hit!
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 23, 2015, 07:55:33 AM
Simple solution for this case....
If a truck triggers the overheight system, install some RR gates at the bridge to come down before the truck gets there. That should get their attention and prevent a hit!
If drivers are ignoring warning signs and alerts...why would they bother stopping for gates?
Sometimes only Darwin can fix stupid.
Since Gregson is a 2-lane street, any such gates would also impact legally-traveling cars and pickups who may happen to be paralleling the overheight truck. This proposal is even less realistic than the suggestion to convert Duke St to 2-way across the tracks
Quote from: mrsman on July 23, 2015, 06:06:49 AM
But it still behooves the question as to what should the DOT do as it is still happening. This is the only place I know of where these collisions occur with this type of frequency.
Not much NCDOT can do about the bridge, it's not there's. Also, this is not the only bridge in the state that scalps trucks; this is just the most famous one because it's been video recorded for several years now.
As an example, NC 581, through Bailey, North Carolina has a short Truck Route just to bypass a 8'6" clearance rail bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.780066,-78.119468,3a,75y,219.96h,71.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sowk_fb8IsHJ93zma90nnaw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664). It too has several warning signs, a light flashers and steel beam to reflect the damage from the bridge too; yet still scalps a truck now and then regardless.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 23, 2015, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 23, 2015, 07:55:33 AM
Simple solution for this case....
If a truck triggers the overheight system, install some RR gates at the bridge to come down before the truck gets there. That should get their attention and prevent a hit!
If drivers are ignoring warning signs and alerts...why would they bother stopping for gates?
Sometimes only Darwin can fix stupid.
Hang a sign that says "$2,500 FINE FOR STRIKING BRIDGE"...and collect it when they do. The word will get out after awhile and the smart truckers will avoid it. The stupid ones will pay the price.
Hell, they've done everything else, right? Hit 'em in the wallet and they'll get the point...even the truckers who don't own their own rigs will find themselves without work after one of two of those fines.
If they take it to court? After you show the various warning signs and overheight detectors, just show the videos. Case closed.
Quote from: DeaconG on July 24, 2015, 08:08:29 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 23, 2015, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 23, 2015, 07:55:33 AM
Simple solution for this case....
If a truck triggers the overheight system, install some RR gates at the bridge to come down before the truck gets there. That should get their attention and prevent a hit!
If drivers are ignoring warning signs and alerts...why would they bother stopping for gates?
Sometimes only Darwin can fix stupid.
Hang a sign that says "$2,500 FINE FOR STRIKING BRIDGE"...and collect it when they do. The word will get out after awhile and the smart truckers will avoid it. The stupid ones will pay the price.
Hell, they've done everything else, right? Hit 'em in the wallet and they'll get the point...even the truckers who don't own their own rigs will find themselves without work after one of two of those fines.
If they take it to court? After you show the various warning signs and overheight detectors, just show the videos. Case closed.
Again, people are ignoring signs in place. Do you think that they are saying to themselves "Well, I have a 13' truck, and that bridge is only 11' high. But the fine is only $200. Oh, what the hell...I'll just go and hit it".
For many professional truck drivers, they are probably going to lose their job anyway. The merchandise within the truck is destroyed, costing the trucking company, the supplier, and the customer time and money.
If it was a rental truck, they hopefully have insurance coverage on the truck, or insurance coverage via their own auto policy. And after paying the deductible, they're probably going to have a rate increase.
As far as tickets go - those tickets aren't cheap that they will receive And you have to give a ticket for something that's actually a law. Let me know which laws are in your state that prohibit hitting a bridge. There probably aren't any. But there are tickets for ignoring posted signs, driving on prohibited trucking routes, careless driving, etc. And those tickets will add up.
Smart truckers are already avoiding the bridge. It's not like every truck is hitting it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2015, 08:23:08 AM
Quote from: DeaconG on July 24, 2015, 08:08:29 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 23, 2015, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 23, 2015, 07:55:33 AM
Simple solution for this case....
If a truck triggers the overheight system, install some RR gates at the bridge to come down before the truck gets there. That should get their attention and prevent a hit!
If drivers are ignoring warning signs and alerts...why would they bother stopping for gates?
Sometimes only Darwin can fix stupid.
Hang a sign that says "$2,500 FINE FOR STRIKING BRIDGE"...and collect it when they do. The word will get out after awhile and the smart truckers will avoid it. The stupid ones will pay the price.
Hell, they've done everything else, right? Hit 'em in the wallet and they'll get the point...even the truckers who don't own their own rigs will find themselves without work after one of two of those fines.
If they take it to court? After you show the various warning signs and overheight detectors, just show the videos. Case closed.
Again, people are ignoring signs in place. Do you think that they are saying to themselves "Well, I have a 13' truck, and that bridge is only 11' high. But the fine is only $200. Oh, what the hell...I'll just go and hit it".
For many professional truck drivers, they are probably going to lose their job anyway. The merchandise within the truck is destroyed, costing the trucking company, the supplier, and the customer time and money.
If it was a rental truck, they hopefully have insurance coverage on the truck, or insurance coverage via their own auto policy. And after paying the deductible, they're probably going to have a rate increase.
As far as tickets go - those tickets aren't cheap that they will receive And you have to give a ticket for something that's actually a law. Let me know which laws are in your state that prohibit hitting a bridge. There probably aren't any. But there are tickets for ignoring posted signs, driving on prohibited trucking routes, careless driving, etc. And those tickets will add up.
Smart truckers are already avoiding the bridge. It's not like every truck is hitting it.
From what I've read about this bridge is that very few PROFESSIONAL truck drivers are hitting this bridge. They know how tall their rigs are and they avoid it.
Most of the people that hit the bridge are those driving rental trucks to do personal moves. Durham is a college town so a lot of students move in and out and are unfamiliar with the layout. They rent a truck and don't focus on the height issue. Most people renting a truck probably have no clue how tall it is or would even be aware that their truck could get stuck on any legal undercrossing.
By prohibiting all trucks from using the undercrossing, you will eliminate the excuse of "I didn't know my truck was so tall".
Yes, of course it is the fault of drivers for hitting this bridge. Yes, the drivers and their insurance should pay all damages involved. But the transportation professsionals shouldn't rest until the number of bridge hits is reduced significantly.
The parkways in NYC have many low clearances. As a rule, trucks (and buses) are generally prohibited from using them. There are clear signs that the roads are for passenger cars only. Bridge hits are much more rare there, because the truck know they shouldn't be there in the first place.
QuoteIf it was a rental truck, they hopefully have insurance coverage on the truck, or insurance coverage via their own auto policy
Don't know about Durham, but in Boston, rental companies will invalidate the LDW if the truck is involved in a bridge strike on Storrow or Memorial Drives - the two main arterial "parkways" that have excessively low clearances. It wouldn't surprise me if rental truck coverage via a personal auto policy would have similar stipulations.
That having been said, the Durham bridge - which actually has better signs than either Storrow or Memorial Drives - has the same basic problem as both of those roads. There is NO alternate safe truck route posted.
Quote from: mrsman link=topic=16046.msg2081139#msg2081139
Bridge hits are much more rare there, because the truck know they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Actually, bridge hits on the parkways are more common than you'd think. There are commercial drivers that make spur-of-the-moment decisions to dodge congestion on expressways by ducking onto parkways and gambling they won't be caught...but then a bridge "catches" them.
It's not so much that people are ignoring the signs, these trucks are, in a lot of cases, driven by people not realizing just how tall their vehicle is. Most 'low bridges' are restricting the bigger 12'8 or 13'6 trucks, but generally can fit a lot of the smaller box trucks, delivery trucks, moving trucks, RVs, campers, etc.
I had a friend who drove a delivery truck for a short while and never realized that his truck was just a half inch away from hitting a particular bridge until his boss told him not to take that route as another of their trucks struck it (apparently the suspension made it just a tad taller and opened it like a sardine can). He was completely oblivious to it. Never even thought about it the entire time. Had he driven the other truck, it would've been him to hit. Nobody told him, originally, that he couldn't take that road due to height.
Alabama style anyone?
Put up a reinforced sign saying "If you hit this sign you will hit that bridge".
My ideas:
(Sarcasm Intended) Just set up land mines for the next 2 blocks, and put up a sign saying "MINE FIELD".
(Being Real) Why not use strengthened railroad crossing gates, and then use a set up similar to the Eisenhower Tunnel - before the bridge, set up traffic signals with sensors. If a truck is over height, an alarm trips, the truck is diverted to a detour, then put back on their way. If the truck does not abide, railroad gates in front of the bridge will flip closed, and the truck will crash into the gates. A dispatch crew can clear the truck, and a detour crew to guide the truck (if needed).
I live in Durham, and I think folks here are actually kind of fond of this bridge. It's a local street, not a numbered highway, and it's really not that hard to avoid. Here's a street view of the bridge:
https://goo.gl/maps/kp2W1
A real part of the problem is that it's part of a one-way couplet. Greggerson Street goes south; Duke Street goes north. Greggerson crosses under, Duke crosses over. I'd recommend undoing the couplet at least as far north as West Main Street and adding signage that doesn't just prohibit southbound vehicles over 11'8" from using Greggerson, but directs them use use the at-grade crossing on Duke.
As it is, there is no nearby, intuitive alternative for southbound traffic to get to the other side of the crossing en route to the Durham Freeway.
There are quite a few videos of professional drivers hitting the Durham bridge.
There's not really much reason for students moving their stuff to use that road because it doesn't offer a logical connection for most students going to or from university-owned housing. Duke is a little unusual in that over 90% of undergrads live on-campus.
The reason always cited that the street cannot simply be dug out to increase the clearance, is that there is sewer infrastructure very close to the surface. So the only way would be to raise the railroad.
What baffles me about this is that NCDOT, North Carolina Railroad, Norfolk Southern, and the city of Durham are planning a major grade separation project in downtown Durham that involves raising the railroad, but Gregson is not a part of it! The bridges at Roxboro Rd and I think Chapel Hill St will be raised (fixing clearance issues there too) and new split-grade separations (where the RR is raised and the road is lowered) will be built at Blackwell and Mangum.
If they extended the project about 1/2 mile further west, they could do a split-grade separation of Duke Street (Lower Duke ~10' + Raise RR 10'), and raise the railroad by about 5ft at Gregson achieving about 3ft of additional clearance and simultaneously upgrading the old fashioned bridge to a modern ballast-deck design
The Amtrak platform would have to be raised, perhaps 10' higher than its present configuration. It will have to be rebuilt anyway when they double track through here, rasing it 10' affords an opportunity to build an underpass to safely access a new center island platform.
Here's another brilliant idea:
Before the intersections that immediately precede the bridge on either side, put up signs that say LOW CLEARANCE/ALL TRUCKS OVER 11'8" MUST TURN RIGHT/LEFT. This way, truckers will be forced to follow a route that will more likely make their route longer, but at least it'll be worth it, compared to crashing through the bridge.
Quote from: Henry on July 30, 2015, 12:18:22 PM
Here's another brilliant idea:
Before the intersections that immediately precede the bridge on either side, put up signs that say LOW CLEARANCE/ALL TRUCKS OVER 11'8" MUST TURN RIGHT/LEFT. This way, truckers will be forced to follow a route that will more likely make their route longer, but at least it'll be worth it, compared to crashing through the bridge.
That still requires them to read and comprehend the signs, which if they complied with the signs already posted, wouldn't be a problem.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2015, 02:43:11 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 30, 2015, 12:18:22 PM
Here's another brilliant idea:
Before the intersections that immediately precede the bridge on either side, put up signs that say LOW CLEARANCE/ALL TRUCKS OVER 11'8" MUST TURN RIGHT/LEFT. This way, truckers will be forced to follow a route that will more likely make their route longer, but at least it'll be worth it, compared to crashing through the bridge.
That still requires them to read and comprehend the signs, which if they complied with the signs already posted, wouldn't be a problem.
And for the non-professional truck drivers... they have to realize the sign applies to them. I know I saw a camper hauled by a pickup and many moving trucks.
I doubt none of those people knew the height of their vehicle or that they were anywhere near close enough to touch the bridge.
Quote from: mwb1848 on July 29, 2015, 10:26:19 AM
A real part of the problem is that it's part of a one-way couplet. Greggerson Street goes south; Duke Street goes north. Greggerson crosses under, Duke crosses over. I'd recommend undoing the couplet at least as far north as West Main Street and adding signage that doesn't just prohibit southbound vehicles over 11'8" from using Greggerson, but directs them use use the at-grade crossing on Duke.
As it is, there is no nearby, intuitive alternative for southbound traffic to get to the other side of the crossing en route to the Durham Freeway.
It's Gregson St., not Greggerson. As things are now, southbound trucks need to use Buchanan Boulevard, about two blocks west. It might be possible to improve Duke St. to be 2-way (it's not as easy as repainting lanes) but if that were done I'd be in favor of closing the underpass altogether. This would have the advantage of taking traffic off Vickers Avenue, which is where Gregson traffic goes further south.
This situation poses a danger to other vehicles as well. Debris is coming off the trucks and campers that hit the bridge, and could strike another vehicle. Also, vehicles that hit the bridge come to a sudden stop, which could also cause an accident.
I'll be the government's attitude towards this is "If they can't read the signs, fuck them". Unfortunately, they fail to take into account the safety of other road users, as well as traffic congestion and emergency response burden caused by this.
They defiantly should fix this situation.
Definitely. Apparently, this is the plan (as reported by WTVD-TV on June 22):
"The NC Department of Transportation agrees. In addition to the head bar and flashing lights already in place, the DOT plans to make this a lighted intersection. Drivers in all directions will stop when there's an over-height vehicle.
" 'It will go to red when an over-height vehicle is detected and force them off the side street,' explained John Sandor, a DOT Engineer. "Signs will illuminate that an overheight vehicle was detected and they must exit the road."
I was thinking about why drivers have such a hard time with clearances. Humans have their eyes near the top of their body. Drivers sit about halfway up the height of a truck.
If humans had their eyes at belly button level, I suspect they would bump their heads on low objects much more frequently.
It's ridiculous that they want to just install signals instead of actually solving the problem.
Half assers. Cheapskates.
Quote from: Brian556 on August 08, 2015, 09:01:56 AM
I was thinking about why drivers have such a hard time with clearances. Humans have their eyes near the top of their body. Drivers sit about halfway up the height of a truck.
If humans had their eyes at belly button level, I suspect they would bump their heads on low objects much more frequently.
It's ridiculous that they want to just install signals instead of actually solving the problem.
Half assers. Cheapskates.
The problem would be having to raise the bridge, which means raising the railroad grade for at least a good distance on each side. Now, what about creating a no-truck zone, where trucks CANNOT use the road? No trucks on road means no bridge-hitting.
Either close the underpass, make it pedestrian only, or fill it up and make it a level grade crossing like Duke St.
It's not a matter of more signage or higher fines; the drivers aren't ramming the bridge on purpose, they're just clueless about how tall their vehicle is.
Quote from: kkt on August 08, 2015, 11:53:49 PM
Either close the underpass, make it pedestrian only, or fill it up and make it a level grade crossing like Duke St.
It's not a matter of more signage or higher fines; the drivers aren't ramming the bridge on purpose, they're just clueless about how tall their vehicle is.
Yes, that's the point. The drivers here don't realize how tall their vehicle is, so they hit the bridge.
Although before closing the bridge completely, I believe that it may be worthwhile to make it passenger cars only with a signed truck bypass on another street to see if that significantly reduces the crashes. If it doesn't then one of your suggestions should take place.
Quote from: mrsman on August 09, 2015, 06:55:04 AM
Quote from: kkt on August 08, 2015, 11:53:49 PM
Either close the underpass, make it pedestrian only, or fill it up and make it a level grade crossing like Duke St.
It's not a matter of more signage or higher fines; the drivers aren't ramming the bridge on purpose, they're just clueless about how tall their vehicle is.
Yes, that's the point. The drivers here don't realize how tall their vehicle is, so they hit the bridge.
Although before closing the bridge completely, I believe that it may be worthwhile to make it passenger cars only with a signed truck bypass on another street to see if that significantly reduces the crashes. If it doesn't then one of your suggestions should take place.
I was at that underpass last week and I noticed while driving through Durham that there are several low bridges in the city, yet this one location gets the most attention. One block over a road crosses at-grade with the train tracks, the only issue I see with the street is the fact its one-way, but still can avoid the underpass because a street crosses in front allowing trucks to avoid it at the last possible second before impact. Also, I did see truck route signs in area, so they do exist.
The reality is that the truck drivers hitting the bridge either to ignorant of their height (i.e. they drive rental box cars typically) or they not paying attention.
I also took pictures, I'll post if you want to see.
Last time I rented a truck, the height of the truck was posted in pretty big numbers on the inside of the cab on the A pillar, and I was given a verbal warning to check bridge heights, take-out window heights, etc., against it. Do truck rental agencies in Durham do that?
Quote from: kkt on August 09, 2015, 11:23:02 AM
Last time I rented a truck, the height of the truck was posted in pretty big numbers on the inside of the cab on the A pillar, and I was given a verbal warning to check bridge heights, take-out window heights, etc., against it. Do truck rental agencies in Durham do that?
The last truck I rented also had it printed on the side of the vehicle so you'd see it when you looked in the mirrors (outside mirrors only on that truck).
What about sending trucks along Business 70 to Buchanan Street? It's an at-grade crossing, and looks to be a little quicker too...
Signage would be much cheaper than filling in a tunnel, fixing drainage, replacing a crossing, and having to shut down major intersections as well.
Quote from: mcdonaat on August 10, 2015, 12:10:20 AM
What about sending trucks along Business 70 to Buchanan Street? It's an at-grade crossing, and looks to be a little quicker too...
Signage would be much cheaper than filling in a tunnel, fixing drainage, replacing a crossing, and having to shut down major intersections as well.
Because if they didn't read the height sign, I doubt they'll read the 'no trucks' sign.
The problem isn't 'big trucks', it's little trucks, RVs, and rental/moving trucks. The rental/moving trucks and the smaller delivery box trucks seem to hit with the most frequency. The bigger, taller 13'6 trucks already know not to go into that area. And local trucks probably know. it's the non-locals that get screwed up, especially those who aren't used to driving tall trucks. You can tell them 'check your height', but when they've gone 5, 10, 15 years driving without doing it, telling them once won't make them do it.
Suddenly make one street in one town drive on the left (with adequate signage in advance) and see how many times drivers drive on the right. Similar situation.
Sometimes I wonder if some idiots try to drive their trucks under that bridge just so they can get on another viral video.
:rolleyes:
I saw on Facebook that they are putting up some traffic lights at the intersection next to the bridge.
I note several posts in this thread seem to greatly overestimate the intelligence of the average driver, and also fail to address that 1/2 of all drivers are less intelligent than the average.
:-D
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 16, 2016, 02:25:25 PM
I saw on Facebook that they are putting up some traffic lights at the intersection next to the bridge.
Got a link?
Quote from: Jardine on February 16, 2016, 04:21:26 PM
I note several posts in this thread seem to greatly overestimate the intelligence of the average driver, and also fail to address that 1/2 of all drivers are less intelligent than the average.
:-D
Are they assuming this is in Lake Wobegon?
(Where everybody is above average)
Quote from: Jardine on February 16, 2016, 04:21:26 PM
I note several posts in this thread seem to greatly overestimate the intelligence of the average driver, and also fail to address that 1/2 of all drivers are less intelligent than the average.
:-D
This axiom always bugs me because it's not correct. 50% of all drivers are below the
median, not mean, intelligence. For instance, if there is a universe of 10 drivers, and one of them has an IQ of 150 (genius) and the other 9 have IQs of 90 (normal), then the average is 96, and thus 90% of the population is below average.
It is true in a universe where you have a Gaussian (normal) distribution, the mean will be the same as the median, but that's never a forgone conclusion...
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on February 16, 2016, 06:30:28 PM
Quote from: Jardine on February 16, 2016, 04:21:26 PM
I note several posts in this thread seem to greatly overestimate the intelligence of the average driver, and also fail to address that 1/2 of all drivers are less intelligent than the average.
:-D
This axiom always bugs me because it's not correct. 50% of all drivers are below the median, not mean, intelligence. For instance, if there is a universe of 10 drivers, and one of them has an IQ of 150 (genius) and the other 9 have IQs of 90 (normal), then the average is 96, and thus 90% of the population is below average.
It is true in a universe where you have a Gaussian (normal) distribution, the mean will be the same as the median, but that's never a forgone conclusion...
With the sample size we have and the fact that the IQ scale is designed specifically to have a normal distribution, the population median
does equal the population mean, with an SD of around 15. We can assume a normal distribution. Assuming that everyone is able to drive regardless of IQ, the average driver would have IQ = mean = median = 100, thus 50% of the population (and thus drivers) would be less intelligent than average.
I was channeling George Carlin. :-D
(https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M915b8ea98e7c0f33c143c50345427381H2&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
Perhaps a Pennsylvania-style mandatory truck pull-off with instructions is in order.
But there's no effective deterrent short of something else the trucks can't physically make it under. Red lights are a really good way of getting people to know to stop, but plenty of idiots don't.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 16, 2016, 07:56:35 PM
Perhaps a Pennsylvania-style mandatory truck pull-off with instructions is in order.
I've seen both PA and NY do that. Really nice if you're that car stuck behind a slow truck.
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 16, 2016, 07:56:35 PM
Perhaps a Pennsylvania-style mandatory truck pull-off with instructions is in order.
I've seen both PA and NY do that. Really nice if you're that car stuck behind a slow truck.
Could be worse... could be in that car behind a high truck that gets its top peeled off and dropped on top of your car.
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on February 16, 2016, 06:30:28 PM
Quote from: Jardine on February 16, 2016, 04:21:26 PM
I note several posts in this thread seem to greatly overestimate the intelligence of the average driver, and also fail to address that 1/2 of all drivers are less intelligent than the average.
:-D
This axiom always bugs me because it's not correct. 50% of all drivers are below the median, not mean, intelligence. For instance, if there is a universe of 10 drivers, and one of them has an IQ of 150 (genius) and the other 9 have IQs of 90 (normal), then the average is 96, and thus 90% of the population is below average.
It is true in a universe where you have a Gaussian (normal) distribution, the mean will be the same as the median, but that's never a forgone conclusion...
With the sample size we have and the fact that the IQ scale is designed specifically to have a normal distribution, the population median does equal the population mean, with an SD of around 15. We can assume a normal distribution. Assuming that everyone is able to drive regardless of IQ, the average driver would have IQ = mean = median = 100, thus 50% of the population (and thus drivers) would be less intelligent than average.
I would argue that North Carolinians tend to hug the left end of that bell curve as a rule, but that's neither here nor there...
Perhaps a sensor on the front edge of the bridge could be wired up to release some big scary spiky eviscerating wall of death device on the opposite side of the bridge ?
Impale a few careless drivers, and the rest of the herd might take notice.
It would make for some cool videos too, as the top of the truck peels off, the wall of death swings down from the far side of the overpass and impales everyone in the cab of the truck.
For newcomers to the thread, here is the bridge:
https://goo.gl/maps/bhZJqUvGRGo
Why do we throw good ideas away? Just rig up something like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmdah.state.ms.us%2Fsenseofplace%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FStop-Death-Stop-railroad-crossing-in-Grenada-from-unprocessed-collection-of-Sidney-T.-Roebuck-Highway-Commissioner-of-the-Central-District-MDAH.jpg&hash=b43e5c2b5af411f5e9ed91ba6b169d455fa3598c)
I love bringing this video up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKoJY6s3ni4
Just rig that up.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 17, 2016, 09:08:07 PM
Why do we throw good ideas away? Just rig up something like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmdah.state.ms.us%2Fsenseofplace%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FStop-Death-Stop-railroad-crossing-in-Grenada-from-unprocessed-collection-of-Sidney-T.-Roebuck-Highway-Commissioner-of-the-Central-District-MDAH.jpg&hash=b43e5c2b5af411f5e9ed91ba6b169d455fa3598c)
Just add a rollup door that drops down when the detector's triggered and it's ON!
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 17, 2016, 09:08:07 PM
Why do we throw good ideas away? Just rig up something like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmdah.state.ms.us%2Fsenseofplace%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FStop-Death-Stop-railroad-crossing-in-Grenada-from-unprocessed-collection-of-Sidney-T.-Roebuck-Highway-Commissioner-of-the-Central-District-MDAH.jpg&hash=b43e5c2b5af411f5e9ed91ba6b169d455fa3598c)
Where was that? :cool:
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 20, 2016, 10:37:23 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 17, 2016, 09:08:07 PM
Why do we throw good ideas away? Just rig up something like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmdah.state.ms.us%2Fsenseofplace%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FStop-Death-Stop-railroad-crossing-in-Grenada-from-unprocessed-collection-of-Sidney-T.-Roebuck-Highway-Commissioner-of-the-Central-District-MDAH.jpg&hash=b43e5c2b5af411f5e9ed91ba6b169d455fa3598c)
Where was that? :cool:
Mississippi. Discussed extensively here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12196.0
Or they could install a couple of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6288306,-73.8667797,3a,40.8y,93.23h,86.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEnW8iAGBVed6BUxdNFZ8DA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). All outlined in red and flashing. Arrows alternate flashing.
We do have overheight sensors here. You I have never actually seen them function and they look like they have not worked in decades, but the concept has been attempted.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 20, 2016, 03:21:55 PM
Mississippi. Discussed extensively here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12196.0
Wow. All these discussions I end up missing.
Oh, that looks like Button Copy too.
NCDOT has a project to try to stop the crashes at Durham's famous Gregson Street truck-eating underpass. The idea is a laser that will detect the approach of an over-height truck and turn the stoplight red until the truck turns away from the bridge. We'll see if it works! The same project is happening at another (but much less famous) underpass in Durham.
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/durham-wants-to-keep-trucks-from-crashing-into-the-can-opener-bridge/Content?oid=5017954&utm_content=buffer29554&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The new system for stopping trucks before they hit the bridge is installed:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article77046307.html
Thankfully, Post Avenue in Westbury has little chance of reaching the level of Gregson Street's collision record.
http://www.mta.info/news/2017/10/23/westbury%E2%80%99s-post-avenue-bridge-replaced-ahead-schedule
Sometimes though, I wonder if all the money being spent of elaborate crash prevention measures could be better spent on replacing the Gregson Street bridge itself.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 24, 2017, 10:22:59 PM
Sometimes though, I wonder if all the money being spent of elaborate crash prevention measures could be better spent on replacing the Gregson Street bridge itself.
Depending on how busy the line is, and how far out of the way the railroad would have to reroute the trains, the railroad may be a major obstacle in replacing said bridge.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 12, 2016, 06:54:10 PM
The new system for stopping trucks before they hit the bridge is installed:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article77046307.html
Here's the new system in action earlier this month (first video) and last month (second video).
http://youtu.be/yWsSYzMGZws
http://youtu.be/I0BJmC6u7MU
Quote from: freebrickproductions on October 24, 2017, 10:31:36 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 24, 2017, 10:22:59 PM
Sometimes though, I wonder if all the money being spent of elaborate crash prevention measures could be better spent on replacing the Gregson Street bridge itself.
Depending on how busy the line is, and how far out of the way the railroad would have to reroute the trains, the railroad may be a major obstacle in replacing said bridge.
The railroad is in a downtown area close to the Amtrak station, so nothing can be done to adjust the level of the tracks. The only way to replace the bridge with one that has better clearance would be to lower the street level, and that would be enormously expensive.
I understand the street has main pipes (sewer or water?) under the pavement, so there's little room for lowering the road and relocating the pipes would be hugely expensive.
In both those videos, the truck blatantly blew thru a red light. They should be lucky they only hit the bridge!
They are actually planning to build a new grade separation at Mangum and Blackwell, and raise the bridge at Roxboro, some time within the next 10 years. While they're at it, they should raise the bridges at Chapel Hill and Gregson, and build a grade separation for Duke as well. They would have to rebuild the Amtrak platform. This would approximately double the scope of the project but it would (IMO) more than double the benefits.
I would like to know the official labelled height of that Penske truck. I rented on when I moved from San Diego to NC and all the drivers manuals and labels on the actual truck stated the need for 11'-1". The truck should have easily made under an 11'-8" clearance overpass.
The bridge was in action again this morning. This truck was absolutely mangled.
http://youtu.be/aBLH8qvaIFg
And that one looks like they were pro drivers, not amateurs driving a rental van.
Hope nobody lost irreplaceable items in the truck.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 31, 2017, 09:01:27 PM
In both those videos, the truck blatantly blew thru a red light. They should be lucky they only hit the bridge!
The light in front of the bridge is rigged to turn red when an overheight truck approaches in order to reduce accidents and was actually installed for that purpose. Of course, some of the drivers just gun it and hit the bridge going even faster.
Is this the 11 Foot 8 Bridge? That's a crazy one.
Quote from: kkt on November 02, 2017, 05:43:43 PM
And that one looks like they were pro drivers, not amateurs driving a rental van.
Hope nobody lost irreplaceable items in the truck.
Looks like the truck may have been empty.
I'm going to make a dumb suggestion...
Why not sign the Underpass for a lower height? Give a little room for error?
Sign it for 11 Feet flat
Not saying that will stop these incidents, but error on the side of caution!
Who knows, maybe it already is signed on the side of caution...
Maybe they should just close the road under the bridge permanently, and funnel the traffic elsewhere.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 04, 2017, 10:24:54 PM
Maybe they should just close the road under the bridge permanently, and funnel the traffic elsewhere.
What, and ruin the fun I'm having watching overheight vehicles get wrecked? Get outta here. :biggrin:
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 05, 2017, 12:12:32 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 04, 2017, 10:24:54 PM
Maybe they should just close the road under the bridge permanently, and funnel the traffic elsewhere.
What, and ruin the fun I'm having watching overheight vehicles get wrecked? Get outta here. :biggrin:
I agree that watching karma in action is fun, but from a safety standpoint, if a rather low bridge with a history of trucks hitting it can't be raised or the road under it lowered, then the road underneath should probably be closed.
Or, alternatively, they could have one of these gates (http://www.rxrsignals.com/Alabama/Troy/US231/) set-up to lower automatically as soon as it detects a truck that's too tall... Company that made them claimed the gates could stop a truck moving at 40 MPH, and I can't imagine traffic going much faster than that on this road...
I read somewhere that the state DOT, which is responsible for the road, decided that since there have been no deaths and fewer than five injuries, they would concentrate on more important priorities (including an 11'4" overpass elsewhere in Durham under which trucks get stuck, though without the same violence associated with the Gregson Street overpass).
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2017, 04:38:14 PM
The bridge was in action again this morning. This truck was absolutely mangled.
http://youtu.be/aBLH8qvaIFg
Based on the video, the system is not working right. The truck entered the intersection on a yellow light. Based on what I've read on here, the light is supposed to turn red before the overheight truck reaches it.
Quote from: Brian556 on November 05, 2017, 09:52:29 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2017, 04:38:14 PM
The bridge was in action again this morning. This truck was absolutely mangled.
http://youtu.be/aBLH8qvaIFg
Based on the video, the system is not working right. The truck entered the intersection on a yellow light. Based on what I've read on here, the light is supposed to turn red before the overheight truck reaches it.
Yes, it looked that way to me too. The trucks are probably coming too fast to measure their height. Perhaps the light at the nearest intersection should generally be red and permit one vehicle at a time to pass after its height has been measured.
I wonder if there ought to be another height-triggered light at the intersection before that one (Main Street) in order to reduce the frequency of trucks speeding through the light at Peabody and slamming into the bridge. It wouldn't necessarily be as simple as I just made it sound because Main is a much busier street than Peabody is, making it more difficult to have a light changing at seemingly random times, but if you had two consecutive height-triggered lights, you'd probably reduce the severity of truck crashes even if they weren't eliminated completely because I assume it would be less likely for a truck to blast through consecutive red lights. (A comparison point familiar to me is the 10'0" railroad bridge on the Corner near UVA in Charlottesville–while occasionally trucks get stuck under it despite warnings that include a loud bell, the crashes are far less violent because University Avenue is a much slower-speed roadway than Gregson Street due to the nature of the area.)
BTW, as I was typing this I pulled up both Apple Maps and Google Maps to refresh my recollection on the street pattern around there, and I notice both of them list "11foot8 Bridge" as a landmark.
Quote from: kkt on November 02, 2017, 05:43:43 PM
And that one looks like they were pro drivers, not amateurs driving a rental van.
Hope nobody lost irreplaceable items in the truck.
I'm still convinced
some of these people do it on purpose so they can get on YouTube. The keyword in that sentence being "some."
:meh: :wave: < "Hey look, Ma! I'm on a viral video for crashing my 13'6" truck into that 11'8" bridge, and I lived to brag about it and make an ass of myself." :pan:
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 08, 2017, 09:39:46 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 02, 2017, 05:43:43 PM
And that one looks like they were pro drivers, not amateurs driving a rental van.
Hope nobody lost irreplaceable items in the truck.
I'm still convinced some of these people do it on purpose so they can get on YouTube. The keyword in that sentence being "some."
:meh: :wave: < "Hey look, Ma! I'm on a viral video for crashing my 13'6" truck into that 11'8" bridge, and I lived to brag about it and make an ass of myself." :pan:
If you've ever rented a rental truck, they stipulate, quite clearly, that there is no insurance coverage for topping the vehicle on trees, power lines, bridges, drive thrus, etc.
And your personal auto insurance generally won't cover it, either. So, you'd be on the hook for the few thousand dollars minimum to put a new box on it for those trucks.
The problem is they're using regular red/green lights to activate and then the lit sign advising to turn. I think what NEEDS to be done is that several trip sensors across the road for any vehicle at 11' or more triggers bright flashing red lights (think major train crossings) and bright reverse lit message board advising OVERHEIGHT TRUCK -- STOP where the words are negative space and everything else is lit up
And aside from all that, the biggest needs to be an educational campaign among anyone who operates in the area (they have 125 company names just from this) to advise people they can't take overheight trucks on this road because they won't fit. Anyone renting a moving truck should be told explicitly not to even take the vehicle on this road.
The (in)famous truck-eating overpass in Durham, the star of 11foot8.com, is being raised. Sort of. The Norfolk Southern Railway, which owns the bridge, has announced a project to increase the clearance from 11-foot-8 to 12-foot-4. Somehow, I don't know how, they can do this without lowering the street or raising the railroad grade.
https://www.wral.com/durham-s-can-opener-bridge-being-raised/18712577/
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 21, 2019, 06:33:56 PM
The (in)famous truck-eating overpass in Durham, the star of 11foot8.com, is being raised. Sort of. The Norfolk Southern Railway, which owns the bridge, has announced a project to increase the clearance from 11-foot-8 to 12-foot-4. Somehow, I don't know how, they can do this without lowering the street or raising the railroad grade.
https://www.wral.com/durham-s-can-opener-bridge-being-raised/18712577/
The street will likely be lowered as appropriate. This was done on I-85 north of Henderson recently to increase the vertical clearance under the 1960s cross roads. Cheaper, and just as effective compared to replacing all of them.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 21, 2019, 06:33:56 PM
The (in)famous truck-eating overpass in Durham, the star of 11foot8.com, is being raised. Sort of. The Norfolk Southern Railway, which owns the bridge, has announced a project to increase the clearance from 11-foot-8 to 12-foot-4. Somehow, I don't know how, they can do this without lowering the street or raising the railroad grade.
https://www.wral.com/durham-s-can-opener-bridge-being-raised/18712577/
RIP. Glad I had the chance to visit that infamous bridge back in 2018.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2019, 06:36:20 PM
The street will likely be lowered as appropriate.
Doubt it. They said the 'work' would take only 8 hours per the article, even though it will be closed for 2 weeks.
QuoteGregson Street under the bridge will be closed from Oct. 23 to Nov. 5. The actual work is scheduled for Oct. 30 and is expected to take about eight hours.
Hopefully, trucks will not drive through the construction area. I mean, the red traffic signal and the "OVERHEIGHT" sign did not deter them before! :spin:
They're finally gonna increase the clearance.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/durhams-infamous-can-opener-bridge-to-be-raised/ (https://www.cbs17.com/news/durhams-infamous-can-opener-bridge-to-be-raised/)
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 21, 2019, 06:33:56 PM
The (in)famous truck-eating overpass in Durham, the star of 11foot8.com, is being raised. Sort of. The Norfolk Southern Railway, which owns the bridge, has announced a project to increase the clearance from 11-foot-8 to 12-foot-4. Somehow, I don't know how, they can do this without lowering the street or raising the railroad grade.
https://www.wral.com/durham-s-can-opener-bridge-being-raised/18712577/
Actually the NC Railroad owns the bridge, not Norfolk Southern, they have trackage rights. Technically this is a NCDOT job.
Wordage in a few of the articles suggests they're raising the bridge and not lowering the road. I've asked the city for clarification.
Quote from: froggie on October 22, 2019, 08:52:09 AM
Wordage in a few of the articles suggests they're raising the bridge and not lowering the road. I've asked the city for clarification.
Got clarification that they're raising the bridge, not lowering the roadway. The 8 inch increase is the max they can do without impacting the nearby Duke St at-grade crossing.
Quote from: froggie on October 22, 2019, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 22, 2019, 08:52:09 AM
Wordage in a few of the articles suggests they're raising the bridge and not lowering the road. I've asked the city for clarification.
Got clarification that they're raising the bridge, not lowering the roadway. The 8 inch increase is the max they can do without impacting the nearby Duke St at-grade crossing.
Good; this explains a lot. Obviously the bridge is not being replaced, since that would take a lot longer. It must be they're going to jack it up 8 inches: that will be interesting to watch.
NCDOT has said nothing about this project or the street closure; it looks like it is strictly an NC Railroad/Durham City project.
Quote from: LM117 on October 21, 2019, 09:08:23 PM
They're finally gonna increase the clearance.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/durhams-infamous-can-opener-bridge-to-be-raised/ (https://www.cbs17.com/news/durhams-infamous-can-opener-bridge-to-be-raised/)
Discussion of this is on the North Carolina thread. I started that discussion, and I knew this thread existed, but I failed to find it.
I don't in any way excuse the irresponsibility of drivers who are ignorant of their vehicle heights and the clearances of underpasses, but I wonder if a more explicit warning sign might have prevented some of these crashes. "Overheight Must Turn" comes across as a general point of information. If the sign said something like "YOU Are Overheight, YOU Must Turn NOW," perhaps more drivers would realize their danger.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 22, 2019, 06:29:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 21, 2019, 09:08:23 PM
They're finally gonna increase the clearance.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/durhams-infamous-can-opener-bridge-to-be-raised/ (https://www.cbs17.com/news/durhams-infamous-can-opener-bridge-to-be-raised/)
Discussion of this is on the North Carolina thread. I started that discussion, and I knew this thread existed, but I failed to find it.
I can split it out later and merge it into this thread.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 22, 2019, 09:00:50 PM
I don't in any way excuse the irresponsibility of drivers who are ignorant of their vehicle heights and the clearances of underpasses, but I wonder if a more explicit warning sign might have prevented some of these crashes. "Overheight Must Turn" comes across as a general point of information. If the sign said something like "YOU Are Overheight, YOU Must Turn NOW," perhaps more drivers would realize their danger.
An indicator sign was installed a few years ago. In the video earlier in the thread you can see it turn on but the driver still hits the bridge.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 22, 2019, 06:27:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 22, 2019, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 22, 2019, 08:52:09 AM
Wordage in a few of the articles suggests they're raising the bridge and not lowering the road. I've asked the city for clarification.
Got clarification that they're raising the bridge, not lowering the roadway. The 8 inch increase is the max they can do without impacting the nearby Duke St at-grade crossing.
Good; this explains a lot. Obviously the bridge is not being replaced, since that would take a lot longer. It must be they're going to jack it up 8 inches: that will be interesting to watch.
NCDOT has said nothing about this project or the street closure; it looks like it is strictly an NC Railroad/Durham City project.
A tidbit from this article details how it will be done.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article236517198.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article236517198.html)
QuoteThe street will close Wednesday for two weeks so the N.C. Railroad can elevate the bridge eight inches. When the street reopens Nov. 5, the clearance of the bridge will have been raised from 11 feet 8 inches to a more truck-friendly 12 feet 4 inches.
The N.C. Railroad, which owns the rail line, will use jacks to carefully lift the steel beams that carry the tracks over the street, then slide new plates between the beams and concrete piers, said Jim Kessler, the railroad's vice president of engineering. At the same time, crews from Norfolk Southern, which leases the rail line, will raise the tracks on both sides of the bridge, creating a gradual eight-inch change in grade.
And the warning system will remain.
QuoteThen three years ago, the N.C. Department of Transportation installed a traffic signal at Gregson and Peabody streets, just before the bridge, that turns red when a truck that's too high trips a laser beam across the street. An LED message next to the red light reads "Overheight Must Turn," warning the driver before the light turns green.
The warning has helped, but doesn't prevent inattentive drivers or those racing to get through the red light from getting jolted. Henn's website includes videos of seven bridge strikes this year.
The warning system will remain, said NCDOT spokesman Marty Homan. NCDOT will adjust the height of the laser beam and install new warning signs to reflect the new clearance of the bridge, Homan said.
Quote from: LM117 on October 23, 2019, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 22, 2019, 06:27:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 22, 2019, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 22, 2019, 08:52:09 AM
Wordage in a few of the articles suggests they're raising the bridge and not lowering the road. I've asked the city for clarification.
Got clarification that they're raising the bridge, not lowering the roadway. The 8 inch increase is the max they can do without impacting the nearby Duke St at-grade crossing.
Good; this explains a lot. Obviously the bridge is not being replaced, since that would take a lot longer. It must be they're going to jack it up 8 inches: that will be interesting to watch.
NCDOT has said nothing about this project or the street closure; it looks like it is strictly an NC Railroad/Durham City project.
A tidbit from this article details how it will be done.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article236517198.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article236517198.html)
QuoteThe street will close Wednesday for two weeks so the N.C. Railroad can elevate the bridge eight inches. When the street reopens Nov. 5, the clearance of the bridge will have been raised from 11 feet 8 inches to a more truck-friendly 12 feet 4 inches.
The N.C. Railroad, which owns the rail line, will use jacks to carefully lift the steel beams that carry the tracks over the street, then slide new plates between the beams and concrete piers, said Jim Kessler, the railroad's vice president of engineering. At the same time, crews from Norfolk Southern, which leases the rail line, will raise the tracks on both sides of the bridge, creating a gradual eight-inch change in grade.
And the warning system will remain.
QuoteThen three years ago, the N.C. Department of Transportation installed a traffic signal at Gregson and Peabody streets, just before the bridge, that turns red when a truck that's too high trips a laser beam across the street. An LED message next to the red light reads "Overheight Must Turn," warning the driver before the light turns green.
The warning has helped, but doesn't prevent inattentive drivers or those racing to get through the red light from getting jolted. Henn's website includes videos of seven bridge strikes this year.
The warning system will remain, said NCDOT spokesman Marty Homan. NCDOT will adjust the height of the laser beam and install new warning signs to reflect the new clearance of the bridge, Homan said.
R.I.P. 11'8.
Quote from: LM117 on October 21, 2019, 09:08:23 PM
They're finally gonna increase the clearance.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/durhams-infamous-can-opener-bridge-to-be-raised/ (https://www.cbs17.com/news/durhams-infamous-can-opener-bridge-to-be-raised/)
Gonna miss seeing the box trucks getting some took off the top. But, there's several other under-height bridges in the area. Maybe one is close to an office building so we can get more footage.
They're raising it to 12'4". Still gonna scalp a whole lot of trucks.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 23, 2019, 11:23:05 AM
They're raising it to 12'4". Still gonna scalp a whole lot of trucks.
They should put up an infrared barrier under the bridge so that when trucks taller than 11'8" pass under it without hitting the new bridge, an electronic sign tells them they would have hit the old bridge.
Quote from: BrianP on October 23, 2019, 10:13:00 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 22, 2019, 09:00:50 PM
I don't in any way excuse the irresponsibility of drivers who are ignorant of their vehicle heights and the clearances of underpasses, but I wonder if a more explicit warning sign might have prevented some of these crashes. "Overheight Must Turn" comes across as a general point of information. If the sign said something like "YOU Are Overheight, YOU Must Turn NOW," perhaps more drivers would realize their danger.
An indicator sign was installed a few years ago. In the video earlier in the thread you can see it turn on but the driver still hits the bridge.
It's worse than that. The system turns the stoplight red for overweight trucks; in some videos you see trucks accelerating through the amber/red light so as to hit the bridge even harder.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on October 22, 2019, 09:46:24 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 22, 2019, 06:29:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 21, 2019, 09:08:23 PM
They're finally gonna increase the clearance.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/durhams-infamous-can-opener-bridge-to-be-raised/ (https://www.cbs17.com/news/durhams-infamous-can-opener-bridge-to-be-raised/)
Discussion of this is on the North Carolina thread. I started that discussion, and I knew this thread existed, but I failed to find it.
I can split it out later and merge it into this thread.
This has been done now.
Quote from: X99 on October 23, 2019, 12:14:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 23, 2019, 11:23:05 AM
They're raising it to 12'4". Still gonna scalp a whole lot of trucks.
They should put up an infrared barrier under the bridge so that when trucks taller than 11'8" pass under it without hitting the new bridge, an electronic sign tells them they would have hit the old bridge.
That would be an awfully expensive "look what we did for you" message.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 24, 2019, 04:44:52 PM
Quote from: X99 on October 23, 2019, 12:14:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 23, 2019, 11:23:05 AM
They're raising it to 12'4". Still gonna scalp a whole lot of trucks.
They should put up an infrared barrier under the bridge so that when trucks taller than 11'8" pass under it without hitting the new bridge, an electronic sign tells them they would have hit the old bridge.
That would be an awfully expensive "look what we did for you" message.
Yeah but, really funny, :).
Quote from: hbelkins on October 24, 2019, 04:44:52 PM
Quote from: X99 on October 23, 2019, 12:14:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 23, 2019, 11:23:05 AM
They're raising it to 12'4". Still gonna scalp a whole lot of trucks.
They should put up an infrared barrier under the bridge so that when trucks taller than 11'8" pass under it without hitting the new bridge, an electronic sign tells them they would have hit the old bridge.
That would be an awfully expensive "look what we did for you" message.
The Long Island Rail Road keeps putting up YouTube videos related to their third track project, and it includes a lot of new higher (and wider) bridges replacing old ones. People have posted messages on them thinking it's
this bridge.
Anyway, most of the ones replaced by the LIRR are 14 feet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raptWPQbkMg
Well being a toll collector I can assure you that today's quality of drivers will cause more of these types of scalping incidents. As one pointed out in another thread, many drivers today are doing it by force and no longer drive semis and stuff for the thrill of driving anymore. Plus ignorance of this time and era we live in does not help, as the GPS rules and many drivers forget that trucks do not have the same freedom as cars do, so they listen to the GPS as the unwritten law of travel.
Dead man walking, final canopener meal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nquHli7P5s
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on October 29, 2019, 01:05:32 AM
Dead man walking, final canopener meal.
Despite the eight inch lift, I would hardly think this is the last overheight vehicle to try to go through there.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 29, 2019, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on October 29, 2019, 01:05:32 AM
Dead man walking, final canopener meal.
Despite the eight inch lift, I would hardly think this is the last overheight vehicle to try to go through there.
True, but might be the last like this one.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 29, 2019, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on October 29, 2019, 01:05:32 AM
Dead man walking, final canopener meal.
Despite the eight inch lift, I would hardly think this is the last overheight vehicle to try to go through there.
Semis are typically 13 ft 6 in and larger rental trucks run about 13 ft, so there are plenty of trucks that won't fit under a 12 ft 4 in bridge.
That last one won't fit under the new and improved version, either.
:-D
Mike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiiEPSKrCMk
There needs to be a prize for the first truck to hit this ;)
Quote from: US71 on November 07, 2019, 09:22:13 AM
There needs to be a prize for the first truck to hit this ;)
I'll put the line on a month before a truck gets scalped, and I'll take the under
Quote from: US71 on November 07, 2019, 09:22:13 AM
There needs to be a prize for the first truck to hit this ;)
Yep, there is, a fine and cost for repairs, :).
So far I've heard no reports of any trucks crashing into it, even though they clearly could. Which simply exacerbates my suspicion that some drivers have deliberately crashed trucks into the old 11'8" bridge so they could wind up on YouTube.
Munch, munch, munch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQssl0sM9As
Funny, I have rented that model of Pensky truck and its rated height is 11'-1"
Build higher overpasses!
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 04, 2020, 10:00:37 PM
Munch, munch, munch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQssl0sM9As
There goes the untouched paint job on that bar...
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 04, 2020, 11:41:05 PM
Build higher overpasses!
If that were an option, they would have done it with this most recent project.
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.
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2020, 07:08:31 PM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2020, 07:08:31 PM
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 (http://11foot8.com).
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 07, 2020, 02:47:06 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2020, 07:08:31 PM
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 (http://11foot8.com).
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) (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-joys-of-watching-a-bridge-shave-the-tops-off-trucks-1452045185) is paywalled. And the FAQ at the site is about the bridge itself, not the video endeavor.
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.
https://youtu.be/HR5MlZHA1fo
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.
Quote from: kkt on October 14, 2020, 12:52:27 AM
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).
Quote from: kkt on October 14, 2020, 12:52:27 AM
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.
BTW, in that most recent video, watch the truck driver's reaction just after the 40-second mark. Good stuff.
Quote from: kkt on October 14, 2020, 12:52:27 AM
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.
Quote from: froggie on October 14, 2020, 11:26:34 AM
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.
Quote from: kkt on October 14, 2020, 12:52:27 AM
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.
Quote from: froggie on October 14, 2020, 11:26:34 AM
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.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 14, 2020, 04:52:19 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 14, 2020, 11:26:34 AM
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.
Quote from: kkt on October 14, 2020, 12:52:27 AM
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.
Quote from: froggie on October 14, 2020, 11:26:34 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: bwana39 on October 14, 2020, 06:11:24 PM
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.
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
Quote from: architect77 on October 14, 2020, 11:50:28 PM
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.
Resurrecting this thread to show the latest victim from yesterday (https://youtu.be/Vq04MeNcRUM). The truck smokestack flying off was a nice touch.
Quote from: froggie on October 29, 2021, 10:57:13 AM
Resurrecting this thread to show the latest victim from yesterday (https://youtu.be/Vq04MeNcRUM). The truck smokestack flying off was a nice touch.
Never ceases to amaze me how many drivers ignore the signs.
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
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 29, 2021, 01:20:12 PM
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).
Quote from: US71 on October 29, 2021, 11:10:59 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 29, 2021, 10:57:13 AM
Resurrecting this thread to show the latest victim from yesterday (https://youtu.be/Vq04MeNcRUM). 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.
Quote from: froggie on October 29, 2021, 10:57:13 AM
Resurrecting this thread to show the latest victim from yesterday (https://youtu.be/Vq04MeNcRUM). 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.
Just happened to run across this video of somebody that went to the bridge and 3d modeled it. It's a pretty good watch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTeKwB_TEEM
Another one bites the bridge...
Yup and the darn sign is flashing to turn off! However, he ignores it just like the large yellow TOLL ROAD signs on toll roads get ignored and constantly show up with no money trying to say that they had no idea they were traveling a toll road.
They saw the sign, or at least were aware that it was a low clearance. Notice how they slowed down to a crawl, apparently thinking they could just barely make it.
The vehicles normally scalped by that overpass usually don't bother to slow down.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on May 03, 2022, 02:04:48 PM
They saw the sign, or at least were aware that it was a low clearance. Notice how they slowed down to a crawl, apparently thinking they could just barely make it.
The vehicles normally scalped by that overpass usually don't bother to slow down.
And I'm noting that the main roof did make it; it was the black things sticking up (I don't know the term for them?) that didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew the height of the main roof and half-thought he could fit.
Quote from: Evan_Th on May 03, 2022, 03:17:55 PM
And I'm noting that the main roof did make it; it was the black things sticking up (I don't know the term for them?) that didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew the height of the main roof and half-thought he could fit.
Air conditioner.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 28, 2015, 09:49:11 PMPut up a reinforced sign saying "If you hit this sign you will hit that bridge".
The MassDCR, which has jurisdiction over the Storrow and Memorial Drive and Soldiers Field Road low-clearance bridges, took that idea and goes one better: "Low Clearance" signs with heavy steel chains dangling from them. MassDOT uses the same scheme on I-93 southbound in Charlestown (the portion known locally as "the lower deck," whose clearance is 13' 9"). Those chains make quite a racket if you hit them. Throughout I-93, I-90 and their various ramps, on the portions of what was our "Big Dig" there are also multiple over-height sensors and VMS's ordering over-height vehicles to either stop and wait for assistance or divert to other roads.
It doesn't help. Every fall, in late August and early September, the local radio stations hold contests to see who gets "Storrowed" first. I can't recall if we've ever had a college-move-in period where multiple trucks didn't get Storrowed. Because of Boston's large number of colleges and universities, most of those are probably out-of-towners. I haven't seen any stats on the I-93/I-90 over-height sensors, maybe roadman knows how effective (or not) those are.
Oh this reminds me, I meant to post this somewhere the other day but forgot so I'll post it here.
This is sort of the opposite: a case of an over height train hitting an automobile bridge :crazy:
https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/train-derails-near-scotts-addition-in-richmond/
Quote from: plain on May 04, 2022, 03:46:04 PM
Oh this reminds me, I meant to post this somewhere the other day but forgot so I'll post it here.
This is sort of the opposite: a case of an over height train hitting an automobile bridge :crazy:
https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/train-derails-near-scotts-addition-in-richmond/
Thanks; I grew up in Richmond and recognize this location. When trucks hit the bridge in Durham, they stop. It's a lot harder to stop a train.
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 04, 2022, 02:33:58 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 28, 2015, 09:49:11 PMPut up a reinforced sign saying "If you hit this sign you will hit that bridge".
The MassDCR, which has jurisdiction over the Storrow and Memorial Drive and Soldiers Field Road low-clearance bridges, took that idea and goes one better: "Low Clearance" signs with heavy steel chains dangling from them. MassDOT uses the same scheme on I-93 southbound in Charlestown (the portion known locally as "the lower deck," whose clearance is 13' 9"). Those chains make quite a racket if you hit them. Throughout I-93, I-90 and their various ramps, on the portions of what was our "Big Dig" there are also multiple over-height sensors and VMS's ordering over-height vehicles to either stop and wait for assistance or divert to other roads.
It doesn't help. Every fall, in late August and early September, the local radio stations hold contests to see who gets "Storrowed" first. I can't recall if we've ever had a college-move-in period where multiple trucks didn't get Storrowed. Because of Boston's large number of colleges and universities, most of those are probably out-of-towners. I haven't seen any stats on the I-93/I-90 over-height sensors, maybe roadman knows how effective (or not) those are.
I love that "Storrowed" has become its own official word in Boston vernacular. Even if someone from the area has never heard the term, they can likely guess what it means.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 04, 2022, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: plain on May 04, 2022, 03:46:04 PM
Oh this reminds me, I meant to post this somewhere the other day but forgot so I'll post it here.
This is sort of the opposite: a case of an over height train hitting an automobile bridge :crazy:
https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/train-derails-near-scotts-addition-in-richmond/
Thanks; I grew up in Richmond and recognize this location. When trucks hit the bridge in Durham, they stop. It's a lot harder to stop a train.
It looks like that particular bit of bridge has been struck before (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5680744,-77.4659157,3a,15y,343.76h,90.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4GqApbeU3LCQ5VDDY8cYHA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4GqApbeU3LCQ5VDDY8cYHA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D274.4153%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) or something.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 05, 2022, 12:53:43 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 04, 2022, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: plain on May 04, 2022, 03:46:04 PM
Oh this reminds me, I meant to post this somewhere the other day but forgot so I'll post it here.
This is sort of the opposite: a case of an over height train hitting an automobile bridge :crazy:
https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/train-derails-near-scotts-addition-in-richmond/
Thanks; I grew up in Richmond and recognize this location. When trucks hit the bridge in Durham, they stop. It's a lot harder to stop a train.
It looks like that particular bit of bridge has been struck before (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5680744,-77.4659157,3a,15y,343.76h,90.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4GqApbeU3LCQ5VDDY8cYHA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4GqApbeU3LCQ5VDDY8cYHA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D274.4153%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) or something.
Easier to lower the tracks than raise the bridge. Surprised they haven't done that yet.
Quote from: plain on May 04, 2022, 03:46:04 PM
Oh this reminds me, I meant to post this somewhere the other day but forgot so I'll post it here.
This is sort of the opposite: a case of an over height train hitting an automobile bridge :crazy:
https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/train-derails-near-scotts-addition-in-richmond/
You have misinterpreted the visual information, but indeed some of the containers hit the bottom of the bridge. The containers appear to have collided with the bridge stringers after the railcars derailed and the load rotated. But this does emphasize something important about railroading and trucking. The concept of "dynamic envelope" assumes a certain amount of vertical play due to load rotation (typically assumed as a worst-case single point failure of any suspension element). But if the load rotates beyond that for any reason, "stuff" outside of the dynamic envelope is prone to getting smacked.
On the railroad, we have a tighter dynamic envelope near track level on the assumption that we need to mount low-height equipment (such as switch machines and dwarf signals) closer to the tracks than would be permitted if those thingys were taller. That is something you don't see much on roads. But the same general rules apply to overheight trucks. If a semi-truck has a suspension failure at the back end of its trailer, the opposite corner will raise up a few inches higher and potentially smack a low clearance obstruction (such as the Gregson Street Canopener).
I have seen all of the recordings on 11foot8.com prior to increasing the bridge clearance and don't recall any such collisions where one side of a truck got ripped worse than the other side. But as frequent as the Gregson Canopener has been hit in the past, I'd bet that there's a good example somewhere in the collection.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 05, 2022, 12:53:43 PM
It looks like that particular bit of bridge has been struck before (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5680744,-77.4659157,3a,15y,343.76h,90.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4GqApbeU3LCQ5VDDY8cYHA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4GqApbeU3LCQ5VDDY8cYHA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D274.4153%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) or something.
What looks to be a burn mark here is probably an attempt to cover up graffiti on the bridge. Cheap paint doesn't last very long.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on May 13, 2022, 11:18:31 AM
What looks to be a burn mark here is probably an attempt to cover up graffiti on the bridge. Cheap paint doesn't last very long.
That would definitely explain it.
Here is an interesting application that got the driver's attention on a lower overcrossing in Delaware. Would a similar implementation help Gregson Street?
Quote from: Alex4897 on August 10, 2022, 11:37:30 AM
Casho Mill Road's new clanker balls prevented their first bridge strike the other day. (https://www.wdel.com/news/kaboom-averted/article_8973247e-18b8-11ed-95c8-abf5281fe7f4.html)
The new signs approaching the bridge read "STOP NOW! Or KABOOM" :-D
(https://i.imgur.com/GNHrVk1.png)
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on May 03, 2022, 02:04:48 PM
They saw the sign, or at least were aware that it was a low clearance. Notice how they slowed down to a crawl, apparently thinking they could just barely make it.
The vehicles normally scalped by that overpass usually don't bother to slow down.
Well, the vehicle was still drivable after scraping underneath. Should be cited for littering, however.
It's been a LONG wait...8ish months....but the can opener finally had a meal last week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVpceWrLtWk
I suppose it's good that the efforts to increase clearance have been successful at reducing crashes.
The 8 inch raise has helped a bit. I have a feeling a lot of these crashes wouldn't be happening if the motorists weren't driving while distracted. If they bothered taking their eyes off their damned smart phones and looked up at the outside world they might see the warning signs.
Here in Oklahoma it's illegal to text while driving. Now they're considering making it illegal to hold a mobile phone for any purpose while driving, basically requiring motorists to use hands free methods when taking calls. On military bases in Oklahoma it is already very illegal to be holding a mobile phone while driving. Locals here find out the hard way about that when driving onto Fort Sill.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 05, 2023, 02:33:05 PM
The 8 inch raise has helped a bit. I have a feeling a lot of these crashes wouldn't be happening if the motorists weren't driving while distracted. If they bothered taking their eyes of their damned smart phones and looked up at the outside world they might see the warning signs.
I don't know. The vast majority of the vehicles hitting the bridge are moving trucks. And so, I think the issue is that the drivers have forgotten what they're driving because they don't often drive vehicles that height. I'd bet that the most drivers see the sign, think to themselves, "I'm glad I'm not that idiot," and then hit the bridge.
Yes, it's mostly rented trucks with drivers not used to looking at overhead clearance.
Why not drop the road bed a foot?
^ That spot's already a natural depression, so it would impact drainage. Would also impact the railroad bridge piers, the adjacent intersection, and potentially the historic brick building in the southeast corner (where the bridge camera is located).
Quote from: longhorn on March 17, 2023, 04:19:27 PM
Why not drop the road bed a foot?
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2023, 04:31:22 PM
^ That spot's already a natural depression, so it would impact drainage. Would also impact the railroad bridge piers, the adjacent intersection, and potentially the historic brick building in the southeast corner (where the bridge camera is located).
Most of these city underpasses in North Carolina (like this one at Gregson Street) have utilities in the street that would need to be lowered before the road can be lowered. In the case of sanitary sewers, they may also need additional pumping capabilities. Worse, the drain sewers may not be able to be lowered without lowering everything downstream.
During the ill-fated (then) TTA Regional Rail Program (almost 20 years ago), we got to work closely with the NCDOT Rail Division specialist on grade separations. He gave a great history of the problems with the existing railroad underpasses. In a nutshell, these old underpasses were placed on "main roads" that almost immediately became obsolete because of the advent of larger/taller trucks. Only a few were large enough to continue to be utilized, and the rest of these were bypassed. So you've got a situation where these little underpasses are on (now) minor streets that are not deserving of the necessary investment. Because they are mostly used by cars, it is hard to justify closing them altogether (since it is often safer than routing the traffic over an adjacent grade crossing).
By the way, that fellow I mentioned is now the Director of the entire NCDOT Rail Division. Looks like he is doing well.