Do you think that 12 ft 4 bridge needs to be turned into a RXR Crossing

[Lukeisroads]

This bridge is dangerous to more than 1000 trucks and buses in nc PLEASE HELP THIS BRIDGE GET INTO A RXR CROSSING

[Hobart]

They could also drive an extra 2,000 feet and use the Buchanan crossing instead.

If it's that big of a deal, they can also get rid of the one-way street setup between Gregson and Duke so trucks can use Duke's railroad crossing.


https://www.google.com/maps/@36.001981,-78.9132744,3a,75y,208.13h,97.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smQuYY58yIdb235-UFqUhSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

There are more economical ways to do this than build a railroad crossing and fill in an underpass, like having trucks use a perfectly reasonable alternate route.

It's not the bridge's fault. It's the fault of careless and impatient truckers and bus drivers.

[Dirt Roads]

It's not my rant, but its worth repeating here.  (I'd better be careful here, as the main source is now a high ranking official).  Officially, the State of North Carolina laments that the state had grade separated so many crossings in the 1940s and 1950s.  These roads are now quite substandard, not just in clearance height, but also many of these underpasses have substandard clearance widths with narrow lanes.  In most cases, the "main roads" were removed from these underpasses many years ago.  This complicates the issue of trying to close a nearby grade crossing, since the local experience with underpasses is that they will be underbuilt and insufficient for future roadway widening.

The Gregson Street underpass is just one of many of these.  It's northbound one-way pairing (Duke Street) just happens to be a grade crossing (oops, I'm supposed to say "railroad crossing at grade").

[Max Rockatansky]

This bridge is dangerous to more than 1000 trucks and buses in nc PLEASE HELP THIS BRIDGE GET INTO A RXR CROSSING

Why would I be compelled to what happens in North Carolina with the can opener?  It's not like there isn't copious signage indicating a height hazard. 

[Duke87]

So you'd rather vehicles get hit by trains instead, since a level crossing would enable that. Well, if it were even a practical option, which it isn't.

Anyway if you don't know how to read overhead clearance signs you either shouldn't be driving a truck or deserve to get the top of it ripped off.

[cockroachking]

So you'd rather vehicles get hit by trains instead, since a level crossing would enable that. Well, if it were even a practical option, which it isn't.

Anyway if you don't know how to read overhead clearance signs you either shouldn't be driving a truck or deserve to get the top of it ripped off.

This summarizes what I was about to post perfectly, especially the third sentence.

[Max Rockatansky]

So you'd rather vehicles get hit by trains instead, since a level crossing would enable that. Well, if it were even a practical option, which it isn't.

Anyway if you don't know how to read overhead clearance signs you either shouldn't be driving a truck or deserve to get the top of it ripped off.

This summarizes what I was about to post perfectly, especially the third sentence.

I feel like it is worth noting that the OP's post history doesn't exactly convey a solid understanding of how most basic road and highway concepts work.  In particular the quip about CA 180 and CA 168 being flammable caught my eye.

[RoadMaster09]

Substandard bridges are common, and that is in an urban area where they are especially common. It's as simple as reading signs and finding alternate routes.

[froggie]

It's not my rant, but its worth repeating here.  (I'd better be careful here, as the main source is now a high ranking official).  Officially, the State of North Carolina laments that the state had grade separated so many crossings in the 1940s and 1950s.  These roads are now quite substandard, not just in clearance height, but also many of these underpasses have substandard clearance widths with narrow lanes.  In most cases, the "main roads" were removed from these underpasses many years ago.  This complicates the issue of trying to close a nearby grade crossing, since the local experience with underpasses is that they will be underbuilt and insufficient for future roadway widening.

Duke87 pointed out the flip side...grade separations are inherently safer.

[US 89]

It's not my rant, but its worth repeating here.  (I'd better be careful here, as the main source is now a high ranking official).  Officially, the State of North Carolina laments that the state had grade separated so many crossings in the 1940s and 1950s.  These roads are now quite substandard, not just in clearance height, but also many of these underpasses have substandard clearance widths with narrow lanes.  In most cases, the "main roads" were removed from these underpasses many years ago.  This complicates the issue of trying to close a nearby grade crossing, since the local experience with underpasses is that they will be underbuilt and insufficient for future roadway widening.

Duke87 pointed out the flip side...grade separations are inherently safer.

Well, they're safer in the sense of collisions with a train, which are more likely to be fatal but I'd imagine would be quite a bit rarer than sideswipes in the narrow lanes that go under those bridges and bridge strikes from overheight loads.

[fillup420]

Would the goal of that grade crossing be to stop trucks from hitting the bridge? I would rather a truck lose its roof than get smacked by a train.

There are multiple signs, up to 1/2mile away, warning of the low clearance. There is a traffic signal that triggers the red light when overheight vehicle is detected. There is a big illuminated sign warning said vehicle to turn. There is an easy detour around the low clearance. If trucks are still hitting the bridge, who's fault is that?

[Big John]

If trucks are still hitting the bridge, who's fault is that?

GPS telling them to stay straight?

[roadman65]

Drivers Ed needs to teach youngsters about the purpose of signs and that the GPS is an aid and not the thing that a driver should base his final decision on.

[jeffandnicole]

Drivers Ed needs to teach youngsters about the purpose of signs and that the GPS is an aid and not the thing that a driver should base his final decision on.

Also why everyone should be retested on occasion.

[Lukeisroads]

This bridge is dangerous to more than 1000 trucks and buses in nc PLEASE HELP THIS BRIDGE GET INTO A RXR CROSSING

Why would I be compelled to what happens in North Carolina with the can opener?  It's not like there isn't copious signage indicating a height hazard.

There's a light that says OVERHEIGHT TURN NOW

[Dirt Roads]

It's not my rant, but its worth repeating here.  (I'd better be careful here, as the main source is now a high ranking official).  Officially, the State of North Carolina laments that the state had grade separated so many crossings in the 1940s and 1950s.  These roads are now quite substandard, not just in clearance height, but also many of these underpasses have substandard clearance widths with narrow lanes.  In most cases, the "main roads" were removed from these underpasses many years ago.  This complicates the issue of trying to close a nearby grade crossing, since the local experience with underpasses is that they will be underbuilt and insufficient for future roadway widening.

Duke87 pointed out the flip side...grade separations are inherently safer.

As a retired railway signal engineer, I completely agree that grade separations are inherently safer.  But as previously mentioned on both MTR, I witnessed the results of a low clearance accident on US-158 between Roanoke Rapids and Weldon, North Carolina.  The driver of a semi-truck ripped the cabs off of three large John Deere mega-tractors and damaged the bridge structure.  A local police officer was interviewing the driver and I tried to get them to stop long enough to tell me whether the railroad had been properly informed.  (In such cases, the railroad typically slaps a slow order - 15 MPH - on the affected bridge).  The police officer was arguing with me to leave them alone when Amtrak crossed at the posted 79MPH.  Needless to say, I had a few stern words to say to both of them and reminded them of their duty to protect the trains, lest somebody like me charges them with "failure to protect".  Then I took care of notifying the railroad dispatcher while they sheepishly waited for further instructions from the railroad.  Fortunately, the track structure was not damaged.  They were also fortunate that I was in a temporary position of high authority on that territory due to my construction project.  I know some other railroaders that would have set them both in front of judge just to get a day in air conditioning.  (I wasn't old enough to play those games).

[SkyPesos]

The inability of truck drivers not reading the numerous warning signs (and the red light triggered by a height sensor) is a much bigger issue than the bridge itself. Leave the bridge alone, grade separation of railways and roads are good. It's something we need more of, not less of, especially if this segment of track will be used for higher-frequency passenger service in the future (which seems somewhat likely). There are already noticeably fewer crashes than when it was 11'8, looking at the frequency of uploads on the bridge's Youtube channel.

[hbelkins]

No. The railroad already spent money to increase the clearance. Make the drivers of overheight vehicles learn to read and obey signs. It's not like they don't get ample warning.

[Max Rockatansky]

No. The railroad already spent money to increase the clearance. Make the drivers of overheight vehicles learn to read and obey signs. It's not like they don't get ample warning.

Or if it's such a problem, permanently close the road.  Seemingly nobody wants that because of all the issues it would cause.

[Scott5114]

No. The railroad already spent money to increase the clearance. Make the drivers of overheight vehicles learn to read and obey signs. It's not like they don't get ample warning.

The bridge does a fine enough job of making them no longer be drivers of overheight vehicles. Either they can't drive anymore, or the vehicle is no longer overheight once the bridge gets done with it. Problem solved. 

[jeffandnicole]

No. The railroad already spent money to increase the clearance. Make the drivers of overheight vehicles learn to read and obey signs. It's not like they don't get ample warning.

The bridge does a fine enough job of making them no longer be drivers of overheight vehicles. Either they can't drive anymore, or the vehicle is no longer overheight once the bridge gets done with it. Problem solved. 

I doubt anyone loses their license over this infraction. Many states may not even have a specific point violation for hitting a bridge (I think NJ would just cite you for Careless Driving; a 2 point violation with a $200 max fine).  In these terms, the violation one would be cited for by the state is fairly mundane.

However, will your job cut you?  Will you be paying for a new rental truck not covered under insurance?  Will the owner of the bridge come after you for repairs insurance won't pay for?  Will your insurance rates rise in the future?  That's a whole nother story!

[Scott5114]

Haha, well I was more alluding to the fact that some of these vehicles physically can't drive any farther because they're wedged so tightly under the bridge.....

[Evan_Th]

Another wild idea to fix this bridge:

Build a new 12'4" archway a block further north, before this bridge.  Make it out of some flimsy material so that it won't hurt an overheight vehicle to crash through it, but the driver will notice.  Copy the existing stoplight and warning sign setup before Morgan Street.

Then, tell all overheight vehicles to turn on Morgan Street to go to the detour, before this new archway.  Due to the configuration of the street grid, it won't be any farther out of the way.  If they make the turn, great.  If they don't, they'll crash through the flimsy arch and notice and stop before getting to the actual rail bridge, and then the City of Durham can bill the driver to rebuild the flimsy archway to warn the next driver.

[hotdogPi]

Another wild idea to fix this bridge:

Build a new 12'4" archway a block further north, before this bridge.  Make it out of some flimsy material so that it won't hurt an overheight vehicle to crash through it, but the driver will notice.  Copy the existing stoplight and warning sign setup before Morgan Street.

Then, tell all overheight vehicles to turn on Morgan Street to go to the detour, before this new archway.  Due to the configuration of the street grid, it won't be any farther out of the way.  If they make the turn, great.  If they don't, they'll crash through the flimsy arch and notice and stop before getting to the actual rail bridge, and then the City of Durham can bill the driver to rebuild the flimsy archway to warn the next driver.

Some trucks need to turn immediately before the bridge to make deliveries. You can't ban trucks one block earlier.

[MCRoads]

Just put some plastic or metal noise makers about 2 blocks ahead of the bridge. Any delivery driver knows that they need not worry, but it would probably be an odd enough noise to make drivers of rental trucks rethink going that way. Worst damage they could do to the truck might be a dent.

Really good example on a motorway tunnel in Paris.