Poll
Question:
What do you think?
Option 1: Yes
Option 2: No
This bridge is dangerous to more than 1000 trucks and buses in nc PLEASE HELP THIS BRIDGE GET INTO A RXR CROSSING
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://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/576638889838772234/985001416412258355/unknown.png)
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.
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").
Quote from: Lukeisroads on June 10, 2022, 09:48:47 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 11, 2022, 12:44:56 AM
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.
Quote from: cockroachking on June 11, 2022, 01:07:16 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 11, 2022, 12:44:56 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 11, 2022, 12:08:06 AM
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.
Quote from: froggie on June 11, 2022, 08:39:17 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 11, 2022, 12:08:06 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: fillup420 on June 11, 2022, 10:29:08 AM
If trucks are still hitting the bridge, who's fault is that?
GPS telling them to stay straight?
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 11, 2022, 11:30:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2022, 12:14:07 AM
Quote from: Lukeisroads on June 10, 2022, 09:48:47 PM
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
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 11, 2022, 12:08:06 AM
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.
Quote from: froggie on June 11, 2022, 08:39:17 AM
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).
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.
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 12, 2022, 04:07:17 PM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 12, 2022, 04:07:17 PM
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. :-D
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 12, 2022, 09:41:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 12, 2022, 04:07:17 PM
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. :-D
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!
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.....
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.
Quote from: Evan_Th on June 13, 2022, 01:02:23 PM
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.
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. (https://goo.gl/maps/n7SLr5TAGfNqoZfUA)
There's already a sacrificial beam a foot or two before the bridge which sustains most of the impact from trucks.
See http://11foot8.com/11foot8-faq/ . As I understand it, the North Carolina Railroad Company owns and maintains the trestle, and three years ago, they already raised the bridge from 11'8" to 12'4". The city of Durham owns and maintains Gregson road, and they are unable to lower the road any further due to storm drainage. See this video...
The city has already put in enhanced signaling as well, so as far as I can determine, they are doing the best they can. There is an alternative route that is less than a mile away. So, what improvements can you really make at this point, and more importantly, who is going to pay for it?
I think part of the issue is that consumer-level GPS units are intentionally not programmed to get the map data about any restricted clearance roads. Some people take the attitude that "why should they pay for something they can get for free" and skimp out on the enhanced GPS which can receive the map data that includes height restrictions. As a result, we have canopener bridges.
Quote from: ZLoth on June 14, 2022, 06:49:14 AM
See http://11foot8.com/11foot8-faq/ . As I understand it, the North Carolina Railroad Company owns and maintains the trestle, and three years ago, they already raised the bridge from 11'8" to 12'4". The city of Durham owns and maintains Gregson road, and they are unable to lower the road any further due to storm drainage. See this video...
Railroad underpasses are notoriously bad for flooding everywhere. That's mild compared to some.
Quote from: MCRoads on June 13, 2022, 06:22:32 PM
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.
"If you hit this sign, you will hit that bridge."
There have been a few examples of this type of overhead signage over the years. Seems like I remember one approaching an I-24 underpass west of Chattanooga after the route re-enters Tennessee.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 14, 2022, 11:11:21 AM
Quote from: ZLoth on June 14, 2022, 06:49:14 AM
See http://11foot8.com/11foot8-faq/ . As I understand it, the North Carolina Railroad Company owns and maintains the trestle, and three years ago, they already raised the bridge from 11'8" to 12'4". The city of Durham owns and maintains Gregson road, and they are unable to lower the road any further due to storm drainage. See this video...
Railroad underpasses are notoriously bad for flooding everywhere. That's mild compared to some.
Quote from: MCRoads on June 13, 2022, 06:22:32 PM
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.
"If you hit this sign, you will hit that bridge."
There have been a few examples of this type of overhead signage over the years. Seems like I remember one approaching an I-24 underpass west of Chattanooga after the route re-enters Tennessee.
Yes! A cheap, low tech solution that would probably solve the problem. Sadly, they probably won't install one, as they have spent so much money on the electronic system. And god forbid trying another solution that is cheaper and probably more effective now that they spent all that money!
I couldn't find the I-24 example, but this is an example in Columbus, TX.
https://goo.gl/maps/uuREjAQc1acEhpGs6
I thought there was one in NYC, but can't find it. Was definitely in New England though, I'll keep looking.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2022, 01:10:47 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 11, 2022, 01:07:16 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 11, 2022, 12:44:56 AM
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.
I read the original post and assumed it was a troll post? No?
Quote from: MCRoads on June 14, 2022, 11:58:49 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 14, 2022, 11:11:21 AM
Quote from: MCRoads on June 13, 2022, 06:22:32 PM
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.
"If you hit this sign, you will hit that bridge."
There have been a few examples of this type of overhead signage over the years. Seems like I remember one approaching an I-24 underpass west of Chattanooga after the route re-enters Tennessee.
Yes! A cheap, low tech solution that would probably solve the problem. Sadly, they probably won't install one, as they have spent so much money on the electronic system. And god forbid trying another solution that is cheaper and probably more effective now that they spent all that money!
From http://11foot8.com/11foot8-faq/:
Quote
Could they install a low-clearance bar?
A low clearance bar is a bar suspended by chains ahead of the bridge. Overheight vehicles hit that bar first and the noise alerts the driver to to the problem. I understand that this approach has been successful in other places, but it's not practical here. There are many overheight trucks that have to be able to drive right up to the bridge and turn onto Peabody St. in order to deliver supplies to several restaurants. Making Peabody St inaccessible from Gregson St would make the restaurant owners and the delivery drivers very unhappy.
Per this video, the electronic sign was installed and activated May, 2016. See this video:
Prior to that, it was a pair of flashing lights and a sign. It should be noted that there is a steel I-Beam prior to the actual bridge in order to reduce/prevent damage, which is as low-tech as you can get.
In that second video, there's a stop sign on the side street. Why? Isn't that intersection controlled by signals?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 15, 2022, 01:44:31 PM
In that second video, there's a stop sign on the side street. Why? Isn't that intersection controlled by signals?
Looks like that video was before the signal was activated. You can see the signals but they're covered up.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 15, 2022, 01:44:31 PMIn that second video, there's a stop sign on the side street. Why? Isn't that intersection controlled by signals?
That was one of the last crash videos prior to the signals being activated.
Here is something that they have put on the transition from the Verrazano Bridge to the Belt Parkway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6108583,-74.0325175,3a,75y,208.38h,95.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sislTUrC8m7U1UuawRyrOlg!2e0!5s20191101T000000!7i16384!8i8192
So there is a last minute warning when you hit the chains and then you are directed to a special exit ramp. (It's in the area of Fort Hamilton, but not quite sure where the ramp goes. There is probably an officer wating to give you a ticket, but at least you don't strike a low overpass.
Quote from: MCRoads on June 13, 2022, 06:22:32 PM
Just put some plastic or metal noise makers about 2 blocks ahead of the bridge.
Then there's this (https://pin.it/5unDTpF). A similar sign has dangling ropes, akin to a telltale used on railroads warning of tunnels.
Quote from: mrsman on June 20, 2022, 10:50:50 AM
Here is something that they have put on the transition from the Verrazano Bridge to the Belt Parkway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6108583,-74.0325175,3a,75y,208.38h,95.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sislTUrC8m7U1UuawRyrOlg!2e0!5s20191101T000000!7i16384!8i8192
So there is a last minute warning when you hit the chains and then you are directed to a special exit ramp. (It's in the area of Fort Hamilton, but not quite sure where the ramp goes. There is probably an officer wating to give you a ticket, but at least you don't strike a low overpass.
It takes you to the corner of 101 Street and Fort Hamilton Parkway. Commercial traffic isn't supposed to be on that ramp anyway because the Belt Parkway bears the customary New York restriction.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 11, 2022, 12:44:56 AM
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.
While I do agree with this, the level of inconvenience caused to everyone else (truck's owner, overpass owner, other drivers, nearby residents) does mean that even the most deserving of truckers are not the only one's paying for the error.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 11, 2022, 12:44:56 AM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 22, 2022, 09:13:01 PM
While I do agree with this, the level of inconvenience caused to everyone else (truck's owner, overpass owner, other drivers, nearby residents) does mean that even the most deserving of truckers are not the only one's paying for the error.
Nor does it ensure that it gets the trucker's attention. I came through a similar low clearance railroad underpass on Old Number 10 between Durham and Hillsborough, North Carolina and encountered a trucker trying (unsuccessfully) to pick up the protective I-beam that he just knocked off. I rolled down the window and he asked for help, and he replied that he "needed to get this out of the way so he could go under the bridge". I guesstimated that the beam weighed two or three tons, and asked him to report the incident. He also said "it was too far to back up to the crossroads" (referring to the intersection of Old Number 10 and University Station Road, which is about 1/4-mile west). When I came back through about 20 minutes later, he was backing up the road with a State Trooper assisting with traffic control, so I would assume that he got his due. And yes, the I-beam was still laying half-way across the road and nobody had yet requested a tow-truck (or wincher) to get it out the way.
After they straightened Old Number 10 and lowered the road surface beneath the underpass, truckers now tend to speed through this straight section (speed limit 45 MPH). The clearance is now 12-foot-6. I've witnessed at least five more incidents where truckers have smacked that protective I-beam really hard, including one where I suspected that it smacked up against the trestle itself. On several of those occasions, the I-beam was lying across both lanes such that I had to U-turn. I've only seen trucks smack the barrier going eastbound, but I did witness a trucker backing up at the top of the hill in the westbound lane. In that case, it's not at all obvious that there is enough of a vertical curve to allow a 53-foot trailer to fit under the 12-foot-6 clearance even if the trailer stays within the clearance. For the record, most 53-foot trailers have a 13-foot-6 overall height.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 23, 2022, 11:53:25 AM
For the record, most 53-foot trailers have a 13-foot-6 overall height.
If memory serves, the receiving dock at SIU—Edwardsville has its clearance signed at 13'1", and trailers just barely fit. I suppose it's possible the warning sign is wrong.
I also used to work
here (https://goo.gl/maps/aHB7dQTkgvcxevhj8), and that dock doesn't look like it's taller than 13'6" to me.
I'm puzzled why there are light signals at the intersection north of the viaduct. I think an all-way stop would be more effective at slowing down traffic and help make drivers more aware of the low clearance. Forcing vehicles to stop and look might help reduce these accidents. Maybe add signs just below the stop signs to draw attention to the low clearance. Just an idea; it might just be wishful thinking on my part.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 23, 2022, 11:53:25 AM
For the record, most 53-foot trailers have a 13-foot-6 overall height.
Quote from: kphoger on June 23, 2022, 12:00:06 PM
I also used to work here (https://goo.gl/maps/aHB7dQTkgvcxevhj8), and that dock doesn't look like it's taller than 13'6" to me.
Might not even be that tall. Those don't look like the "new standard" 53-foot super dry van trailers. If we can even call that a "new standard" anymore. (For comparison, those look like standard bollards, which are supposed to be 52-inches tall).
Quote from: skluth on June 23, 2022, 12:18:25 PM
I'm puzzled why there are light signals at the intersection north of the viaduct.
Peabody Street used to be a back-alley to the famous Brightleaf section just west of Downtown Durham. Now that the Brightleaf section is a thriving complex of restaurants, shops, nightlife and smaller biotech firms, this section of Peabody is getting quite busy. To the point that traffic at Gregson and Peabody was getting problematic. Whoodaevahthunkit?
https://www.brightleafdurham.com/about
https://www.brightleafdurham.com/directory
For anyone not paying attention, the one-way pairs of Duke Street and Gregson Street are an important route bypassing Downtown Durham. But because Vickers Street (same street as Gregson, south of Chapel Hill Street) got mangled by the Durham Freeway (NC-147), it has never been as busy as its northbound pair. It's quite easy to get from Gregson to the northbound Durham Freeway, but you've only got a short distance to get in the left lane to hit southbound Durham Freeway.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 23, 2022, 02:13:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 23, 2022, 12:18:25 PM
I'm puzzled why there are light signals at the intersection north of the viaduct.
Peabody Street used to be a back-alley to the famous Brightleaf section just west of Downtown Durham. Now that the Brightleaf section is a thriving complex of restaurants, shops, nightlife and smaller biotech firms, this section of Peabody is getting quite busy. To the point that traffic at Gregson and Peabody was getting problematic. Whoodaevahthunkit?
The Gregson-Peabody intersection was a 2-way stop before 2016, and there was a set of yellow beacons on southbound Gregson that flashed when an overheight vehicle approached (
link to GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/BksCsaewVCj6jUnB9)).
I was under the impression that the traffic lights were put in to improve the bridge hit count, with the light designed to completely change when an overheight vehicle approached. The idea being that if you can get the truck to stop at the light, maybe they'll notice the big OVERHEIGHT MUST TURN flashing sign and turn accordingly.
Louisville's 11' 8" bridge struck again this weekend. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1785986361575847/permalink/2135063153334831/
Worth noting this is the second of two 11' 8" bridges the truck would have had to go under.
Quote from: CardInLex on June 25, 2022, 12:11:25 PM
Louisville's 11' 8" bridge struck again this weekend. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1785986361575847/permalink/2135063153334831/
I see the a-peal of that bridge.
Quote from: US 89 on June 24, 2022, 05:13:01 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 23, 2022, 02:13:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 23, 2022, 12:18:25 PM
I'm puzzled why there are light signals at the intersection north of the viaduct.
Peabody Street used to be a back-alley to the famous Brightleaf section just west of Downtown Durham. Now that the Brightleaf section is a thriving complex of restaurants, shops, nightlife and smaller biotech firms, this section of Peabody is getting quite busy. To the point that traffic at Gregson and Peabody was getting problematic. Whoodaevahthunkit?
The Gregson-Peabody intersection was a 2-way stop before 2016, and there was a set of yellow beacons on southbound Gregson that flashed when an overheight vehicle approached (link to GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/BksCsaewVCj6jUnB9)).
I was under the impression that the traffic lights were put in to improve the bridge hit count, with the light designed to completely change when an overheight vehicle approached. The idea being that if you can get the truck to stop at the light, maybe they'll notice the big OVERHEIGHT MUST TURN flashing sign and turn accordingly.
My understanding is that a lot of the hits in Durham are generally students driving moving vans, who may not be familiar with the fact that they are in fact driving a big vehicle. Add to that the aspect of people blindly following GPS directions without setting the GPS into truck mode.
So is there any hope here? I think given the above factors, there will always be truck hits here, but perhaps there can be some mitigation by local authorities. Changing the bridge from 11-8 to 12-4 was helpful, but clearly wasn't enough.
So they need clear signs that indicate that all trucks (including moving vans) are prohibited from using the street. And a clear detour for southbound traffic needs to be signed. Maybe that detour is Buchanan. But it seems like the best detour would be to allow for a few blocks of Duke Street to be two-way to at least allow for taller vehicles to cross the RR tracks without traveling too far.
I once saw a sign: "IF YOU HIT THIS SIGN YOU WILL HIT THAT BRIDGE"
Part of the problem is that some do not know the height of their vehicles,
You need to think! Look at the very large problem of changing the level of a road by 12 feet. How many feet away do you have to start changing the grade so the slope is gradual enough that a truck can manage it? Then think of all of the adjacent properties that are affected by raising a street 12 feet. And if the railroad changes its grade, this causes effects for miles...
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 23, 2022, 01:56:00 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 23, 2022, 11:53:25 AM
For the record, most 53-foot trailers have a 13-foot-6 overall height.
Quote from: kphoger on June 23, 2022, 12:00:06 PM
I also used to work here (https://goo.gl/maps/aHB7dQTkgvcxevhj8), and that dock doesn't look like it's taller than 13'6" to me.
Might not even be that tall. Those don't look like the "new standard" 53-foot super dry van trailers. If we can even call that a "new standard" anymore. (For comparison, those look like standard bollards, which are supposed to be 52-inches tall).
The point is, though, that 13'6" is the standard height for a tractor-trailer. Above that threshold, you need an oversize permit. Of course, when a maximum standard is issued for machinery, people try to maximize their output while staying within the standard maximum. Everyone can plainly see that 12'4" is well below the height of most tractor-trailers, and that's where problems arise, yadda yadda you already know.
I wish truckers could read.
Another dimension to this problem: amateur trucking companies and rental trucks using google maps to navigate. Google maps gives driving directions for cars. It is not to be used for trucks, because weight limits and height restrictions ARE NOT factored into Google's driving directions.
Here's one that stumped even the driver who hit the bridge and the police.
This bridge is a railroad bridge over a local street in Bloomington IN.
https://goo.gl/maps/Zbdu1iyEz69oaVs67 (https://goo.gl/maps/Zbdu1iyEz69oaVs67)
The problem is that the truck that hit the 9'6" bridge was a single box that was only 8'6" high.
The answer was that the road rises on both sides of the bridge, and that both ends of the truck were on road higher than the the road under the bridge.
The truck used that underpass because the road a block to the west was closed.
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 23, 2023, 12:12:29 PM
This bridge is a railroad bridge over a local street in Bloomington IN.
https://goo.gl/maps/Zbdu1iyEz69oaVs67 (https://goo.gl/maps/Zbdu1iyEz69oaVs67)
(text deleted)
The truck used that underpass because the road a block to the west was closed.
Hmmm... one block west, and the underpass is 12' 0" high, but as you stated, it was closed. Two blocks east, however, and it's a at-grade crossing.
When I used to drive a box truck for a living, if I came to a bridge I wasn't sure I could fit under, I would stop the truck a couple of feet short of the bridge, get out, and climb up on top of the cab just to make sure.
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 23, 2023, 12:12:29 PM
Here's one that stumped even the driver who hit the bridge and the police.
This bridge is a railroad bridge over a local street in Bloomington IN.
https://goo.gl/maps/Zbdu1iyEz69oaVs67 (https://goo.gl/maps/Zbdu1iyEz69oaVs67)
The problem is that the truck that hit the 9'6" bridge was a single box that was only 8'6" high.
The answer was that the road rises on both sides of the bridge, and that both ends of the truck were on road higher than the the road under the bridge.
The truck used that underpass because the road a block to the west was closed.
This is the mirror image of when a low-undercarriage-clearance vehicle gets stuck on a railroad crossing because the rise and fall of the approaches are too steep for the vehicle.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 23, 2023, 04:02:32 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 23, 2023, 12:12:29 PM
Here's one that stumped even the driver who hit the bridge and the police.
This bridge is a railroad bridge over a local street in Bloomington IN.
https://goo.gl/maps/Zbdu1iyEz69oaVs67 (https://goo.gl/maps/Zbdu1iyEz69oaVs67)
The problem is that the truck that hit the 9'6" bridge was a single box that was only 8'6" high.
The answer was that the road rises on both sides of the bridge, and that both ends of the truck were on road higher than the the road under the bridge.
The truck used that underpass because the road a block to the west was closed.
This is the mirror image of when a low-undercarriage-clearance vehicle gets stuck on a railroad crossing because the rise and fall of the approaches are too steep for the vehicle.
If that is the case, shouldn't the clearance sign have a lower height to account for this possibility?
Can you link to any articles that discuss this? It does seem to be a curiosity.
Most DOTs ought to account for clearances at various angles, especially for standard 53' trailers. Unfortunately most of these low-clearance RR underpasses have been handed off to cities and counties who either don't want to deal or are glad to accept fines from violators who get their can opened.