It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
Think he means it is higher up just before that. Looking around on google maps there is a whole lot of space around that bridge. 1° over a tenth of a mile either direction would raise it up five foot.
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
People paying our millions for settlements and property damages already, what's the difference at that level. They've put in lasers and warnings and alarms and people still run into the god damned bridge because the people who run into the bridge aren't from the area. I wouldn't really care who pays for it as long as someone pays for it. As far as I'm concerned the state can pay for it, or as much as I care, they can come in and go "until someone pays to bring this up to code, this bridge is unsafe and we're closing it down and dismantling it".
It's just petty politics and squabbling. I can understand the previous bridge that spawned this conversation having issues because it's between a rock and a hard place, but pretending like we shouldn't fix problems because they're costly is a stupid way to run the world.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+20
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
People paying our millions for settlements and property damages already, what's the difference at that level. They've put in lasers and warnings and alarms and people still run into the god damned bridge because the people who run into the bridge aren't from the area. I wouldn't really care who pays for it as long as someone pays for it. As far as I'm concerned the state can pay for it, or as much as I care, they can come in and go "until someone pays to bring this up to code, this bridge is unsafe and we're closing it down and dismantling it".
It's just petty politics and squabbling. I can understand the previous bridge that spawned this conversation having issues because it's between a rock and a hard place, but pretending like we shouldn't fix problems because they're costly is a stupid way to run the world.
So just because 1% of the users keep forgetting their passwords, you're gonna get rid of passwords and use retinal scanners instead?
Driving a vehicle that is oversized requires the driver to know the dimensions of their vehicle and act accordingly. The bridge is signposted, that should be enough. If those same drivers tried to drive through an automatic car wash with a vehicle that does not fit, is that the fault of the carwash or the driver?
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
People paying our millions for settlements and property damages already, what's the difference at that level. They've put in lasers and warnings and alarms and people still run into the god damned bridge because the people who run into the bridge aren't from the area. I wouldn't really care who pays for it as long as someone pays for it. As far as I'm concerned the state can pay for it, or as much as I care, they can come in and go "until someone pays to bring this up to code, this bridge is unsafe and we're closing it down and dismantling it".
It's just petty politics and squabbling. I can understand the previous bridge that spawned this conversation having issues because it's between a rock and a hard place, but pretending like we shouldn't fix problems because they're costly is a stupid way to run the world.
So just because 1% of the users keep forgetting their passwords, you're gonna get rid of passwords and use retinal scanners instead?
Driving a vehicle that is oversized requires the driver to know the dimensions of their vehicle and act accordingly. The bridge is signposted, that should be enough. If those same drivers tried to drive through an automatic car wash with a vehicle that does not fit, is that the fault of the carwash or the driver?
Comparing a major road to a car wash is a bit disingenuous.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
People paying our millions for settlements and property damages already, what's the difference at that level. They've put in lasers and warnings and alarms and people still run into the god damned bridge because the people who run into the bridge aren't from the area. I wouldn't really care who pays for it as long as someone pays for it. As far as I'm concerned the state can pay for it, or as much as I care, they can come in and go "until someone pays to bring this up to code, this bridge is unsafe and we're closing it down and dismantling it".
It's just petty politics and squabbling. I can understand the previous bridge that spawned this conversation having issues because it's between a rock and a hard place, but pretending like we shouldn't fix problems because they're costly is a stupid way to run the world.
So just because 1% of the users keep forgetting their passwords, you're gonna get rid of passwords and use retinal scanners instead?
Driving a vehicle that is oversized requires the driver to know the dimensions of their vehicle and act accordingly. The bridge is signposted, that should be enough. If those same drivers tried to drive through an automatic car wash with a vehicle that does not fit, is that the fault of the carwash or the driver?
Comparing a major road to a car wash is a bit disingenuous.
The rail bridge has been there for decades. It's signposted, there are overhead gauges and other various warning devices. What happens when they raise the bridge up three feet and taller vehicles continue smashing into it?
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
People paying our millions for settlements and property damages already, what's the difference at that level. They've put in lasers and warnings and alarms and people still run into the god damned bridge because the people who run into the bridge aren't from the area. I wouldn't really care who pays for it as long as someone pays for it. As far as I'm concerned the state can pay for it, or as much as I care, they can come in and go "until someone pays to bring this up to code, this bridge is unsafe and we're closing it down and dismantling it".
It's just petty politics and squabbling. I can understand the previous bridge that spawned this conversation having issues because it's between a rock and a hard place, but pretending like we shouldn't fix problems because they're costly is a stupid way to run the world.
So just because 1% of the users keep forgetting their passwords, you're gonna get rid of passwords and use retinal scanners instead?
Driving a vehicle that is oversized requires the driver to know the dimensions of their vehicle and act accordingly. The bridge is signposted, that should be enough. If those same drivers tried to drive through an automatic car wash with a vehicle that does not fit, is that the fault of the carwash or the driver?
Comparing a major road to a car wash is a bit disingenuous.
The rail bridge has been there for decades. It's signposted, there are overhead gauges and other various warning devices. What happens when they raise the bridge up three feet and taller vehicles continue smashing into it?
I figure they'd raise it up to highway height where it's no longer an issue.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
LuvTheMonkeyHigh Sierra SerenadeRegistered Userregular
The 11-foot-8 bridge has some pretty ridick warning signs now. Even turns the light red immediately when an over-height truck is detected. Any crashes now are pretty much entirely the stupidity of the driver.
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
People paying our millions for settlements and property damages already, what's the difference at that level. They've put in lasers and warnings and alarms and people still run into the god damned bridge because the people who run into the bridge aren't from the area. I wouldn't really care who pays for it as long as someone pays for it. As far as I'm concerned the state can pay for it, or as much as I care, they can come in and go "until someone pays to bring this up to code, this bridge is unsafe and we're closing it down and dismantling it".
It's just petty politics and squabbling. I can understand the previous bridge that spawned this conversation having issues because it's between a rock and a hard place, but pretending like we shouldn't fix problems because they're costly is a stupid way to run the world.
So just because 1% of the users keep forgetting their passwords, you're gonna get rid of passwords and use retinal scanners instead?
Driving a vehicle that is oversized requires the driver to know the dimensions of their vehicle and act accordingly. The bridge is signposted, that should be enough. If those same drivers tried to drive through an automatic car wash with a vehicle that does not fit, is that the fault of the carwash or the driver?
Comparing a major road to a car wash is a bit disingenuous.
The rail bridge has been there for decades. It's signposted, there are overhead gauges and other various warning devices. What happens when they raise the bridge up three feet and taller vehicles continue smashing into it?
I figure they'd raise it up to highway height where it's no longer an issue.
Do I need to link videos of freeway overpasses and overhead signage getting taken out by trucks with oversize loads?
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
People paying our millions for settlements and property damages already, what's the difference at that level. They've put in lasers and warnings and alarms and people still run into the god damned bridge because the people who run into the bridge aren't from the area. I wouldn't really care who pays for it as long as someone pays for it. As far as I'm concerned the state can pay for it, or as much as I care, they can come in and go "until someone pays to bring this up to code, this bridge is unsafe and we're closing it down and dismantling it".
It's just petty politics and squabbling. I can understand the previous bridge that spawned this conversation having issues because it's between a rock and a hard place, but pretending like we shouldn't fix problems because they're costly is a stupid way to run the world.
So just because 1% of the users keep forgetting their passwords, you're gonna get rid of passwords and use retinal scanners instead?
Driving a vehicle that is oversized requires the driver to know the dimensions of their vehicle and act accordingly. The bridge is signposted, that should be enough. If those same drivers tried to drive through an automatic car wash with a vehicle that does not fit, is that the fault of the carwash or the driver?
Comparing a major road to a car wash is a bit disingenuous.
The rail bridge has been there for decades. It's signposted, there are overhead gauges and other various warning devices. What happens when they raise the bridge up three feet and taller vehicles continue smashing into it?
I figure they'd raise it up to highway height where it's no longer an issue.
Do I need to link videos of freeway overpasses and overhead signage getting taken out by trucks with oversize loads?
you should anyways!
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+2
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
People paying our millions for settlements and property damages already, what's the difference at that level. They've put in lasers and warnings and alarms and people still run into the god damned bridge because the people who run into the bridge aren't from the area. I wouldn't really care who pays for it as long as someone pays for it. As far as I'm concerned the state can pay for it, or as much as I care, they can come in and go "until someone pays to bring this up to code, this bridge is unsafe and we're closing it down and dismantling it".
It's just petty politics and squabbling. I can understand the previous bridge that spawned this conversation having issues because it's between a rock and a hard place, but pretending like we shouldn't fix problems because they're costly is a stupid way to run the world.
I don't see why the rail company should be the ones to pay for it - they don't run anything but the rail. People dying on roads is specifically the responsibility of the city or county or state or whoever owns the road.
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
edited February 2017
edit: now as a gifv
UnbrokenEva on
+34
Options
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
edited February 2017
How the hell did that idiot even get up to highway speed without noticing something was off, I mean that truck is probably fuck off heavy but even something that fat should drive different when its dragging a giant metal kite at any decent speed
Here in Arizona we have this thing called a stupid motorist fee, where if you do some obviously ridiculous shit like drive through a wash with 5 feet of running water and S&R is called to get you out of it, you're on the hook for the bill.
+1
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
How the hell did that idiot even get up to highway speed without noticing something was off, I mean that truck is probably fuck off heavy but even something that fat should drive different when its dragging a giant metal kite at any decent speed
It's a truck with an empty tilt. If you are clumsy you could activate the PTO and raise the tilt while you're driving along, and because it's a truck, you wouldn't feel it until you tried to go around a corner thinking the back was empty and the fucking thing rolls on its side.
The rail bridge has been there for decades. It's signposted, there are overhead gauges and other various warning devices. What happens when they raise the bridge up three feet and taller vehicles continue smashing into it?
Part of the issue is that up the road in one direction you get fed off a highway into a split between roads that are very similarly named and once you get into one you don't have an easy way off the stupid road. It's actually not a road that leads anywhere unique, it's just kinda a scenic route. Truck traffic should be on different roads of which their are other good options for them.
The rail bridge has been there for decades. It's signposted, there are overhead gauges and other various warning devices. What happens when they raise the bridge up three feet and taller vehicles continue smashing into it?
Part of the issue is that up the road in one direction you get fed off a highway into a split between roads that are very similarly named and once you get into one you don't have an easy way off the stupid road. It's actually not a road that leads anywhere unique, it's just kinda a scenic route. Truck traffic should be on different roads of which their are other good options for them.
Bad road design is a huge problem, that is true. Shit that worked perfectly fine 70 years ago with 1/4 the number of vehicles on it should not just be re-surfaced every ten years and have another lane added every 30, but nobody wants to spend the money to redesign the route properly.
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
People paying our millions for settlements and property damages already, what's the difference at that level. They've put in lasers and warnings and alarms and people still run into the god damned bridge because the people who run into the bridge aren't from the area. I wouldn't really care who pays for it as long as someone pays for it. As far as I'm concerned the state can pay for it, or as much as I care, they can come in and go "until someone pays to bring this up to code, this bridge is unsafe and we're closing it down and dismantling it".
It's just petty politics and squabbling. I can understand the previous bridge that spawned this conversation having issues because it's between a rock and a hard place, but pretending like we shouldn't fix problems because they're costly is a stupid way to run the world.
I don't see why the rail company should be the ones to pay for it - they don't run anything but the rail. People dying on roads is specifically the responsibility of the city or county or state or whoever owns the road.
This is just nitpicky though.
I don't really care who pays for it, but someone should pay for it. Just shut it down and someone will pay for it if it's really important (hint: it's not).
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
Welp, I guess I'll just be over here, uncontrollably giggling to myself for the next hour or so.
At my particular bridge, they have about 2-3 miles of track on either side they could gradually increase the gradient. At one point the track is already elevated and they bring it back down over before that road.
I agree someone should pay for it, but them sticking their thumb up their ass because "well it's not my problem" as people die is stupid. I personally think whoever maintain the tracks should fit the bill, as it's no longer code compliant, regardless if it was "grandfathered" in at one point. It's dangerous and stupid now.
Think he means it is higher up just before that. Looking around on google maps there is a whole lot of space around that bridge. 1° over a tenth of a mile either direction would raise it up five foot.
Are wombats bears or bats?
No.
If the bridge is clearly marked and warnings exist before you reach the overpass (including those plastic yellow tubes hanging from chains to bang into your vehicle) I would venture to say that people are not dying due to any fault of the rail company. It's a shitty position to play devil's advocate for a corporation like that but when the sums of money are in the several million range it seems trivial to ask that people not drive double-decker buses into low bridges (or hire drivers likely to do so).
There has to be more the city/county can do to warn people about that bridge or control traffic better if it's such a problem. The railroad company is further down the list of people who should bear the responsibility for this, as they've done nothing but use the tracks that were already in place before this became an issue.
People paying our millions for settlements and property damages already, what's the difference at that level. They've put in lasers and warnings and alarms and people still run into the god damned bridge because the people who run into the bridge aren't from the area. I wouldn't really care who pays for it as long as someone pays for it. As far as I'm concerned the state can pay for it, or as much as I care, they can come in and go "until someone pays to bring this up to code, this bridge is unsafe and we're closing it down and dismantling it".
It's just petty politics and squabbling. I can understand the previous bridge that spawned this conversation having issues because it's between a rock and a hard place, but pretending like we shouldn't fix problems because they're costly is a stupid way to run the world.
So just because 1% of the users keep forgetting their passwords, you're gonna get rid of passwords and use retinal scanners instead?
Driving a vehicle that is oversized requires the driver to know the dimensions of their vehicle and act accordingly. The bridge is signposted, that should be enough. If those same drivers tried to drive through an automatic car wash with a vehicle that does not fit, is that the fault of the carwash or the driver?
Comparing a major road to a car wash is a bit disingenuous.
The rail bridge has been there for decades. It's signposted, there are overhead gauges and other various warning devices. What happens when they raise the bridge up three feet and taller vehicles continue smashing into it?
I figure they'd raise it up to highway height where it's no longer an issue.
I'm talking about the ~10 foot bridge where I live :-P
Do I need to link videos of freeway overpasses and overhead signage getting taken out by trucks with oversize loads?
you should anyways!
Also have a picture from Australia!
I don't see why the rail company should be the ones to pay for it - they don't run anything but the rail. People dying on roads is specifically the responsibility of the city or county or state or whoever owns the road.
Woms.
What that bridge really needs is a height sensor with one of these:
It's a truck with an empty tilt. If you are clumsy you could activate the PTO and raise the tilt while you're driving along, and because it's a truck, you wouldn't feel it until you tried to go around a corner thinking the back was empty and the fucking thing rolls on its side.
That's a super clever idea, using the water so you can project the sign right in the air.
Part of the issue is that up the road in one direction you get fed off a highway into a split between roads that are very similarly named and once you get into one you don't have an easy way off the stupid road. It's actually not a road that leads anywhere unique, it's just kinda a scenic route. Truck traffic should be on different roads of which their are other good options for them.
Bad road design is a huge problem, that is true. Shit that worked perfectly fine 70 years ago with 1/4 the number of vehicles on it should not just be re-surfaced every ten years and have another lane added every 30, but nobody wants to spend the money to redesign the route properly.
This is just nitpicky though.
I don't really care who pays for it, but someone should pay for it. Just shut it down and someone will pay for it if it's really important (hint: it's not).