It's continually hilarious that they spent the money on a bigass steel bar to smash shit up before it gets to the bridge rather than dig down another couple feet, install a bit of drainage pipe and repave the road.
I'd kinda hate to be a truck rental company that rents near that bridge, how many trucks you think they lose a month
If they're smart, they never stock a truck higher than that bridge to begin with.
Or if they have many locations (i.e. uhaul) shuffle any of their aging trucks to that location and wait for the "total wreck" insurance money to roll in.
It's continually hilarious that they spent the money on a bigass steel bar to smash shit up before it gets to the bridge rather than dig down another couple feet, install a bit of drainage pipe and repave the road.
Why? One is significantly cheaper then the other.
+15
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
I'd kinda hate to be a truck rental company that rents near that bridge, how many trucks you think they lose a month
Looking at their website, on average about one truck a month hits that bridge. Different companies, and probably mostly driven by random people renting a truck.
It's continually hilarious that they spent the money on a bigass steel bar to smash shit up before it gets to the bridge rather than dig down another couple feet, install a bit of drainage pipe and repave the road.
Why is the bridge so low?
This train trestle is about 100 years old. At the time when it was built, there were no standards for minimum clearance.. 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.
I watched that and thought 'wait, isn't that light red... ?' Man, that driver is going to be in the deepest deep shit when the cops catch him.
The overheight sign actually forces the light to cycle to red crash #125 is a good example the light changes from green to red in around 7 seconds. This means any truck that misses the sign and is more focused on beating the changing light is accelerating making the crash worse.
It's continually hilarious that they spent the money on a bigass steel bar to smash shit up before it gets to the bridge rather than dig down another couple feet, install a bit of drainage pipe and repave the road.
The problem with this is there are intersections on both sides of the bridge and the street itself is a 1 way street so closing all of those would make reaching some businesses right next to the bridge inaccessible for how ever long it takes and whenever rain exceeds the expectations for drainage system. It is a lot cheaper to mitigate damage to the bridge by putting a couple hundred in steel in front of it then tens of thousands in road work and the income from tickets is probably more then what that steel bar costs too.
It's continually hilarious that they spent the money on a bigass steel bar to smash shit up before it gets to the bridge rather than dig down another couple feet, install a bit of drainage pipe and repave the road.
Why? One is significantly cheaper then the other.
It'd be interesting to see a cost breakdown of lowering the road and sewer line vs X years of smashed trucks.
Also that is not a couple hundred in steel, I'd be surprised if that thing came under six figures to engineer, build and install.
It's continually hilarious that they spent the money on a bigass steel bar to smash shit up before it gets to the bridge rather than dig down another couple feet, install a bit of drainage pipe and repave the road.
Why? One is significantly cheaper then the other.
It'd be interesting to see a cost breakdown of lowering the road and sewer line vs X years of smashed trucks.
Also that is not a couple hundred in steel, I'd be surprised if that thing came under six figures to engineer, build and install.
Again, right now random idiots are paying the costs for being negligent. Under your plan of fixing it a bunch of random other folks bear the cost because random idiots can't follow traffic laws.
I also suspect that you're off by an order of magnitude on the cost to engineer/install that thing. Take a look at it in google maps street view. It is very clearly built from stock parts and the engineering consists of "Two big poles as thick as we can, braced by some I-beams with an I beam between the two posts at our height limit.
Even if the stupid thing had to be rebuilt each time, and with the materials used it won't, that's just a few hours of welding. Hell, if it had to be replaced entirely it would probably be cheaper than the inspection required by that rail line each time. Remember the thing is designed to fuck up box trucks which are basically shells made as lightweight as possible.
Do not underestimate how strong steel is. It is insanely, incredibly strong.
Edit: As an example, the shear strength of a grade 5 (common hardware) 1/2" stainless steel bolt is 60,000 psi. Find a suitable bit of unobtanium and use a half dozen of those to secure it in place and they could probably stop those trucks dead all by themselves.
It would probably be cheaper to just brick it up and force traffic to go around to another crossing
Based on what I can see on Google Maps, it looks like the typical one-way roads that you usually see in downtown American cities founded before 1850 means that it wouldn't be as simple as going a block over, but you'd end up having to make a major loop. Considering that a lot of what's on the other side of that bridge is residential homes, probably get a lot of pissed-off taxpayers wondering why they have to take longer getting home from work just because a handful of idiots can't read road signage.
It's continually hilarious that they spent the money on a bigass steel bar to smash shit up before it gets to the bridge rather than dig down another couple feet, install a bit of drainage pipe and repave the road.
Why? One is significantly cheaper then the other.
It'd be interesting to see a cost breakdown of lowering the road and sewer line vs X years of smashed trucks.
Also that is not a couple hundred in steel, I'd be surprised if that thing came under six figures to engineer, build and install.
I suspect the people paying for the mashed trucks are not the same people who would have to pay for raising the bridge.
Typically insurance companies that insure big trucks also insure your cars. When people do dumb shit like this, your rates as a whole go up across the board so that they can cover their budgets and minimums. It'd be safer if they just fixed it somehow (raise the bridge and shut down the rail would probably be the best way). Last thing you want to do is have debris from that hit some passerby just because no one wants to take care of it.
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
Typically insurance companies that insure big trucks also insure your cars. When people do dumb shit like this, your rates as a whole go up across the board so that they can cover their budgets and minimums. It'd be safer if they just fixed it somehow (raise the bridge and shut down the rail would probably be the best way). Last thing you want to do is have debris from that hit some passerby just because no one wants to take care of it.
Reading up on it....most insurance policies for trucks don't cover hitting things because of low clearance. Some homeowners/general stuff does though.
How much would a sweet ass jump over the bridge cost?
How much does a trebuchet cost?
To get one big enough to fling a big truck like these? Gonna be pricey.
I mean, if we were flinging compact cars, sure, you could toss one of those together in a weekend with the right crew and a well stocked junk yard.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
How much would a sweet ass jump over the bridge cost?
How much does a trebuchet cost?
To get one big enough to fling a big truck like these? Gonna be pricey.
I mean, if we were flinging compact cars, sure, you could toss one of those together in a weekend with the right crew and a well stocked junk yard.
I've also watched the sailing boat equivalent, live. Didn't sink the boat, but the people and the interior sure got wet.
Same! I've seen a sailboat hit the Mystic, CT drawbridge (technically a bascule bridge but whatevs).
A slow motion ballet of desperate struggle against inevitable demise, with lots of cursing.
+2
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited January 2018
Alternatively, what would the cost be to just close the pass and box it up? Make it a pedestrian tunnel and wall off the rest.
Traffic flows will adapt.
I mean, seriously. Its not an essential pass through even by local standards:
Edit: Actually, looking at the patterns for the area that's not going to be possible. The likely long-term solution is going to be to end both Duke and Gregson anyhow, as those one-way paths aren't going to be sustainable without rebuilding the rail system for the long run. Either they need to fix the bridge for traffic flow, or pay for a street expansion to make Gregson two-way traffic. The current layout appears to be an on-the-cheap design to mitigate traffic congestion in downtown Durham, but long term a better solution is needed.
So the bridge really is a problem of the city, rather than the drivers. They don't really have anywhere else to go in traffic without disrupting traffic flow patters for both Gregson and Duke.
The problem will be solved when the 100 year old sewer main gets replaced. It will have to happen eventually, so I think the city is just going to wait until then. I think that is a fiscally responsible way to deal with this issue when we are talking about tax payer dollars. Especially when the problem is otherwise solved by people obeying the multitude of signs already in place.
+10
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The problem will be solved when the 100 year old sewer main gets replaced. It will have to happen eventually, so I think the city is just going to wait until then. I think that is a fiscally responsible way to deal with this issue when we are talking about tax payer dollars. Especially when the problem is otherwise solved by people obeying the multitude of signs already in place.
If it were only a problem of the bridge, I would agree. Given how the downtown has been converted from 1950s era two lane streets to three lane, one way streets there are more things wrong here than just the bridge though.
There is a problem with relying on warnings and markers to work, and then just cleaning up the messes when they don't. Eventually someone will drive something large enough and heavy enough to destroy the barrier and do significant, if not irreparable damage to the trestle.
That was a vac truck, not exactly the largest and heaviest piece of road-legal industrial equipment. It damaged the barrier and also hit the trestle as well, and the trestle likely needed inspection before use again.
It's better to address the problem correctly before it becomes a catastrophe. What happens when a train derails in town because of damage to that trestle?
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
Ignoring the innevitable driverless revolution, I suppose it's only a matter of time before a semi trailer carrying an excavator or something finally defeats that bridge.
The bridge has a traffic light that will automatically turn red when it detects oversize vehicles approaching and will not turn green again until they leave. If they sit there the electronic sign will show "Overhead Must Turn" just in case they didn't get the hit.
The only real way to hit the bridge nowadays is to run the red light.
Posts
If they're smart, they never stock a truck higher than that bridge to begin with.
Welp, according to that video, Penske truck rentals are not smart heh
Or if they have many locations (i.e. uhaul) shuffle any of their aging trucks to that location and wait for the "total wreck" insurance money to roll in.
Why? One is significantly cheaper then the other.
Looking at their website, on average about one truck a month hits that bridge. Different companies, and probably mostly driven by random people renting a truck.
The overheight sign actually forces the light to cycle to red crash #125 is a good example the light changes from green to red in around 7 seconds. This means any truck that misses the sign and is more focused on beating the changing light is accelerating making the crash worse.
The problem with this is there are intersections on both sides of the bridge and the street itself is a 1 way street so closing all of those would make reaching some businesses right next to the bridge inaccessible for how ever long it takes and whenever rain exceeds the expectations for drainage system. It is a lot cheaper to mitigate damage to the bridge by putting a couple hundred in steel in front of it then tens of thousands in road work and the income from tickets is probably more then what that steel bar costs too.
Also that is not a couple hundred in steel, I'd be surprised if that thing came under six figures to engineer, build and install.
Again, right now random idiots are paying the costs for being negligent. Under your plan of fixing it a bunch of random other folks bear the cost because random idiots can't follow traffic laws.
I also suspect that you're off by an order of magnitude on the cost to engineer/install that thing. Take a look at it in google maps street view. It is very clearly built from stock parts and the engineering consists of "Two big poles as thick as we can, braced by some I-beams with an I beam between the two posts at our height limit.
Even if the stupid thing had to be rebuilt each time, and with the materials used it won't, that's just a few hours of welding. Hell, if it had to be replaced entirely it would probably be cheaper than the inspection required by that rail line each time. Remember the thing is designed to fuck up box trucks which are basically shells made as lightweight as possible.
Edit: As an example, the shear strength of a grade 5 (common hardware) 1/2" stainless steel bolt is 60,000 psi. Find a suitable bit of unobtanium and use a half dozen of those to secure it in place and they could probably stop those trucks dead all by themselves.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Based on what I can see on Google Maps, it looks like the typical one-way roads that you usually see in downtown American cities founded before 1850 means that it wouldn't be as simple as going a block over, but you'd end up having to make a major loop. Considering that a lot of what's on the other side of that bridge is residential homes, probably get a lot of pissed-off taxpayers wondering why they have to take longer getting home from work just because a handful of idiots can't read road signage.
I suspect the people paying for the mashed trucks are not the same people who would have to pay for raising the bridge.
Reading up on it....most insurance policies for trucks don't cover hitting things because of low clearance. Some homeowners/general stuff does though.
Now THIS is an idea!
How much does a trebuchet cost?
To get one big enough to fling a big truck like these? Gonna be pricey.
I mean, if we were flinging compact cars, sure, you could toss one of those together in a weekend with the right crew and a well stocked junk yard.
Sounds like the ideal solution, tho
Same! I've seen a sailboat hit the Mystic, CT drawbridge (technically a bascule bridge but whatevs).
A slow motion ballet of desperate struggle against inevitable demise, with lots of cursing.
Traffic flows will adapt.
I mean, seriously. Its not an essential pass through even by local standards:
Edit: Actually, looking at the patterns for the area that's not going to be possible. The likely long-term solution is going to be to end both Duke and Gregson anyhow, as those one-way paths aren't going to be sustainable without rebuilding the rail system for the long run. Either they need to fix the bridge for traffic flow, or pay for a street expansion to make Gregson two-way traffic. The current layout appears to be an on-the-cheap design to mitigate traffic congestion in downtown Durham, but long term a better solution is needed.
So the bridge really is a problem of the city, rather than the drivers. They don't really have anywhere else to go in traffic without disrupting traffic flow patters for both Gregson and Duke.
Fleet insurance is its own deal. Sometimes it is through a standard insurance company, sometimes it is in-house.
- John Stuart Mill
In most cases the general public pays for damages eventually.
Increased costs overall for renting and insuring these things will nickel and dime you forever until you address the problem causing it.
If it were only a problem of the bridge, I would agree. Given how the downtown has been converted from 1950s era two lane streets to three lane, one way streets there are more things wrong here than just the bridge though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne3WPt_H6rU
That was a vac truck, not exactly the largest and heaviest piece of road-legal industrial equipment. It damaged the barrier and also hit the trestle as well, and the trestle likely needed inspection before use again.
It's better to address the problem correctly before it becomes a catastrophe. What happens when a train derails in town because of damage to that trestle?
there are signs the next block up as well if I'm not mistaken!
The only real way to hit the bridge nowadays is to run the red light.
EDIT: Actually it's "Overheight Must Turn".
Steam | XBL