Lithonia OperatorWhen I was a kid we we were told that by the year 2000 the power and phone lines would all be underground. How are we doing on that?
A small village near me balked at the cost of burying about four blocks of utilities in the downtown area. The wires are so close to the building fronts that they have to hire specially qualified workers to do maintenance on the facades.
They are moving forward on the project this fall.
During Ice Storm '98 something like 10,000 power/phone poles came down in the region...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Lithonia Operator When I was a kid we we were told that by the year 2000 the power and phone lines would all be underground. How are we doing on that? A small village near me balked at the cost of burying about four blocks of utilities in the downtown area. The wires are so close to the building fronts that they have to hire specially qualified workers to do maintenance on the facades. They are moving forward on the project this fall. During Ice Storm '98 something like 10,000 power/phone poles came down in the region...
Lithonia Operator When I was a kid we we were told that by the year 2000 the power and phone lines would all be underground. How are we doing on that?
(*) Subsurface Utility Engineering (S-U-E) as required by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and adopted by may states requires a rigorous identification and location by precision survey methods on a set datum of all utilities in a given area that is then kept in a public database. (not cheap, but it keeps utilities and pipeline companies from drilling through other buried utilities and creating spectacular fails/ tragedies. The cost is killing many underground utility projects in public rights of way in states regulated by S-U-E.) The bury it and forget it days are over. Takes the 811 utilities locate process to a new level.
Hands down, the utilities considered to be the most reckless are the fiber optic/ telephone/ CATV people closely followed by the traffic control/ signal people.
An example of a public road crossing that saw very little traffic.
There is a place where the former Mississippi Central crosses a public road east of Brookhaven which I used occasionally during three years I lived in the area--and I seldom, if ever, saw another vehicle on the road. Should it be made into a separated crossing?
Johnny
7j43k Paul_D_North_Jr $40 million for a grade separation is way overstated... I suspect it is not. Should we perhaps examine costs for grade separations for California High Speed Rail--another example of "huge infrastructure projects" (see Hebdo, above). We're talking mostly two lane farm roads here, so we should use those numbers for the low end estimate. Perhaps we can get a bulk discount. On the other hand, the price might go up because of scarcity of labor. I truly believe the better way to lessen grade crossing deaths is hugely increased enforcement and fines--can you say: "civil forfeiture"? I know I can. And it makes a PROFIT (probably something way too capitalistic for some on this forum). "Ma'am, you're stopped on a railroad track. We're taking your car." "Now." Ed
Paul_D_North_Jr $40 million for a grade separation is way overstated...
$40 million for a grade separation is way overstated...
I suspect it is not. Should we perhaps examine costs for grade separations for California High Speed Rail--another example of "huge infrastructure projects" (see Hebdo, above). We're talking mostly two lane farm roads here, so we should use those numbers for the low end estimate.
Perhaps we can get a bulk discount. On the other hand, the price might go up because of scarcity of labor.
I truly believe the better way to lessen grade crossing deaths is hugely increased enforcement and fines--can you say: "civil forfeiture"? I know I can. And it makes a PROFIT (probably something way too capitalistic for some on this forum).
"Ma'am, you're stopped on a railroad track. We're taking your car." "Now."
Ed
"Out in the weeds":
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/redwood-city-to-study-grade-separations-at-rail-crossings/article_c91bbc30-c6b9-11e8-b9ce-43129610638b.html
$150-300 million
https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/features/alternatives-to-grade-separation-for-railway-crossings/
$50-150 million Canadian
https://www.kentreporter.com/news/kents-17-million-for-railroad-grade-separation-grants-in-jeopardy/
$25 million
http://createprogram.org/fra_grant/DR1_FRA_BCA_Narrative_FINAL_11_2_2015.pdf
$63 million
I did find a cost estimate of $6-10 million, but it was noted it did not account for land acquisition, nor cost of moving businesses.
As has been pointed out, the locations that would likely be done first would be the ones with the most benefit--the most "needy". Those are likely in urban areas with high traffic and high expenses for the construction.
mudchicken Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) has increased the headaches.
Same village: Conduit going in for fiber, using HDD. Fire station notes a sewer blockage. Village checks sewer line out of fire station with camera. Serial number on conduit piercing sewer plainly visible.
Freshly paved apron area dug up (they kept it fairly small) so problem could be rectified.
Personally, I think the short-term answer (and much of the long-term) involves cameras and directed enforcement -- not as draconian, perhaps, as 'civil forfeiture', but perhaps involving immediate arrest or incarceration for bond. The "problem" with this is in determining when running a crossing is an actual danger; personally, I think a good 'legal' compromise -- say, running a crossing less than 10 seconds ahead of the train reaching that crossing -- can be determined for strict enforcement. Again, the link between crossing and local enforcement has to be strong, well-encouraged and well-enforced, and backed up via clear camera video to a neutral (NOT red-light-camera style 'business') repository for confirmation.
My own opinion for quite some time has been that 'low-occupancy' crossings in 110+mph districts, like those on the old Alton between Chicago and Springfield, need to have some form of lifting barrier in the roadway as well as strong lane separation (via curbs or the equivalent) and gates. I don't particularly care for the lifting-cylinder style of car wrecker; my own approach involves a counterweighted bar rising out of a well-drained trough in the approach that is linked to the gate actuation (with a ramp that allows 'driving over' to escape if trapped on the crossing) and ought to be at least an order of magnitude less than physical separation of road and railhead level.
That is of course not a perfect solution, but as noted we're never going to get to a perfect solution. What's important to me is not preserving Darwin Award-level stupidity, but the well-being of the engine crews so often affected, and the passengers (as at Valhalla) who may be hurt or killed as a consequence. You might overcome a barrier, but not within the 'reaction time' of the associated camera and response system linked both to PTC and to local karma.
Found some more numbers:
On pages 27 to 29 of the below document:
https://www.caltrain2040.org/wp-content/uploads/CBP_April_LPMG_Presentation.pdf
there are listed 17 grade separation projects on the San Francisco penisula that include a cost estimate. Leaving out the San Francisco City element, as it's a tunnel, we have
17 grade separations at a rough cost of $2.75 billion.
Dividing by 17, we get $162 million per grade separation.
I had a look at Cal High Speed Rail. They apparently got several grade separations done out in the farmland--2 lane, and all that. I was curious about the cost for those smaller projects. I have just submitted a question regarding the cost of their completed Avenue 11 grade separation.
Overmod Personally, I think the short-term answer (and much of the long-term) involves cameras and directed enforcement -- not as draconian, perhaps, as 'civil forfeiture', but perhaps involving immediate arrest or incarceration for bond. The "problem" with this is in determining when running a crossing is an actual danger; personally, I think a good 'legal' compromise -- say, running a crossing less than 10 seconds ahead of the train reaching that crossing -- can be determined for strict enforcement. Again, the link between crossing and local enforcement has to be strong, well-encouraged and well-enforced, and backed up via clear camera video to a neutral (NOT red-light-camera style 'business') repository for confirmation. My own opinion for quite some time has been that 'low-occupancy' crossings in 110+mph districts, like those on the old Alton between Chicago and Springfield, need to have some form of lifting barrier in the roadway as well as strong lane separation (via curbs or the equivalent) and gates. I don't particularly care for the lifting-cylinder style of car wrecker; my own approach involves a counterweighted bar rising out of a well-drained trough in the approach that is linked to the gate actuation (with a ramp that allows 'driving over' to escape if trapped on the crossing) and ought to be at least an order of magnitude less than physical separation of road and railhead level. That is of course not a perfect solution, but as noted we're never going to get to a perfect solution. What's important to me is not preserving Darwin Award-level stupidity, but the well-being of the engine crews so often affected, and the passengers (as at Valhalla) who may be hurt or killed as a consequence. You might overcome a barrier, but not within the 'reaction time' of the associated camera and response system linked both to PTC and to local karma.
Rational and reasonable. This is the direction we should be heading and not be put off by extreme, politicized strawman arguments as seen on here.
charlie hebdo Overmod Personally, I think the short-term answer (and much of the long-term) involves cameras and directed enforcement -- not as draconian, perhaps, as 'civil forfeiture', but perhaps involving immediate arrest or incarceration for bond. The "problem" with this is in determining when running a crossing is an actual danger; personally, I think a good 'legal' compromise -- say, running a crossing less than 10 seconds ahead of the train reaching that crossing -- can be determined for strict enforcement. Again, the link between crossing and local enforcement has to be strong, well-encouraged and well-enforced, and backed up via clear camera video to a neutral (NOT red-light-camera style 'business') repository for confirmation. My own opinion for quite some time has been that 'low-occupancy' crossings in 110+mph districts, like those on the old Alton between Chicago and Springfield, need to have some form of lifting barrier in the roadway as well as strong lane separation (via curbs or the equivalent) and gates. I don't particularly care for the lifting-cylinder style of car wrecker; my own approach involves a counterweighted bar rising out of a well-drained trough in the approach that is linked to the gate actuation (with a ramp that allows 'driving over' to escape if trapped on the crossing) and ought to be at least an order of magnitude less than physical separation of road and railhead level. That is of course not a perfect solution, but as noted we're never going to get to a perfect solution. What's important to me is not preserving Darwin Award-level stupidity, but the well-being of the engine crews so often affected, and the passengers (as at Valhalla) who may be hurt or killed as a consequence. You might overcome a barrier, but not within the 'reaction time' of the associated camera and response system linked both to PTC and to local karma. Rational and reasonable. This is the direction we should be heading and not be put off by extreme, politicized strawman arguments as seen on here.
I concur.
OvermodMy own opinion for quite some time has been that 'low-occupancy' crossings in 110+mph districts, like those on the old Alton between Chicago and Springfield, need to have some form of lifting barrier in the roadway as well as strong lane separation (via curbs or the equivalent) and gates.
The lane separation is already in use for quiet zones - it's an easy extension to be used for crossings that should be grade separated, but can't, for whatever reason.
Another idea that comes to mind would be a two-tiered gate system (which could easily include barriers as well. The outer gate would lower first, with the second (inner) gate remaining up long enough for the space between the two gates to clear. The second gate would come down in plenty of time to clear oncoming trains.
With the barriers between lanes and four quadrant gates, the ability of John Q Driver to put himself in harms way would be greatly reduced.
Clearly this isn't a solution for low-use crossings, but might help with the troublesome crossings.
Another possible tool in the toolbox.
tree68Another idea that comes to mind would be a two-tiered gate system (which could easily include barriers as well. The outer gate would lower first, with the second (inner) gate remaining up long enough for the space between the two gates to clear. The second gate would come down in plenty of time to clear oncoming trains.
Larry, I live along the BNSF METRA "racetrack" where the outbound commuter trains make station stops and up to 500 commuters get off a train at one station. Other non-stop trains may race past at 70 mph on the center track while another inbound scoot is using the third track.
My town (as have most) have the "QUIET ZONE" lane separations. But a couple of years ago, the RR retimed all of the crossings and lengthened the time of the crossing activation. So far, most commuters have accepted the longer time that they have to wait to cross but the human urge to move causes some to still chance trying to cross when the bell is ringing. (See Note Below) There have been some fatalities but I don't think there has been an increase. If the time between activation of protection and train arrival is increased, I have concerns for people becoming impatient.
Note. BNSF crossing bells start ringing when protection is initiated. When the crossing is occupied by the train, it is quieted unless another train is approaching. So if the train you get off off is stopped, the bell is usually quiet unless another train on another track is approaching. I don't know how well the public knows this but I have not seem much info in the media nor Metra pubs. Is this standard FRA design?
No question - I was thinking of vehicular traffic, as opposed to pedestrian.
Most crossings with gates that I've seen silence the bell(s) once the gates are down. I've seen some actually ring briefly when the gates go back up.
A visitor to the Deshler railcam recently commented in the chat that she was surprised the bells did quit ringing once the gates were down. Apparently in some places that's not the case.
There are places in MI that have crossbucks and lights, but no gates. Those bells usually keep ringing as long as the lights are flashing.
Electroliner 1935 tree68 Another idea that comes to mind would be a two-tiered gate system (which could easily include barriers as well. The outer gate would lower first, with the second (inner) gate remaining up long enough for the space between the two gates to clear. The second gate would come down in plenty of time to clear oncoming trains. Larry, I live along the BNSF METRA "racetrack" where the outbound commuter trains make station stops and up to 500 commuters get off a train at one station. Other non-stop trains may race past at 70 mph on the center track while another inbound scoot is using the third track. My town (as have most) have the "QUIET ZONE" lane separations. But a couple of years ago, the RR retimed all of the crossings and lengthened the time of the crossing activation. So far, most commuters have accepted the longer time that they have to wait to cross but the human urge to move causes some to still chance trying to cross when the bell is ringing. (See Note Below) There have been some fatalities but I don't think there has been an increase. If the time between activation of protection and train arrival is increased, I have concerns for people becoming impatient. Note. BNSF crossing bells start ringing when protection is initiated. When the crossing is occupied by the train, it is quieted unless another train is approaching. So if the train you get off off is stopped, the bell is usually quiet unless another train on another track is approaching. I don't know how well the public knows this but I have not seem much info in the media nor Metra pubs. Is this standard FRA design?
tree68 Another idea that comes to mind would be a two-tiered gate system (which could easily include barriers as well. The outer gate would lower first, with the second (inner) gate remaining up long enough for the space between the two gates to clear. The second gate would come down in plenty of time to clear oncoming trains.
I observed that on Metra Milwaukee District West. I think it is used on UP West also, but I am not quite as certain.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.