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.
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?
I observed that on Metra Milwaukee District West. I think it is used on UP West also, but I am not quite as certain.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ed
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.
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.
"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.
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."
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
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?
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...
(*) 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.
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?
There is no “solution.”
There’s not enough money to eliminate grade crossings.
And there are too many stupid or drunk or distracted people.
The best one can hope for is that a significant number of the most dangerous crossings (and among those, the busiest) will be eliminated.
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?
7j43k Psychot First of all, I never suggested that all grade crossings should be eliminated, or that U.S. taxpayers should cough up billions of dollars in the short term to do so. Sorry. I thought you might have been, when you mentioned all the grade crossings in North Dakota and that it was sparsely settled. My thought is that those grade crossings would be WAY down on the list to do. And your inclusion of North Dakota in the discussion seemed to imply that they should be done, too. Otherwise, there would have been no point of including it at all. Maybe you, then, should have left that particular part out of your statement. Since you do not think all grade crossings should be eliminated, might you be able to come up with which grade crossings SHOULD be eliminated? And which should remain? How did you decide? I will note that yours is the first time in this topic it's been suggested that only SOME grade crossings should be eliminated. And it was AFTER my discussion about doing all of them. In fact, it's been suggested that we needed a "grand infrastructure vision", or some such drivel. You can't get much grander than ALL grade crossings. I guess I took that person's statement much too seriously. Second, I didn’t say Europeans love taxes. They do pay them, however, and in general, they get much better infrastructure in return. I realize that low tax rates are part and parcel of the U.S. mindset; I’m just pointing out that low taxes come with their own cost. The whole topic is about grade crossings in the United States. Dropping in a comment about how Europe does things better (accepting taxes, "better infrastructure") does nothing to help solve the problem in the United States unless you show something we could do here. The United States is not Europe. Come up with something that could be done here. Please. If your plan is to replace low taxes with high taxes so that 2000 people who can't figure out how to cross a railroad track could live doesn't work for me. I'd far rather try: better and more visual education about what happens when a train hits YOU better traffic enforcement nothing--better things to do Ed
Psychot First of all, I never suggested that all grade crossings should be eliminated, or that U.S. taxpayers should cough up billions of dollars in the short term to do so.
First of all, I never suggested that all grade crossings should be eliminated, or that U.S. taxpayers should cough up billions of dollars in the short term to do so.
Sorry. I thought you might have been, when you mentioned all the grade crossings in North Dakota and that it was sparsely settled. My thought is that those grade crossings would be WAY down on the list to do. And your inclusion of North Dakota in the discussion seemed to imply that they should be done, too.
Otherwise, there would have been no point of including it at all. Maybe you, then, should have left that particular part out of your statement.
Since you do not think all grade crossings should be eliminated, might you be able to come up with which grade crossings SHOULD be eliminated? And which should remain? How did you decide?
I will note that yours is the first time in this topic it's been suggested that only SOME grade crossings should be eliminated. And it was AFTER my discussion about doing all of them. In fact, it's been suggested that we needed a "grand infrastructure vision", or some such drivel. You can't get much grander than ALL grade crossings. I guess I took that person's statement much too seriously.
Second, I didn’t say Europeans love taxes. They do pay them, however, and in general, they get much better infrastructure in return. I realize that low tax rates are part and parcel of the U.S. mindset; I’m just pointing out that low taxes come with their own cost.
The whole topic is about grade crossings in the United States. Dropping in a comment about how Europe does things better (accepting taxes, "better infrastructure") does nothing to help solve the problem in the United States unless you show something we could do here.
The United States is not Europe.
Come up with something that could be done here. Please.
If your plan is to replace low taxes with high taxes so that 2000 people who can't figure out how to cross a railroad track could live doesn't work for me.
I'd far rather try:
better and more visual education about what happens when a train hits YOU
better traffic enforcement
nothing--better things to do
I brought up North Dakota as an example of a sparsely populated state that still has a lot of grade crossings. Hell, the ranch I grew up on has its own—completely unprotected—grade crossing over the former NP (now BNSF) main line. I was riding the Empire Builder once when it clipped a gravel truck at a similarly unprotected rural grade crossing near Williston ND.
I don’t have a magic solution for the grade crossing problem. I was merely pointing out that we have so many grade crossings in the first place because we, as a society, have decided that low taxes are more important than good infrastructure. And these grade crossings are a problem in other ways - stopped trains cut municipalities in half, and the proliferation of them means we can never have true high-speed rail.
Personally, I would prefer somewhat higher taxes and better public services, but I understand that the low tax/small government mentality in America precludes such a thing. As a result, we’re probably stuck with all the grade crossings whether we like them or not.
That certainly makes sense.
Then we have to decide how much to spend annually. From that, you can figure how many per year you can do.
Probably, the first ones will cost a good bit more than $40 million, since they'll be in the high usage areas, where land prices are high, among other things.
Later, as you get out towards North Dakota, prices will be a good bit less, and the pace will pick up.
Since the price will be higher (at first), let's say it is $50 million. If we allocate $1 billion a year, we'll take care of 20 per year, at the beginning. Or, to satisify some people's needs for giant infrastructure projects, we could spend $100 billion a year. That will take care of 2000. Now we're getting somewhere.
Then, as we work through the 200,000, the price will start dropping. By the time we get towards the end (in about 100 years, if I can divide properly), the price will be low, indeed.
Or. We could spend $100 billion dollars on something else. Per year. Can YOU think of something? And tell the relatives of the 2000 dead people that they should have been more careful crossing railroad tracks.
Tough call, eh?
I would opine that eliminating all grade crossings is, indeed, a noble goal. There is nothing wrong with having that as the ultimate goal. Simple economics tend to render that goal as unachievable, though. I think we've rather discussed that.
As for a criterion for eliminating crossings (by whatever method), I believe that process is already in place.
At the top of the list are those crossings with poor records (collisions).
Next would be those that have a high probability of collisions (busy streets/roads) or where rail operations have a high impact on vehicle traffic (ie, busy main thoroughfare or heavy/constant rail traffic).
There will be varying degrees of the above, and eliminating those crossings would have to be prioritized by impact, and to some extent, price.
At the bottom of the list would be those crossings with very limited vehicle/rail interface - a crossing with a hundred cars a day and two trains doing 10 MPH. Country/rural situations.
In the basement would be private crossings - farm lanes, driveways, etc. In many cases, an alternate route isn't really possible, and grade separation would be prohibitively expensive.
It's all a matter of degrees.
Euclid 7j43k 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." The punishment is set to what is considered to be reasonable. Simply ramping it up to draconian levels because the violations continue would probably prove to be impractical because the legal defense of the charges would be more vigorous due to the higher stakes of getting prosecuted.
7j43k 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."
The punishment is set to what is considered to be reasonable. Simply ramping it up to draconian levels because the violations continue would probably prove to be impractical because the legal defense of the charges would be more vigorous due to the higher stakes of getting prosecuted.
Maybe. But the local cops have been using civil forfeiture against people who "perform sideshows"* for awhile, now. If it's OK to do to someone doing donuts in the road, it would seem OK to do it to someone who is endangering lives.
Consider, also, that with civil forfeiture, the car is taken immediately. The expenses for legal defense would be expended afterwards. And the return of the car might take a LONG time.
Unconstitutional? Yes. But it has been going on for decades, anyway. Might as well put the concept to good use.
*https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sideshow
Enforcement of crossing issues will always be a problem as long as the public sees the railroad as interlopers in their lives, rather than their being a visitor on railroad property.
This manifests itself daily as people walk on active ROWs, never mind crossing them wherever they find it convenient.
For that matter, try to find a news article that states the facts of a vehicle/rail collision as being the fault of the driver running the protection. It's usually "the train hit the car," not "the driver drove in front of the train and was struck."
Much of the public fails (or refuses) to accept that railroad facilities are private property.
7j43kI 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."
So? Your point? You seem to have serious deficits in reading comprehension. I have nothing to say to you. Suggest you cease the feeble attempt at a discussion since all you can manage is non sequiturs and insults.
7j43k There are about 200,000 grade crossings in the US. It costs about $40 million to do a grade separation. To eliminate all grade crossings (including North Dakota) would cost: $8 trillion. Obviously, money well spent. Because 2000 lives a year would be saved. The individual cost per citizen (kids and old people and etc. included) would be about a quarter million dollars each. If we sold 30 year bonds to pay for it, then it would only cost each citizen $10,000 a year. Plus interest. So much for college, little tyke. So. Americans! Stop yer whining and cough it up. It's fer a good cause and it's only money. Plus. The EUROPEANS would do it. THEY love taxes. The nameless guy from North Dakota says so. But WAIT! How much would it cost to train tax-hating Americans to safely cross railroad tracks? We could make an educational DVD (or whatever it is you kids watch, now) and mail it to everyone. We could also drastically increase traffic violation fines for being stupid with your car at a grade crossing. And make a PROFIT (take THAT, you European tax lovers!). Ed
There are about 200,000 grade crossings in the US.
It costs about $40 million to do a grade separation.
To eliminate all grade crossings (including North Dakota) would cost:
$8 trillion.
Obviously, money well spent. Because 2000 lives a year would be saved.
The individual cost per citizen (kids and old people and etc. included) would be about a quarter million dollars each. If we sold 30 year bonds to pay for it, then it would only cost each citizen $10,000 a year. Plus interest. So much for college, little tyke.
So. Americans! Stop yer whining and cough it up. It's fer a good cause and it's only money.
Plus. The EUROPEANS would do it. THEY love taxes. The nameless guy from North Dakota says so.
But WAIT! How much would it cost to train tax-hating Americans to safely cross railroad tracks? We could make an educational DVD (or whatever it is you kids watch, now) and mail it to everyone. We could also drastically increase traffic violation fines for being stupid with your car at a grade crossing. And make a PROFIT (take THAT, you European tax lovers!).
Please stop making arguments up out of whole cloth and falsely attributing them to me.
charlie hebdo Start with your straw man argument. Nobody said all crossings need to be separated. Eliminating lightly used crossings or multiple crossings close together is often sufficient and a lot cheaper. So there's a start. Perhaps you can do your own work or get a fellow graduate of the DJT school of exaggeration and prevarication to help you.
Start with your straw man argument. Nobody said all crossings need to be separated. Eliminating lightly used crossings or multiple crossings close together is often sufficient and a lot cheaper. So there's a start. Perhaps you can do your own work or get a fellow graduate of the DJT school of exaggeration and prevarication to help you.
"The true greatness of this county [sic] was built by bold vision, huge infrastructure projects..."
Just extrapolating from your bold vision.
Or should we just ignore your pronouncements as gaseous emissions?
$40 million for a grade separation is way overstated, unless it's a 4-lane highway or in an urban area with lots of expensive land that's needed.
About 10 years ago I was involved with a proposed grade separation that would have raised a local road with a nasty crossing mainly serving a nearby subdivision of 200 - 300 houses (plus some folks further out in the country). It would have crossed over a 2-track NS main line with room for a 3rd track or access road. The engineer's cost estimate for a bridge with precast beams was $2 million. The developer was willing to put up his half, but the township wouldn't put up their half. This in the fastest growing township in the 2 counties that are the main portion of the Lehigh Valley. Same township refuses to start or participate in its own police force - relies on state police coverage. Draw your own conclusions.
- PDN.
charlie hebdo Ed, your post is misleading to a degree that's idiotic and you know it.
Ed, your post is misleading to a degree that's idiotic and you know it.
Please point out the misleading idiocies.
I'll try to do the same for you, when I have the time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.