With all of these accidents happening between motorists and trains, why hasn't grade separation become mandatory?
zkr123 With all of these accidents happening between motorists and trains, why hasn't grade separation become mandatory?
Extreme cost, The U.S and Canada have many thousands of level crossings and the cost of grade separating all of them would be astronomical..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Carnej1 beat me to it. I was going to say for three good reasons.
1) Money
2) More money
3) Even more money.
There are many reasons - they begin with $$$$$$$$ and they end with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Also, level crossing accidents are way down and keep going down, thanks in large part to better driver training and programs like Operation Lifesaver.
Money notwithstanding (and it does factor into what I'm about to say), next time you're at a crossing, take a careful look at the surroundings.
In most built-up areas, you'll find buildings and side streets very near the crossing. A reasonable grade on the road to create "ramps" up each side may take a couple hundred yards. If the approaches are fill, they will require lateral width for stability. If they are on a structure (like an elevated highway) you may be taking away access to businesses and residences, which is also true of the fill.
I'm not sure what the required clearance is for rails, but it's probably 14' or so, maybe more.
Bottom line is that there very often simply is not room to run one over the other.
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...
In so many instances, highways were built parallel to railroads, or vice-versa--and sometimes parallel to rivers, as well. Being crowded together, it makes building bridges or underpasses virually impossible at a reasonable cost.
John Timm
tree68 Money notwithstanding (and it does factor into what I'm about to say), next time you're at a crossing, take a careful look at the surroundings. In most built-up areas, you'll find buildings and side streets very near the crossing. A reasonable grade on the road to create "ramps" up each side may take a couple hundred yards. If the approaches are fill, they will require lateral width for stability. If they are on a structure (like an elevated highway) you may be taking away access to businesses and residences, which is also true of the fill. I'm not sure what the required clearance is for rails, but it's probably 14' or so, maybe more. Bottom line is that there very often simply is not room to run one over the other.
I believe vertical clearance above tracks is now set at 25 feet.
BaltACD I believe vertical clearance above tracks is now set at 25 feet.
blue streak 1 BaltACD I believe vertical clearance above tracks is now set at 25 feet. Believe that is for the unlikely possibility of future electrification?
Double stack height is curently 20 feet 2 inches - I suspect there may be ideas in the maritime industry to increase the height of ocean shipping containers.
Remember, it wasn't all that long ago 18 feet was considered a height that equipment would never exceed - as time marches on equipment gets larger and loads get heavier.
Where I am from, the amount of people being stupid on crossings is small compared to other places on the track.
I see far more kids on track playing "chicken" with and jumping on the BNSF mixed local for a ride than I do people doding between the drop-arms in their cars.
As long as there are people and railroads, there will be people trespassing on the railroads. And so long as that happens, people are eventually going to get hurt. So separating the two would be a waste of time, money, and resources.
I think that drop-arms at crossings, and programs like "Operation Lifesaver" are about all that are practacal to get people "smart" around the rails. If those don't knock common sense into you, then little will.
Just my two cents,
S. Connor
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
LARRY: Most states, minimum clearance is 22'-6", a few as low as 21'(NH, ND, OR); rational minimum height for catenary is 24'-6" (USDOT);
There is very limited (and shrinking) federal Section 400 funding in each state with long waits caused by assigning of priorities. (the locals certainly don't have the $$$ to build bridges, they're busy wastefully spending money on stuff with less public benefit, but more political advantage for pandering to the masses.
PDN probably could spend forever talking about how variables and priorities are handled. There is no such thing as a cookie cutter solution (Sorry Mr. Bailey's bridge) anymore, especially with some of the esoteric, touchy-feely circus these days in public works projects. (Then again, the highway design bubbas go stupid anywhere within 100 feet of a railroad and repeat the same design errors and bad assumptions over and over and over and over and over and over, just hoping once they can guess their way thru a project....it's kinda scary
In the US we have our sensibilities - other countries have their own.
Statement in the following video credits India with killing 10 people a day with their railroad and road crossings are rarely involved.
I don't know....why don't you ask your local DOT why they insist on building roads and streets across railroad tracks, most of which were there long before the road was even needed.
23 17 46 11
mudchickenMost states, minimum clearance is 22'-6", a few as low as 21'(NH, ND, OR); rational minimum height for catenary is 24'-6" (USDOT);
Which makes the approaches just that much longer.
One thing that struck me the first time we travelled Highway 401 between Windsor and Hamilton (Canada) was the overpasses - dozens of them. That part of SW Ontario is billiard table flat, so they really stuck out.
Acquiring the right-of way isn't easy.
Relocating utilities is another pain.
Environmental impact statements - even assuming there isn't much effect. Noise can be an issue - although there's usually much less warning horn noise.
Community objections to the loss of businesses and the tax revenues. Also to the "Chinese Wall" or 'big ditch' results of either tracks elevated on a fill or structure/ wall, or lowered tracks in a trench. (Note, however, that the Alameda Corridor and the Las Vegas and/ or Reno projects are essentially trenches.)
"Social justice" objections to the loss of "affordable housing" (i.e., low-income/ low value) and sometimes minority-owned.
Hard choices often need to be made . . .
- Paul North.
The costs, both construction and maintenance is the main issue. But as has been alluded to there is also the problem of clearences, both horizontal and vertical.
Structures over the railroads restrict what can move on the rails. Structures over the roads restrict what can be moved on the roads. The desired (required) minimums have greatly increased over the years, but even where they are exceeded they can be bottlenecks that are very expensive to overcome.
I was talking to a highway engineer who was responsible for the routing of oversize loads on the highways. It is required that the loads be resduced and loaded to provide the smallest footprint possible, by separating then into multiple loads when possible and the type of transporter used and their positining on the transporter.
He showed me the route of a particular load for an oil company. It was over 200 miles on State highways (conventional and freeway), County roads and City streets and required temporary moving or removal of overhead utilities, traffic signals and other obstacles. The actual shortist distance by road between the origin and destination was only a little over a mile but because of a freeway (which would of had to be torn down and rebuilt) between them the route permitted was less costly and disruptive. Railroads have the same problems.
I am aware of several places where cosly structures were built to separate highways and railroads. The railroads ceased operation and the tracks were removed within less than 10 years.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Both the PA Turnpike's NorthEast Extension (now I-476), just north of the Lehigh Tunnel, and PennDOT's SR 33, just north of the SR 512 = Wind Gap exit, had bridges for the Lehigh & New England RR to cross over those roads. I'm told that no train ever ran over either one (maybe only the scrapper's train to pull up the tracks). That may be an exaggeration, but not much.
Paul_D_North_Jr Both the PA Turnpike's NorthEast Extension (now I-476), just north of the Lehigh Tunnel, and PennDOT's SR 33, just north of the SR 512 = Wind Gap exit, had bridges for the Lehigh & New England RR to cross over those roads. I'm told that no train ever ran over either one (maybe only the scrapper's train to pull up the tracks). That may be an exaggeration, but not much. - Paul North.
WE live in a strange land...The engineers create a structure ( Bridge/or an 'over' or 'under' pass) with a design that meets all the 'Requirements' as to safety and meeting the design specs(State and Federal DOT Specs) of the particular structure...
All that then goes for approval to what is generally, an 'elected' or 'appointed' oversight committee. The committees tighen the specifications, to save money on the budget; then give a smaller, less expensive property footprint for the site, and the project is re-engineered to fit the parameters of the committee priorities. Radii are created that cause accidents on curved ramps, sight distances are changed; and so it goes; the public must live with while navigating a less than optimal trafficway. [my2c]
Just look at the roads (I-84/I-91)created in, and around Hartford, Ct. by way of an example. Clearances were minimum for the traffic loads,approaches and bridges were lowered to where thay would barely clear a legal height trailer truck. vehicle merges were cut to barely manageable distances.
Kevin C. SmithSomeone (was it you pdn?) once answered a query about the length of roadway for a highway overpass. With approaches and grades, I think it came to roughly 2000' (1000' on each side) plus the actual span over the tracks. Assuming that my memory isn't off by an order of magnitude, that is a lot of affected adjoining property.
I wouldn't argue too much with those lengths as typical for about a 35 MPH road - 400 ft. long vertical curves, leaves about 600 ft. between the PVI's [1,000 ft. - 2 x (1/2 x 400 ft.)], which for a 30' rise is a grade of about 5%. For more detail find a highway engineer - I'm the civil kind, yes - but subspecies railroad, mainly.
Notice that the crossings involved in the recent collisions in Valhalla, NY and Oxnard, Calif. are essentially low-speed local streets, so the lengths could well be a little shorter.
For a better guide as to the needed lengths, take a look - using one of the 3D or "Bird's-Eye" views - at some of the recent ones involving that class of street. Several that come to mind are
Paul_D_North_Jr...engineer - I'm the civil kind...
I always note how polite you are. That's as opposed to us non-civil engineers, or more commonly, insulting engineers.
A couple of good grade separation examples in and near Rochelle come to mind to illustrate the non-trivial nature of eliminating crossings at grade.
In town, there is the North 7th Avenue overpass, which goes over both the UP and BNSF tracks behind the webcam, plus two other east-west streets. From the railroads to the next level intersections one notes distances of 600-700 feet from the railroads, 350 to 500 feet from the street crossings. The actual total distance above grade appears to be nearly 1,700 feet. This illustrates, I think, the problem of having to deal with nearby roads in the context of providing a suitable vertical curve for the crossing road. In essence, North 7th Avenue is a very long bridge.
Just to the east of town is the crossing of South Dement Road over the UP tracks. It appears that the above-grade approaches from north or south are just under a quarter mile each, this being on a 40 Mph speed limit road.
Interesting numbers, at any rate.
They would rather have the wrecks and deaths than pay for it. It's nothing personal, just business.
Ulrich Also, level crossing accidents are way down and keep going down, thanks in large part to better driver training and programs like Operation Lifesaver.
Yes indeed!
In 1970, according to National Transportation Statistics, Table 2-5, there were 3,559 Rail-Highway-Grade Crossing accidents resulting in 1,440 fatalities and 3,272 injuries.
In 2013 there were 2,089 accidents resulting in 249 deaths and 952 injuries.
There is also the issue of development near grade crossings. Houses apartments and commercial businesses were built near the grade crossings and it would be very expensive to aqcuire the land to build an overpass.
It might be noted that the British built level crossings that were both manned and impossible to drive through when they first built their railways. That continued until,in an effort to save money, they started putting in US style flashing lights and gates in the 1960's. Then grade crossing accidents began to soar. Britain also has a much higher level of grade separation than we do in the United States.
GN_Fan They would rather have the wrecks and deaths than pay for it. It's nothing personal, just business.
Consider a $10 million grade crossing separation project (bridge). The local government issues 30-year bonds to pay for it, at 6% interest. If I'm doing the math right, those bonds will cost about $2,000 per day, or $83.33 per hour. For that kind of money, the government could equally well hire 2 crossing guards/ "pilot" drivers - 1 for each direction - to shepherd the traffic over the crossing.
Don't forget dealing with Libertarians, Tea Party types, and fiscal conservatives - among others who will object to any governmental involvement and spending on this scale - esp. if a private corporation (RR) is involved.
What are you willing to give up in order to pay the costs of all the road/railroad grade separations? In life tradeoffs are necessary. The world cannot be made 100% safe.
Many more people are killed and injured at road intersections. Should they (including the local streets in your neighborhood) all be grade separated?
People encounter road intersections every time they drive or ride in a motor vehicle., Many (perhaps most) could live ther whole life without ever crossing a railroad track.
Paul_D_North_JrDon't forget dealing with Libertarians, Tea Party types, and fiscal conservatives - among others who will object to any governmental involvement and spending on this scale - esp. if a private corporation (RR) is involved.
When they presented with their share of the bill, big spending liberals would object too. Many would want the money spent to "help" the poor and others would suddenly become fiscal conservatives.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.