I do. Railroad crossings are dangerous, and the crossing signals can fail to activate.
Quote from: Megabox on June 11, 2017, 10:33:13 AM
I do. Railroad crossings are dangerous, and the crossing signals can fail to activate.
Apparently, you care so much about this topic that you can't remember you already started a thread on this subject months ago:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=33864.0
If the railroad crossing is not commonly used by either trains or road vehicles, it can stay. Not practical to have an expensive bridge over such infrequently used crossings.
Quote from: Megabox on June 11, 2017, 10:56:47 AM
If the railroad crossing is not commonly used by either trains or road vehicles, it can stay. Not practical to have an expensive bridge over such infrequently used crossings.
You're beginning to repeat yourself:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,33864.msg465954.html#msg465954
I thought no one would ever be able to top Noone's threads but this guy is quickly getting there.
On a serious note about Flagler. Sometimes guest we have in from out of town ask about "that old bridge" downtown. It's kind of funny that of all of the things that shaped this state's history, that old bridge crossing the St John's probably had the biggest impact. It's my favorite.
No. Overpasses take too much acreage for city use.
https://residentnews.net/2019/02/01/city-plans-to-close-two-railroad-crossings-for-pedestrian-path/
Quote from: KenFSU on February 12, 2019, 02:52:54 PM
https://residentnews.net/2019/02/01/city-plans-to-close-two-railroad-crossings-for-pedestrian-path/
I like the people complaining about the train blowing their horns. They're going to be in for a rude awakening when that doesn't change because the crossing they are taking out is 50 feet from another one ::) I wonder about some people...
I don't fully understand why they need to do this. Adding a sidewalk on Nira requires them to shut down two vehicle crossings?
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 12, 2019, 04:25:43 PM
I don't fully understand why they need to do this. Adding a sidewalk on Nira requires them to shut down two vehicle crossings?
I'm guessing the new bike/ped crossing will have its own set of crossing gates? As the article says, the Gary Street crossing is closing anyway, due to the Overland Bridge project - there's nowhere for Gary Street to go east of the tracks. Is a shame Naldo can't be turned to run parallel to the FEC over to Nira. But, that would require taking from that parking lot in the southwest corner.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 12, 2019, 04:25:43 PM
I don't fully understand why they need to do this. Adding a sidewalk on Nira requires them to shut down two vehicle crossings?
FEC is calling the shots, it's their requirement. If you look at the drawing it shows this new crossing separated from Nira. I'm not sure what the big deal is though since it's a pedestrian path. I'd like to see Naldo stay open.
It's pretty much standard protocol these days with railroads. When trains hit cyclist and pedestrians, pretty much the same happens as when they hit cars.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 12, 2019, 04:34:12 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 12, 2019, 04:25:43 PM
I don't fully understand why they need to do this. Adding a sidewalk on Nira requires them to shut down two vehicle crossings?
I'm guessing the new bike/ped crossing will have its own set of crossing gates? As the article says, the Gary Street crossing is closing anyway, due to the Overland Bridge project - there's nowhere for Gary Street to go east of the tracks. Is a shame Naldo can't be turned to run parallel to the FEC over to Nira. But, that would require taking from that parking lot in the southwest corner.
The state's looking to change how they cross FEC's property. You can do that if you do this other thing for me.
Less crossings mean less risks.
Can you imagine just one overpass? You realize they run double stack, they will never give that up. The bridge is around 80 years old and allows doubles to go through. Anyways the city should just sign up for quiet zones, like they are doing down south. It crawls through the urban areas so no need to worry about major impacts. City would have to pony up the money though
Crossing Closure increases safety, in order for a quiet zone chances are you'll have to have a Four Quadrant Gate System. Meaning a signal and gates on all four corners of a crossing. Gates with Channelization Devices and/or raised medians prevent vehicles from swinging into opposing traffic lanes to 'go around a gate.' There is a Federal $$$ Incentive to close crossings whereas the costs to rebuild or create a crossing can run anywhere from $30K - Several Million dollars each.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on March 07, 2019, 08:12:59 PM
Crossing Closure increases safety, in order for a quiet zone chances are you'll have to have a Four Quadrant Gate System. Meaning a signal and gates on all four corners of a crossing. Gates with Channelization Devices and/or raised medians prevent vehicles from swinging into opposing traffic lanes to 'go around a gate.' There is a Federal $$$ Incentive to close crossings whereas the costs to rebuild or create a crossing can run anywhere from $30K - Several Million dollars each.
This is all correct but there are exceptions, if there is only 1 land each way and there is a raised concrete median, you don't need the 4 gate system. Which could be an option for the smaller crossings in San Marco. It's cheaper
Some railroad crossings would be pretty difficult to grade separate, like the one on Prudential near Baptist Downtown.
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3162851,-81.6615762,3a,30y,87.59h,94.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRchredRXTP-E_BELbcJrbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Say...what's to keep municipalities from charging the railroads a toll for passing thru their towns - for further upkeep of safety equipment, improvements, etc., etc. It could happen, right? They could also, if need be, be fined for lengthy obstruction of traffic, as in San Marco. Something's bound to happen to improve the current situation, whether they get upset at such absurdity and find money to come up with a better solution or just take their trains and go home, where commerce is concerned. But I'm sure someone out there knows of some obscure railroad laws that prohibit such things. They could just clip a Railpass card to their visor in the locomotive. (desperate times call for desperate measures). ;)
Pretty sure you can't charge a railroad a toll for passing through their jurisdiction - but I don't have a citation.
Fines for blocking crossings are common, on the law books. However, I think that assessing those fines is spotty. And, even if tickets are issued, the fine levels are too low to encourage the RR to change their practices - it is cheaper to pay the fine than to change the way they operate. Given that RR companies have paid lobbyists, and contribute to local and state campaigns, and that Joe and Jane Motorist do not, this is highly unlikely to change.
QuoteSay...what's to keep municipalities from charging the railroads a toll for passing thru their towns
Federal railroad laws....
QuoteThe reason federal control of rail transportation is important is clear – if every City, town, and state could put its own restrictions on rail service, it would cripple it and destroy any semblance of a unified national system. The smooth operation of the rail system is protected by prohibiting states and municipalities from any requirements that would inhibit that system. However, very limited local or state regulation is allowed if the regulation is directly related to public health and safety, such as compliance with building and fire codes.
http://www.pullcom.com/news-publications-671.html
Thanks, Lake! I figured you would have an answer.
Quote from: Megabox on July 08, 2019, 10:23:33 PM
Some railroad crossings would be pretty difficult to grade separate, like the one on Prudential near Baptist Downtown.
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3162851,-81.6615762,3a,30y,87.59h,94.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRchredRXTP-E_BELbcJrbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's the one that I think of in Jax, far as being the most problematic. Time to build an overhead trestle! (I'm not holding my breath)
There is almost no way an overpass would be built there, Prudential at that location is nowhere near a major enough thoroughfare to warrant an overpass.
Quote from: I-10east on July 10, 2019, 09:21:46 AM
Quote from: Megabox on July 08, 2019, 10:23:33 PM
Some railroad crossings would be pretty difficult to grade separate, like the one on Prudential near Baptist Downtown.
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3162851,-81.6615762,3a,30y,87.59h,94.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRchredRXTP-E_BELbcJrbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's the one that I think of in Jax, far as being the most problematic. Time to build an overhead trestle! (I'm not holding my breath)
Building raised track for freight is not a reasonable solution. You could build a damn tunnel for the cars for a fraction of the cost. There might be a solution if they were to replace the railroad bridge over the St Johns. The bridge was built in 1925 and is in great shape. Speaking with a bridge guy he told me that it would take two years just to make the steel to build a new bridge. If they were to build a new one (which there is no land for IMO) they could make it higher and start raising the track around the 95 overpass. Just typing this I say there's now way. Deal with it people. I can tell you when trains leave the Bowden hard and head over the bridge, they are clear the whole way. The only reason they stop is because CSX on the other side stops them
Quote from: I-10east on July 10, 2019, 09:21:46 AM
Quote from: Megabox on July 08, 2019, 10:23:33 PM
Some railroad crossings would be pretty difficult to grade separate, like the one on Prudential near Baptist Downtown.
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3162851,-81.6615762,3a,30y,87.59h,94.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRchredRXTP-E_BELbcJrbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's the one that I think of in Jax, far as being the most problematic. Time to build an overhead trestle! (I'm not holding my breath)
That overhead trestle would need to be a mile long and require replacing the bridge over the river. People just need to get over the situation with the Prudential crossing.
Trains are in the way and sea level's rising, the only real solution is to raise the street level. Before you call it absurd it has been done before, in Seattle no less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground)
Now I know what you're thinking: "How can we enjoy the river from 3 stories above?" BECAUSE WE RAISE THE RIVER TOO. Locks will be installed up and down river from downtown to raise the river to the new street level. This will ensure our riverwalk remains a riverwalk and not a skywalk.
So let's make Jacksonville the Seattle of the South.
/s
Most of the issue of the blocked crossings on Nira, Hendricks, San Marco and Prudential involves emergency access to the hospital. Having a system that would alert Emergency responders to trains in the area, which crossings are blocked and which will soon be blocked would go a long, long, long way in mitigation the crossing issue.
I noticed today that the pedestrian crossing of the FEC tracks at Nira is complete. Seems trivial but that was a pretty dangerous spot for pedestrians.
Quote from: acme54321 on May 17, 2023, 11:41:17 PM
I noticed today that the pedestrian crossing of the FEC tracks at Nira is complete. Seems trivial but that was a pretty dangerous spot for pedestrians.
It seems trivial now, but DOT thinking was when that new Apartment complex opens next to Vs Pizza, the foot traffic will pick up. Plus I'm thinking it may have grant funding involved.
Quote from: Pottsburg on May 24, 2023, 01:21:53 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 17, 2023, 11:41:17 PM
I noticed today that the pedestrian crossing of the FEC tracks at Nira is complete. Seems trivial but that was a pretty dangerous spot for pedestrians.
It seems trivial now, but DOT thinking was when that new Apartment complex opens next to Vs Pizza, the foot traffic will pick up. Plus I'm thinking it may have grant funding involved.
It's also part of the emerald trail. It's been in planning for a while now. I think the closure of the Naldo crossing was part of the deal too.