Should all railroad crossings be replaced with overpasses?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you think all railroad crossings should be replaced with overpasses? I do.

Maybe possible in rural areas. But it would be very difficult in urban/suburban areas.
It would just plain be far too expensive. Not just for construction but for land acquisition.

I think it would be overkill, why do you think this, convenience, safety? Keep in mind how many millions of dollars it takes to construct the average bridge and the lifetime of effort and funding it takes government to maintain them. With that said a single train should never be able to divide an entire city in half at one time.

Ideally they should be but it wouldn't be easy.

I hear there are some infamous crossings that stay closed for 30 minutes or so during the rush hours when trains run every few minutes on multiple tracks. You could be late for work/school if you are stuck there.

I agree that the cost of building and maintaining bridges for this venture would be excessive.
Mind you, there was recently a very bad collision in my area between a city bus and a train which had just left the station. People died. And in reviewing the images of the intersection it struck me that the way these intersections are set up could be redesigned and barriers made a bit more notable than they currently are.

Sounds to indicate a train coming are pointless, considering the way they build cars for quiet, and radios for blare.
The little red lights don't always show properly to those colorblind or experiencing midday sunlight dazzle.
Black and white zebra poles at one specific height are often not very thick, or visible if say someone was distracted for a moment by a baby or radio, or passenger or... the myriad other distractions that exist while driving... including the horn of the guy behind you!

Because there are still people - even professional drivers with immaculate records - who end up crossing the tracks at the wrong time.

Rolling Barricades, with reflective yellow and white banding, at least 3 foot in height, Stoplights WHERE ONE WOULD EXPECT when arriving at a CROSSROADS with another VEHICULAR PATH. All seem like such natural solutions... yet are never implemented.

Should especially be upgraded in areas where sunlight and distractions (busy city areas) are commonplace.

I think crossings should be upgraded but no overpasses unless it's a busy stretch of rail. There's some in rural areas that don't even have barriers, just flashing lights and maybe a bell, even then there's some that don't even have that, just a sign. It's people that don't stop and look to see if anything's coming because they assume a train won't be there (based on probability), or people who know the train is there but they think they can beat the train across, they're the ones who get killed.

If that was even thought about here, the government would go into defense mode, and do all they can, and even more, to prove to people that it's not needed, and that they cannot afford it.

No. Why would they need to do that? There are wrecks in all sorts of intersections and curves, and straight roads, and tunnels and bridges, etc. A train hitting a car is just bigger than a 18 wheeler hitting a car.

Rather than replacing railroad crossings with overpasses we should replace trying to beat the train with stopping. Cheaper and safer.

If the tracks block the only entrance to a neighborhood, yes. There have been some cases of emergency vehicles not being able to get to sick people or house fires because of trains.

The problem as I see it is primarily the train. Trains carry many many people, or many dangerous goods. Neither of which we want spilling over onto the countryside.

Or in some cases, city buses.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/09/18/liv ... uth-ottawa

They can wreck at places other than crossings too. If spillage were the issue then we would need to have them completely underground the whole time.

Lots of cases of trains hitting cars are do to people trying to beat the train, but not all of them. There are cases of trains hitting cars due to the signals at the crossing failing to activate. The signals can malfunction. Buses are often required to stop at all railroad crossings to make sure no train is coming, but this just isn't practical for cars. They could post crossing guards at the railroad crossings for safety, but they would need to be paid. And plus, there are emergency vehicles that often have trains hold them back and make it take longer for them to get to an emergency.

Here in the us 55-65% of bridges get a failing grade for safety it would be mad to overpass the billions of crossings the crossing isn't the issue it is the drivers it is your responsibility to look before crossing even if the gates are up. Commonsense you wouldn't drive thru a busy intersection without looking no different at a train crossing. I have no pity for some one who tries to beat a train or the one who won't leave there car when it gets stuck on the tracks. 97 % of track crossing accident are because of driver error not the train or gates.

It's amazing how many drivers fail to use common sense. With the gate down, lights flashing and bells going off, some people still think that they can beat the train.

I think heavier, more obstructing gates could be installed that block the entire road.
Don't that have some like that in europe?

Still experimental in the US. One of these is a "stopgate" : http://www.transpo.com/StopGate.html

you can only do so much to protect the stupid from themselves I've been told by Aussies that it's "strange" that trains in Switzerland travel along city streets or train lines have no fences , and over passes are unheard of , I think it's smart it frees up capital for other rail projects

What I think is strange is here they build a rail line from the 3 rd largest city in Australia to the 7 th largest one (80 km away) and it stops virtually in the country and you have to bus it the rest of the way.

now that's "strange"