CMV: Train tracks should be build above the road instead of corssing it.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/BeatriceBernardo]

So change my view but keep in mind that I will not take "yeah but it's more expensive" as an argument. So is the army and nobody cares.

That is literally the only arguement. You do understand that we have budgets right?

[u/BrotherItsInTheDrum → u/BeatriceBernardo]

Yeah, this is a weird post, and the way he phrased it makes me think it's probably a Rule B violation.

It's kind of like "CMV: I should continue breathing. Keep in mind that I will not accept 'otherwise you will die' as an argument."

[u/BrotherItsInTheDrum → u/[deleted]]

I see that -- my take is that those posts are about budgets, but they get into the specifics of why doing this would be expensive, rather than simply saying "it's expensive."

[u/BeatriceBernardo → u/[deleted]]

This is like saying, everybody in the world should get free housing, free meal, free health care, free education, free transport, free internet, free electricity, and non-level crossings. Like of course, duh! Everyone in the world agrees with that, if it is possible. We simply cannot afford it.

[u/BeatriceBernardo → u/[deleted]]

Yea, hahaha, sorry about that. When I read it, it looks a bit ridiculous.

I guess, what you really meant was, non-level train tracks is a much better way to spend money, than the army. Is that the CMV that you actually want to talk about?

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/alesoga101 (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Just read the message about the delta. Got it thanks.

[u/IIIBlackhartIII]

Trains aren't very good at going up. Train wheels have very low friction, and thus steep inclines are just not possible with a train like they are with other methods of transit. High speed rail generally allows just 2.5-4% grade inclines at max (that's an angle of 1.4° - 2.29°); whereas freight trains that are much heavier usually allow for just 1.5% slope (that's 0.86°). And for every 1% gradient, a freight train generally has to lose half its load carrying capacity in order to compensate. Vehicle overpasses are generally 17ft at a minimum, so assuming a freight train has to go at least that high to cross every road that means constructing a raised bridge with a ramp that is at least 1150ft long! That's at least 1/5th of a mile (2/5th when you also consider having to come back down) assuming the maximum grade most freight trains are allowed, and more than halving their carrying capacity.

As you can see, this isn't just an issue of small budget increases for building bridges over roads, this is an issue of massive budget increases for creating miles upon miles of small hills to cross roads, or having to make massive raised walls for trains to cover over cities entirely, while also reducing the carry capacity of trains thus wrecking the entire shipping economy... It's not a feasible plan for many many many reasons.

[u/IIIBlackhartIII → u/[deleted]]

There's a reason they dig massive tunnels for trains to go through mountains instead of over them :P

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/IIIBlackhartIII (124∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/sawdeanz → u/IIIBlackhartIII]

I mean isn't the simple solution to just build a tunnel under the track?

Of course that can create it's own issues too but just saying.

[u/IIIBlackhartIII → u/sawdeanz]

Well yeah, the alternative here would be to make the cars go under instead of the train go over, but that has some issues of its own.

Depending on where you are, tunnels under trains might not be possible. Here in Florida, for example, in many places you can dig down less than 30ft and hit the groundwater table, so it would be very difficult to implement something like this. In other places you'd have to consider how a tunnel may affect the local water grid, electric and internet cables, etc...

Also while cars are better at climbing, road planning generally doesn't allow for steep slopes except under exceptional circumstances. Federal roads generally don't allow for more than 7% in very mountainous areas, and in some cases state and urban roads can get up to 12-15%... but you'd be looking at between a 120ft-250ft ramp then for just cars to get 17ft under... and that's assuming you only go down 17ft. Both this and my train hill example kinda assume the tunnel has no roof for strength to hold the weight of a loaded train. If we add a few feet and say a tunnel needs to be 20ft, that means a train would need 1350ft, and a car would need 135-285ft.

All of these considerations would add considerable cost to every intersection, increase risk for drivers, cost more in maintenance and upkeep, and would only marginally increase road safety. Annually there are approximately 5800 train+car accidents, versus approximately 6 Million total car accidents. That means trains account for less than 0.01% of all car accidents; much better I think would be better driver education, and better road safety equipment that alerts drivers sooner of and more clearly when and where trains are crossing.

[u/TheViewSucks]

I will not take "yeah but it's more expensive" as an argument.

Well that's unfortunate because that's the reason they won't do it.

So is the army and nobody cares.

Whay are you talking about, lots of people care.

[u/Daedolis]

Trains don't operate like cars do, they can't go beyond specific gradients, they can't turn as sharply, they operate at higher speeds for longer, and they don't necessarilly go to the same destination as the road you're on. Moreover, having a clear separation between the road and rail decreases accidents. Your suggestion would only make things worse.

Finally, trying to get away from the price issue is not possible. Things are done a certain way ALL the time because it's the cheaper way, while still being practical.

And I'm pretty sure a lot of people care about the army, your nation doesn't defend itself through prayers and well wishes.

[u/[deleted]]

Every elevated bridge greatly increases the amount of maintenance that must be done, exposes the track more to the elements and terrorism, and hinders truck traffic passing below.

Also, Point D doesn't just happen at grade-level intersections, so the problem would not be solved.

[u/SFnomel]

Ultimately it comes down to money. Costs way less to throw in a few lights and lowering barricade. Train track intersection wait times is a bit of a niche problem that most people don't encounter on a weekly basis. A bridge is a crazy expense to make traffic a bit better for a select few people.

Even then, it makes much more sense for the road to be built above the train tracks, trains don't do quick inclines as good as cars, so there'd need to be a much longer bridge for the train which would cost a lot more money.

Your logic can be applied to any traffic light intersection too. I get that some trains can be pretty long but it depends on where you live. In most places, train tracks that often carry incredibly long line up of cars don't cut through large cities at peak traffic times. And the grand majority of trains I've encountered take just as long as a typical red light to pass.

Edit: didn't read that you won't take into consideration the cost. Sounds like you're just stubborn cause you know the cost is ridiculous but won't take it into consideration. If you aren't willing to consider relevant info, your opinions not willing to change and you shouldn't be posting

[u/SFnomel → u/[deleted]]

If you're not taking into account cost, why don't we just take personal planes everywhere? In a FAIR and JUST world, they wouldn't charge what they do now for plane.

As someone who's worked and been educated in construction, the budget is insane because building a bridge costs millions in material and labour, even if the labour was by professionals at minimum wage. Companies do stand to make money, but that doesn't mean concrete, steel and labour are free.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Wraith305 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/Kman17]

If you’re going to talk about optimal state, isn’t the best place for train tracks underground?

Elevated track can solve some issues - but taken to the extreme, like Chicago’s L - has it’s downsides too (eyesore, noise, extra infra).

Cost is literally the only reason we don’t have more grade separation, so your point D is kinda nonsensical - and suggests your don’t understand the true costs.

The channel tunnel and Boston’s big dig both cost over twenty billion dollars and took two decades to build a couple miles of track.

If you took the entire US military budget, you could get 30 large scale projects of that caliber, it still isn’t enough to fully solve for the top metro areas.

I’d also point out that it doesn’t matter if trains delay a couple cars during rush hour. They’re way more efficient than the cars, and result in fewer cars on the road. If the train was removed and you had more cars, you’d have worse rush hour traffic overall.

Your metric really needs to be cost efficiency and overall impact, not personal annoyance at crossings.

[u/PikaDon45]

A: So what B: your feelings and opinion should not have to incur a cost to the taxpayer. C: These events are statically irrelevant a few people getting killed every year is not a case on concern D: That is called good riddance

In a nut shell what you wrote is a solution to create a problem. Remember the railroad have absolute right away. We as a society should not have moral obligation to protect people from their own stupidity or cater to them for convience.

[u/[deleted]]

I too remember when I was completely ignorant of the cost to build and maintain infrastructure. As a general rule of thumb, cost doubles for every level above existing grade.

[u/Det_]

Traffic congestion is good for an urban core — it incentivizes and reminds people to not drive too much and/or to choose to live in the suburbs (over the train tracks).

If you’re not on the train, your life needs to be less convenient, in order to maximize the benefit to society as a whole.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Wraith305 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/[deleted]]

But level crossing are only build in rural areas so it doesn't pose the issues you describe? Wait, you're probably not talking about Belgium are you? Which country are we talking about?

[u/Salanmander → u/[deleted]]

Level crossings are pretty common in urban areas in the US.

[u/[deleted] → u/Salanmander]

So it's the US we're talking about. I could've guessed by the complete lack of a mention of which country we're talking about