• River Rd bridge gone

  • Discussion about the M&E, RVRR and SIRR lines of New Jersey, and also the Maine Eastern operation in Maine. Official web site can be found here: www.merail.com.
Discussion about the M&E, RVRR and SIRR lines of New Jersey, and also the Maine Eastern operation in Maine. Official web site can be found here: www.merail.com.

Moderators: GOLDEN-ARM, mikec, cjl330

  by Lackawanna484
 
cjvrr wrote:I was over in that area today and took a detour to see the work. From the point where River Road I could see that about half of the western abutment had been removed. The eastern abutment was still in place.

That was around 11am this morning.

Chris
------------------------------

They must be moving quickly. Both abutments were in place at 630 this morning, although the RRConst crews were already setting up.

I'm guessing they will add at least three feet to the clearance, but East Hanover has always been touchy about truck traffic on that residential road (it's a connector between NJ 10 and roads leading to I-280).

They've had some impressive jams underneath that bridge over the years. Lots of dents in the steelwork


Paul

  by 7 Train
 
There is another sweetner company (flavoring manufactuer) just located west of Royal Lube. Givaudan is located on Merry Lane.

As for B&G, its headquarters are in Parsippany, with its plant in Roseland.

http://www.bgfoods.com

  by njt4172
 
Does anyone know if the FL-9 is currently sitting on the west end of the Vornado Spur???

Thanks,
Steve

  by Greg
 
I spoke with a few members of the M&E MOW crew when they stopped in again. They said there are no plans to raise the height of the trestle. I forgot to ask about any palnned widening of the roadway so I can't report any comments in reference to that. I guess it might be possible for them to be wrong about this since RR Construction is actually doing the work so it can't hurt to continue to monitor the progress.

  by 7 Train
 
That is not a good idea. The current 11'-0'' clearance restricts 13'-6'' truck-trailers from through traffic on River Road. The new bridge would only be struck again. Trucks use the road to access the industrial site on Merry Lane. Maybe a grade crossing should be built instead.

  by Tri-State Tom
 
They gotta be wrong Greg.

All this work to remove the old and install the new with only widening and not raising doesn't make sense.

Raising that bridge a mere 3 feet ( to a 14 foot ground clearance ) should pose only a relatively modest effort to gradually raise the ROW on each end.

  by Greg
 
Tom,

I thought so too, but I asked several times and they continued to say that the height would not be increased. What really made it hard to believe is when I drove by and the top of the east abutment was lying on the side of the ROW. I can only go by what they told me but as a side note I know the E. Hanover town council/planning board has been opposed to raising the height of the trestle. They are concerned about River Road becoming a through route for trucks and would rather have them approach Merry Lane from Eagle Rock instead of Route 10.

  by Lackawanna484
 
7 Train wrote:That is not a good idea. The current 11'-0'' clearance restricts 13'-6'' truck-trailers from through traffic on River Road. The new bridge would only be struck again. Trucks use the road to access the industrial site on Merry Lane. Maybe a grade crossing should be built instead.
--------------------

The crews have now excavated a ten foot wide space behind what's left of the western bridge pillar. It looks like they intend to widen the space. No sign of a similar excavation on the eastern side yet.

I did some basic scoping a while back and decided that the terrain doesn't lend itself to a grade crossing right there. The area is very low, which also precludes deepening the roadway, too. I'm assuming any grade crossing would be flat for at least fifty feet on each side of the crossing to prevent bottoming out by longer trucks.

As River Road has homes on both sides, elevating the south approach to 16 feet to track level would mean these homes and the side streets would lose their level access. There are new homes under construction in the southeast quad of the intersection.

On the north side, the presence of a newly approved development in the northeast quad and steep downhill slope replicates the difficulty for a grade crossing.


Paul

  by Tri-State Tom
 
".... as a side note I know the E. Hanover town council/planning board has been opposed to raising the height of the trestle. They are concerned about River Road becoming a through route for trucks and would rather have them approach Merry Lane from Eagle Rock instead of Route 10. "

Well, that I can understand.

Afraid we're still going to hear/see stray 18-wheelers hitting the new span in the future.

  by Lackawanna484
 
No sign of forms or rebar for the replacement abutments yet.

--------------------------

The foundation for a new column on the west side of River Road began Thursday. Concrete foundation about 15 feet west of the current shoulder. The old west abutment is still in, but cut down to about three feet high to provide safety.

The old east abutment is also still in, and grading began yesterday for a new support there. I'm assuming the old abutments will be removed when the construction has been completed. The old crossbeams are stored at the site.

It looks like the roadway will be about 35 to 40 feet wide when the job is completed. The absence of any elevation improvements on the (still severed) railroad suggests no appreciable improvement in vertical clearance.

  by Scrap The U34CH
 
Updates???

  by Greg
 
Scrap,

Drove by on Friday. Absolutely going to be wider, the forms are in on the west side and begun on the east side. Hard to tell about the height though. If the bridge sits ontop of the supports it will be higher, if they are secured in an 'inset'-like the old bridge-they will be about the same height.

  by Pacobell73
 
I can see why they are leaving the trestle at the same height. It discourages the truckers. Makes sense to me. :P

  by Lackawanna484
 
It doesn't appear there's an effort underway to raise the height of the tracks at River Road from the look of the frames.

As of Tuesday morning, the framework and rebar is in for new supports on both the east and west sides of River Road. I'll stay with a new 40 feet wide roadway, and the same 11 foot height.

It would be nice to see some kind of physical warning device on both sides of the bridge. Maybe a pipe framework with blocks of cement hanging down to 11 feet off the ground...

  by cjvrr
 
Lackawanna,

A pre warning device of the low height structure is a good idea similar to the old railroad "Tell Tale" devices. I have the same problem with the low bridge on Berkshire Valley Road in Roxbury. The problem we ran into is the liability for having such a pre-warning device. If a vehicle gets damaged by the tell tale or worse yet the warning device gets pulled down onto the vehicle and damages it, who pays? Although it would be very affective, this type of device over the roadway is NOT listed as a useable device in the Federal or State regulations.

As a result I just sent a proposal to NJDOT to install signs with flashers in advance of that bridge. These flashers will be adjacent to the roadway and will flash 24/7. We are hoping to have them solar powered, but due to tree cover we may need to go with an electical hookup.

Since River Road is not under County jurisdiction I am not sure what, if any pre warning device they plan to install.

Chris