Augusta Lower Road

[gokeefe]

Chalk up another one for the railroad bridge in Augusta.

Tractor-trailer gets stuck underneath Augusta train trestle - Traffic on Water Street was tied up Tuesday morning after an accident involving a tractor-trailer, according to police.

[MEC407]

The Can Opener strikes again!

On Warren Ave in Portland, there is a Turnpike bridge over the road that has suffered a few truck strikes over the years. A few years ago electronic height sensors were installed on either side of the bridge, and when an over-height vehicle passes the sensors, flashing lights are activated to alert the truck driver to stop before he/she has a chance to hit the bridge. Sounds like a similar setup is needed in Augusta, especially since the Augusta bridge has an even lower clearance and has been hit much more frequently.

[gokeefe]

The Can Opener strikes again!

On Warren Ave in Portland, there is a Turnpike bridge over the road that has suffered a few truck strikes over the years. A few years ago electronic height sensors were installed on either side of the bridge, and when an over-height vehicle passes the sensors, flashing lights are activated to alert the truck driver to stop before he/she has a chance to hit the bridge. Sounds like a similar setup is needed in Augusta, especially since the Augusta bridge has been hit much more frequently.

There is something very similar on the Turnpike in Augusta for vehicles traveling southbound. It directs overheight vehicles to take exit 103.

I agree that something similar should be installed in Augusta. This kind of an accident has the potential to be fatal to bystanders or other vehicles.

[690]

Considering how many warning signs there are already, they'd probably just ignore flashing lights too.

[BostonUrbEx]

Considering how many warning signs there are already, they'd probably just ignore flashing lights too.

Put a standard traffic signal. If an over-height vehicle is approaching, it cycles to a red light. Then the light doesn't change to green until the truck leaves, so hopefully by then someone would tell the driver what's up or maybe something would trigger a police notification and response.

There's infinity possibilities.

One thing I have to ask though is why not remove it until service is actually running. Is it even safe for movement in its current condition? Probably needs a replacement after all these years. Also plan on dropping the roadbed down a few feet. Just tuck it in to a long-range plan.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

One thing I have to ask though is why not remove it until service is actually running. Is it even safe for movement in its current condition? Probably needs a replacement after all these years. Also plan on dropping the roadbed down a few feet. Just tuck it in to a long-range plan.

Because it's not the DOT's mission statement to bend over backwards in service of the shortest attention spans of the dumbest drivers too lazy to heed a bright honking yellow warning sign or check the clearance restrictions on their delivery route like they're required to by law. The bridge didn't ruin the truck; the truck driver did something illegal. 12'10" isn't low enough to restrict many types of traffic; it's merely too short for big rigs. If the city doesn't feel like they have nearly enough big rig traffic on that road they're free to petition the state to fix it so they can get lots more big rig traffic on that road. But I somewhat doubt anybody is willing to make that argument. because...you know...way more trucks. So failing that they may want to try socking these trucking companies in the pocket book a little more forcefully for either hiring complete numbskulls or encouraging them to cut so many corners the law gets repeatedly broken.


Sheet-metal Darwin is a feature, not a bug.

[gokeefe]

The other part in all this is that Water Street is simply no place for a 53' trailer. They have absolutely no need to transit there. Worst case they can deliver on Water Street and then backup or take the loop back to Bridge Street. I've seen it done.

[Mikejf]

Also, they are relying on GPS now, and naturally have it set on shortest route, or however that works. I like the paper maps myself. Get a picture in your head.

[MEC407]

One thing I have to ask though is why not remove it until service is actually running. Is it even safe for movement in its current condition? Probably needs a replacement after all these years.

Removing a bridge and then putting it back would cost millions. As a Maine taxpayer I think I'd rather find a way to make truckers obey the law, rather than spend millions so they don't have to.

"Probably needs a replacement..." based on what? It looks to be in better shape than most of the bridges on the Downeaster route.

[doublestack]

Any semi-driver that isn't aware of the height of his rig at all times doesn't belong on the road, ever. Also, the length of his trailer, cargo and gross weight are to be acknowledged every trip out by the driver. The 53' trailers are usually 13'6" in height, but also some 40' containers/ dry van trailers will also run 13'6" ,but mostly 12'6" on average. No experienced truck driver would ever second-guess a low bridge.

[BostonUrbEx]

"Probably needs a replacement..." based on what? It looks to be in better shape than most of the bridges on the Downeaster route.

I'm not saying pull the bridge and ask questions later... I'm saying find out if the bridge is suitable for movement and if not, then pull it.

It has been used in years and as I understand it was already down to a low speed when it was last used. I doubt any maintenance has gone into it since then.


If we're going to say truckers should obey the existing conditions, then why are others proposing more signage and flashing lights and other money/energy consuming ideas? The legally necessary warnings are already in place. No need to anything at all, I guess. I'm just proposing a solution to a complaint. I don't really care if they pull the bridge or not so long as it isn't a hurdle to future service.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

"Probably needs a replacement..." based on what? It looks to be in better shape than most of the bridges on the Downeaster route.

I'm not saying pull the bridge and ask questions later... I'm saying find out if the bridge is suitable for movement and if not, then pull it.

It has been used in years and as I understand it was already down to a low speed when it was last used. I doubt any maintenance has gone into it since then.


If we're going to say truckers should obey the existing conditions, then why are others proposing more signage and flashing lights and other money/energy consuming ideas? The legally necessary warnings are already in place. No need to anything at all, I guess. I'm just proposing a solution to a complaint. I don't really care if they pull the bridge or not so long as it isn't a hurdle to future service.

Well. it does cost the town money to have to clean up a shredded tincan off the road and have cops direct detours every time this happens. So it's not a zero-cost deal. And some low-clearance RR bridges are really, really low and do restrict mobility around town to the point where it pinches economic activity.

This just doesn't happen to be one of them. Nearly everything EXCEPT a big rig will fit under a 12'10" road bridge. And...jeez, what are they doing there to begin with? Route 27 is 1 block west and 2 blocks around, there's 2 river bridge and 2 exits off I-95 within a mile going to either side of the bridge. And there's a big rote MUTCD-standard "12'10" sign hanging right there on the mast arm of the traffic light at Bridge St. 500 ft. away while you are staring with pitch-perfect sightlines at the bridge with its TWO standard low-clearance warning signs. I mean...how could anyone be so dumb? It's not even the most obvious north-south street route across downtown...27 is.



This is just like the infamous Medford Street bridge in Malden, MA on the Western Route and Orange Line. Shredded tractor-trailer twice a year every year, and of all the cross streets to choose it's no higher than #3 on "most intuitive street to pick to get in the direction where the truck needs to go." And yet, like flies to a bug zapper. . .

[kilroy]

[quote=]Put a standard traffic signal. If an over-height vehicle is approaching, it cycles to a red light. Then the light doesn't change to green until the truck leaves, so hopefully by then someone would tell the driver what's up or maybe something would trigger a police notification and response.[/quote]

Oh, that will really help traffic flow on the street.

My neighbor is a trucker. Believe me, this would never happen to him. He knows his heights and weights.

The simple fact is some people are stupid and not qualified for what they do. Blame the maximize profit mentality.

[MEC407]

...as I understand it was already down to a low speed when it was last used. I doubt any maintenance has gone into it since then.

That was true of every bridge on PAR's mainline before the Downeaster rehab. Doesn't mean they had to be replaced; they just needed repairs, mostly minor, to be brought back up to speed. I imagine that's also the case with this bridge. Removing it and then putting it back would cost much more than rehabbing it. Plus, if it was removed and then put back, the truck problem would start right back up again, and would be even more disruptive than it is now because rail traffic would have to be halted after every bridge strike in order for the requisite inspections to be done.

If we're going to say truckers should obey the existing conditions, then why are others proposing more signage and flashing lights and other money/energy consuming ideas?

"Energy consuming" probably wouldn't be an issue. Every one of these warning systems I've seen lately has been solar powered. The present situation is already money consuming, for the reasons F-Line stated.

[ericofmaine]

"Energy consuming" probably wouldn't be an issue. Every one of these warning systems I've seen lately has been solar powered. The present situation is already money consuming, for the reasons F-Line stated.

Actually MEC, except for some of the remote beacons, all of the installs on the Turnpike and the two MDOT installed in Bangor and Brunswick are all fed AC power from CMP. You also couldn't put in a signal there as there is no way it would ever meet a warrant and the DOT would never allow it.

Eric