Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure the railroads will push for option 2...they don't want the inconvenience of temp tracks and adjustments to the grading. And we all know the railroads call the shots.
That said, option 2 looks so much more disruptive that I think it's primarily an argument to the railroads of how bad it would be compared to option 1.
Yep, case in point the 55 bridge in Apex. The only reason that's happening is because the State is paying for it pretty much. CSX doesn't care, as it's fine from their point of view.
I'm sure the railroads will push for option 2...they don't want the inconvenience of temp tracks and adjustments to the grading. And we all know the railroads call the shots.
That said, option 2 looks so much more disruptive that I think it's primarily an argument to the railroads of how bad it would be compared to option 1.
Option 1 moves more of Chatham Street out of the RR's right-of-way so I have to imagine they would appreciate that too.
Usually with these preliminary maps they figure on standard sloped embankments with no retaining walls. But with retaining walls facing the RR they should be able to both preserve that building in Chatham Square AND stay outside of the RR right-of-way. Wouldn't even need a wall facing Chatham Square. The Chatham Square building has a floor elevation of about 484' while the railroad is about 498' - that's 16 feet difference. Rail over/road under grade separations need about 20 feet of difference so the final elevation of Chatham and Maynard would be only 4 feet below Chatham Square. That building in Chatham Square would lose some or most of their parking though.
Option 1 moves more of Chatham Street out of the RR's right-of-way so I have to imagine they would appreciate that too.
Usually with these preliminary maps they figure on standard sloped embankments with no retaining walls. But with retaining walls facing the RR they should be able to both preserve that building in Chatham Square AND stay outside of the RR right-of-way. Wouldn't even need a wall facing Chatham Square. The Chatham Square building has a floor elevation of about 484' while the railroad is about 498' - that's 16 feet difference. Rail over/road under grade separations need about 20 feet of difference so the final elevation of Chatham and Maynard would be only 4 feet below Chatham Square. That building in Chatham Square would lose some or most of their parking though.
I believe the minimum clearance over RR tracks is 24 feet, plus the bridge superstructure means the roadway is going to be about 30 feet above. Clearance for roads is ~16' (road bed is ~20' above what's being spanned.)
It's almost always easier to build a road bridge over a railroad, rather than the reverse. One part, of course, is less involvement with the RR company. But the main reason is that moving RR tracks, even for a temporary alignment, is difficult. And changing grades is even tougher. The typical maximum grade for RR tracks is about 2%. So changing either means a long way back from the crossing on either side. For the alignment issue, a new bridge to the side of an old one would be possible (what's been done in other places, such as NC 54 in Durham, or Hopson Road, where the new bridge also led to an improved alignment for the tracks.)
Tunneling is unlikely, one due to the expense, two due to disrupting traffic. (Hey, if you're OK with closing Maynard for two-three years, it can be done!)
I believe the minimum clearance over RR tracks is 24 feet, plus the bridge superstructure means the roadway is going to be about 30 feet above. Clearance for roads is ~16' (road bed is ~20' above what's being spanned.)
It's almost always easier to build a road bridge over a railroad, rather than the reverse. One part, of course, is less involvement with the RR company. But the main reason is that moving RR tracks, even for a temporary alignment, is difficult. And changing grades is even tougher. The typical maximum grade for RR tracks is about 2%. So changing either means a long way back from the crossing on either side. For the alignment issue, a new bridge to the side of an old one would be possible (what's been done in other places, such as NC 54 in Durham, or Hopson Road, where the new bridge also led to an improved alignment for the tracks.)
Tunneling is unlikely, one due to the expense, two due to disrupting traffic. (Hey, if you're OK with closing Maynard for two-three years, it can be done!)
In addition to your examples, they also put the road under the tracks at Morrisville Parkway and it wasn't that expensive/difficult. They are getting ready to do it at Blue Ridge Road as well and there won't even be any improvement in the track geometry. So the tradeoff does sometimes work in constrained urban areas (for which this definitely qualifies.) Shoo-fly tracks are a pretty common thing in railroad construction projects.
The project at Morrisville Parkway was disruptive to the people in Preston Grande, as they had to deal with cut-through traffic. In this case, cut-through traffic would likely move to Trinity Road toward Raleigh and Durham Road toward Cary, both of which are already commercial streets, so although it may cause some backups, the traffic wouldn't be flowing through wealthy peoples' front yards so the amount of noise can expected to be less. Adding traffic signals (which, IMO, are needed anyway) where Durham Road hits Chapel Hill Road and where Trinity Road meets Chatham Street might help deal with the traffic overflow while Maynard is closed or restricted.
I think you are right, that Maynard would have to be lowered 20' to go under the train tracks; and in this case, that is the best fit for the local topography since it would put Maynard and Chatham almost level with the ground floor of the Chatham Square building at the corner.
Does anyone know when the O'Kelly Chapel Rd grade crossing (at parkside town commons) will be finished?
Just drove through the Louis Stephens/Little Road intersection. They are re-striping and adding new arrows today, so I’m guessing it’s not too far off, though no sign of any work on signals which I would expect to be part of the plan, since mast arms have been in place for years.
According to the September update here, signal and track work is all done and all that was needed was paving and final site work. Looks like opening planned for sometime this month.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
O’Kelly Chapel crossing
