1124 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Again, it's not really deception.  You do not want to stick a 4.0M sign on the first one, only for there to be a 3.7M on the next one 3M feet further down the road.  You make all signage indicate the lowest point in the set of bridges.  It's not like the truck wants to or can go under one, then turn off.

[Bingo]

Again, it's not really deception.  You do not want to stick a 4.0M sign on the first one, only for there to be a 3.7M on the next one 3M feet further down the road. 

You make all signage indicate the lowest point in the set of bridges.  It's not like the truck wants to or can go under one, then turn off.

 

I think you are missing my point and you might have to drive under the bridge heading south to get it.

You cannot tell from the drivers seat that the second bridge is lower, and that the signage on the bridges is incorrect.

I actually got out of my armchair and went to the site, and I thought I might find you there being that you are an experienced rail aficionado.

[VicHockeyFan]

The signs say 3.7M and that is the highest you'd want to be.  I'm not sure why you are calling for any signage that indicates a higher clearance, even if there is one on one bridge.  

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 30 December 2017 - 02:30 PM.

[Bingo]

The signs say 3.7M and that is the highest you'd want to be.  I'm not sure why you are calling for any signage that indicates a higher clearance, even if there is one on one bridge.  

 

I'm calling for the signage to be RIGHT, and it isn't because the truck hit the second bridge after clearing the first bridge only a couple of feet apart.

[VicHockeyFan]

I'm calling for the signage to be RIGHT, and it isn't because the truck hit the second bridge after clearing the first bridge only a couple of feet apart.

 

Let's thing this through, Bingo.

 

If you put the "right" signage on the higher bridge, a driver will see that first, and perhaps think that's the height of the twin set.  You can not thrown a lower height at him 3m further down the road.

[Rob Randall]

I think you are missing my point 

 

Yes, we are all missing your point. What possible reason could there be to have two heights?

[Bingo]

Yes, we are all missing your point. What possible reason could there be to have two heights?

 

There is no reason to have two heights shown on the bridge other than the fact that one of the heights indicated is wrong.

 

We must guarantee that when the Johnson Street Bridge is raised the clearance for vessels will remain consistent and as advertised, not some lesser clearance just because the bridge operator is having a bad day. 

[Rob Randall]

^So you are alleging that one of the bridges is actually lower than the 3.7 m advertised? Looks like we need to see the tale of the tape.

[Bingo]

So you are alleging that one of the bridges is actually lower than the 3.7 m advertised? Looks like we need to see the tale of the tape.

 

The Hereward Road bridge could have as much as 3.9m clearance, as many of the bridge clearances could be more than what is posted.

This leaves more of a safety factor, but could also lead to drivers taking chances if their rig is slightly over the posted clearance.

There is technology such as the GiraffeG4 available for trucks and RV drivers to help take away the guesswork.

 https://giraffeg4.com/

[Rob Randall]

????

[Mike K.]

Regardless of the actual height, a driver must never disobey the signage. Folks who enter parkades with large trucks sometimes chance it even though they smoked the little hanging sign and eventually discover they’re getting a free car wash when they take out a low hanging pipe.

[VicHockeyFan]

^ ^ ^ ????

[Matt R.]

^ Have you never taken out a low hanging pipe?

Matt.

[Bingo]

^ ^ ^ ????

I disagree.

[Mike K.]

^ Have you never taken out a low hanging pipe?

Matt.

No, but I saw it happen! Good times.

[VicHockeyFan]

^ Have you never taken out a low hanging pipe?

Matt.

 

Yes, once.  But she flat out refused a second date.  

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 03 January 2018 - 10:43 PM.

[Bingo]

Denise Savoie: E&N line’s real value is as a trail, not rail

There has been much discussion, argument and debate for many years about continued rail service on the E&N right of way. Meanwhile, the real value of the asset, the continuity of the right of way, is in danger of being lost.

Unless a viable transportation option is agreed upon soon, the right of way will be lost, as many others in this region have been.

We have a choice to make. We can continue to pretend that the romance of rail justifies public expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars for results that, based on past performance and studied potential, can only disappoint. Or we can recognize the benefits that modest investment in the corridor can bring as a multi-use trail.

Doing nothing will result in the loss of the asset that cost us so much.

more; http://www.timescolo...rail-1.23170422

 

[Mike K.]

"...the right of way will be lost, as many others in this region have been."

 

I thought we did a pretty good job of maintaining the Galloping Goose and Lochside ROW's for use by the public, no? Which ROW's is Savoie referring to as having been lost?

[VicHockeyFan]

Ya beats me. Start monetizing all the auxiliary bit now, sell some real estate to build a great trail.

She must mean up-Island or elsewhere.

[Mike K.]

Even the Kinsol bridge trail network is pretty darned good. I can't imagine what she refers to other than perhaps a few spurs long lost to time?