By adamg on Thu., 4/14/2016 - 10:01 am
Josh Wardell watched in amazement this morning as the warning lights came on where the train tracks cross Main Street in Cambridge and drivers said "screw that" and just kept on going.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Why aren't there gates?
By ShamusJP
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:06am
Why aren't there gates?
Ah yes thats what we need,
By J
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:09am
Ah yes thats what we need, another million dollar subsidy for drivers
Yeah because
By ChrisInEastie
Fri, 04/15/2016 - 10:40am
pedestrians and bikers never ignore signs or their own respective laws, and gates wouldn't benefit them at all. And it's not like passengers on the train could be injured if there were an accident or anything.
You'd think someone who apparently sees with no perspective would be all for safety gates.
They make gates for sidewalks
By PB
Fri, 04/15/2016 - 12:31pm
They make gates for sidewalks too. They're just little. And you can't exactly bike through a gate either.
The three pedestrian-only crossings on this line all have gates
By Ron Newman
Fri, 04/15/2016 - 1:13pm
They are near the MIT Cyclotron, Pacific Street, and Fort Washington Park.
Exactly
By ChrisInEastie
Fri, 04/15/2016 - 1:36pm
Some people just have to make it a "cars only" issue so they can ensue we all know they don't like them. Maybe my snark didn't translate well in my initial response.
Not needed with slow trains
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:47am
At that location trains are moving so slowly that gates don't really increase anyone's safety. At that speed a train can stop if a car pulls in front of it.
ummm.... Physics?
By Rob
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:46am
ummm.... Physics?
Really.
Momentum: mass, velocity... V may be very low, but M is very high.
It still takes a bit of distance to brake down to a stop.
Also physics
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:35pm
Don't forget all that M holds the wheels pretty tight against the track, providing plenty of braking friction. The trains go through there at a walking pace.
Ayup
By Kaz
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 4:55pm
Yeah...because drivers do stupid shit like that last one that stopped on the tracks because there wasn't even room on the other side to cut in front of the train but they went anyways.
If there were gates and drivers had to wait or do something insane like zig-zag through the gates, then they'd wait and the train could cross at a decent clip.
It's a chicken-and-egg
By anon
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 5:51pm
It's a chicken-and-egg problem.
It's not like trains were blasting through there at 60 mph but car drivers were stupid and ignored the trains and got hit every day so the trains started stopping.
However much distance it
By anon
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:38pm
However much distance it takes, all trains *do* stop at the crossing. Including the one in the video.
Yes - a planned stop, before
By Rob
Fri, 04/15/2016 - 4:41am
Yes - a planned stop, before the crossing, no cars/peds/bikes in the train's path.
We're talking about the need for an unplanned, emergency stop.
We're talking about whether
By anon
Fri, 04/15/2016 - 11:53am
We're talking about whether gates are necessary to make sure cars stop long before trains get there (because the trains are moving too fast to stop for cars), or whether trains are going slowly enough that they can stop and wait for a gap in traffic. The latter is the case.
A bit of distance is right.
By J
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 4:12pm
A bit of distance is right. Look at the video, the train stops
A freight train w forward
By Section77
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:27pm
A freight train w forward momentum doesn't stop on a dime like your Hyundai.
Even with slow trains,
By mplo
Fri, 04/15/2016 - 7:49pm
it's still foolish for people in their cars to drive across the tracks right in front of the trains when they're that close to them.
That's a good question, ShamusJP!
By mplo
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:38am
I mean really.....How stupid can people get? There probably should be gates at the railroad crossings, in street intersections.
FRA Regs
By KBHer
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:48am
Grade crossings with active deterrents like gates are regulated by Mass and FRA law that mandates a lag time between gate closure and the transit of a locomotive through the intersection. However, it's at the railroad and host community's discretion as to how to administer a particular crossing - in this case, the MBTA and Cambridge have an agreement that limits track speed, but avoid the lag time on the gates and they're permitted by Mass law to do so, as long as they give (I think it's three, but cities can alter the protocol for specific intersections) whistle blows upon approaching a grade-crossing.
Cambridge doesn't want to lock-up three of the major urban arteries, two of which in quick succession, during heavier traffic periods. That's why the grade crossings are kept un-gated. And, frankly, that system should work fine if people weren't so goddamn impatient to move 10 feet forward in traffic that they block an active line.
Again, it's an issue of enforcement - gates are expensive to maintain, as are many traffic control devices and unnecessary congestion causes brings both economic and social detriments; instead of lumping on a new signal, we could have the same outcome if there was a traffic officer posted nearby dishing out tickets (though in this case, I'm not sure the cars were actually committin a fine-able offense). At some point, it becomes the city's fault for not enforcing it's own traffic laws.
FRA rules state (and working
By octr202
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:56am
FRA rules state (and working from memory) that the crossing protection needs to be active for at least 20 seconds before the train enters the roadway, unless flagged by a crew member who has stopped traffic (which will likely take more than 20 seconds - drivers are happy to ignore the poor crew member walking into traffic, too.). Considering that this is a low-volume line, putting gates on crossings that are considered a lower maintenance priority is just asking for blocked streets. Grade crossing circuits have a lot of potential to fail and require a lot of maintenance - it's less time Keolis crews have to spend responding to problems on a non-revenue branch line.
(As far at the horn signals, they're required to do the standard long-long-short-long horn sequence as any grade crossing. Probably apt to mess it up or stretch it out here due to the engineer and conductor watching so many conflicting movements coming at them.)
20 seconds is way too long!
By Refugee
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:53pm
20 seconds is way too long! If the mandatory delay is too long, towns like Cambridge will not want to deal with a gate, and in other places people will be tempted to drive around the gate, because they know they have plenty of time. That 20 second rule probably causes more damage than it prevents. Unintended consequences.
On top of that if you see one or two cars blow through the flashing lights, then it's fair to blame the drivers. But when you see [i]a lot[/i] of people roll through, then the blame shifts to the design of the intersection.
The crossings *do* have
By anon
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:40pm
The crossings *do* have protection -- flashing lights. They just don't have the accompanying gates (except the one at Cambridge Street).
Cambridge Street crossing
By Ron Newman
Fri, 04/15/2016 - 2:10pm
Not only does it have gates, it also has the flashing lights overhead where you can't possibly miss them, rather than off to the side partly obscured by trees and parked cars.
As far at the horn signals,
By Rob
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 2:04pm
Except if they're in a suburb that gets the rules changed, like on parts of the Greenbush Line. After all, why should anyone need to hear railroad-type sounds next to an actual railroad track?
Well....
By octr202
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 3:06pm
...that's in most of the area. For example, the entire Haverhill Line (except Lawrence, naturally) is a quiet zone. Fortunately in a lot of cases the towns themselves are now having to pay for the added work (usually lane dividers) to allow the quiet zones to stay in place.
Gates
By BlackKat
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 4:23pm
If there were gates the Cambridge police would need to come by and arrest them.
Well then...if they feel that gates are too expensive, or won't
By mplo
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:59am
really work, then tougher enforcement of traffic laws, including going through a flashing railroad train/track light, should be implemented.
On this I agree...
By octr202
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 12:28pm
...don't know how often Cambridge does railroad crossing enforcement, but MBTA police could also do it since it's their railroad. I suspect one major reason is just lack of coordination. Due to the infrequent nature of these trains, they would need to plan in advance. I suspect it's sadly not a high priority.
The Grand Junction only
By anon
Fri, 04/15/2016 - 10:43am
The Grand Junction only became MassDOT property 4 years ago, so all of the crossing protection is leftover from when CSX and Conrail owned (and negligently maintained) the line. The fact that there are no gates has nothing to do with City of Cambridge; City of Cambridge has no veto power over that. The reason the crossings are un-gated is simply that the equipment is older than dirt. Recently they've had to implement stop-and-protect rules forcing the trains to slow to near-stop and lay on the horn because that older-than-dirt crossing equipment has started malfunctioning and failing to pick up the train in time.
MassDOT's purchase of the line came with a to-do list of required repairs: crossings, track/ties, and BU Bridge rehab. But they're in no rush to fund and schedule all of it because the line is bottom-priority, so they're just tackling it in little bits when they have spare time. They did the BU Bridge rehab a couple years ago. Eventually they'll redo the crossings and give Mass Ave., Main, Broadway, and Binney full gate installations just like Medford St., Cambridge St., and the Ft. Washington Park pedestrian crossing. And eventually they'll repair the shot trackbed through MIT so the freight trains don't make the whole neighborhood vibrate every afternoon and can do 20 MPH instead of 5 MPH. But none of it is anyone's idea of urgent work.
Ultimately doesn't matter. The idiot drivers will surely try to daredevil their way around gated crossings too. Just sit by the Medford St. crossing while the gates are down and watch the Darwin Award contenders do their thing all the same.
RE: veto power
By KBHer
Fri, 04/15/2016 - 3:18pm
Cambridge can petition MassDOT and, assuming an agreement, can petition the State for variances on those crossings, correct? That's all I was trying to convey - general lack of desire for gates on the City's part contributing the low priority on MassDOT's to-do list.
Seriously? Gates? The
By Macka
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:49am
Seriously? Gates? The lights, and bells, and the hundreds of tons of machinery potentially crushing you into oblivion aren't enough?
I would have plowed into the
By J
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:08am
I would have plowed into the last car to teach them a lesson
They arrest people who walk
By Kinopio
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:35am
They arrest people who walk onto subway tracks for trespassing. Arrest these idiots as well, especially the ones that drive onto the tracks of the green line. Its crazy how often the terrible drivers around here hold up public transportation and they always get away with it.
The easy way to deal with
By leviramsey
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 4:35pm
The easy way to deal with this is to give the railroad the unconditional right to take title to any motor vehicle preventing a train (including trolleys) from moving, with railroad police having the right to immediately take possession of the car. Failure to deliver a clear title to the vehicle within 30 days (meaning paying off any loans secured by the vehicle, arranging for the lessor of the vehicle to transfer title to the railroad, or purchasing the vehicle so that title may be transferred) shall be considered prima facie evidence of car theft.
Consequences for driving like a shithead?
By Michael
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:44am
This is Massachusetts, buster! Go back to someplace where they have consequences for driving like a shithead with that talk!
And purposefully maimed and
By Rob Not Verified
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:58am
And purposefully maimed and likely killed someone? Great call.
Better yet
By Lecil
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:18pm
The train had slowed to a crawl. It could have very slowly and dramatically ppeeeeeeeeeeelllleeeeeedddd the back bumper off that last car. The driver would have had the lesson of some serious car body and dry cleaning expenses. And this video would have a very satisfying coda.
The lawyers...
By octr202
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 4:34pm
...take all the fun out of that. Poor train crew would spend the next three days in interviews and filling out forms and such.
Dumb Ways to Die
By Saul
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:09am
[youtube]IJNR2EpS0jw[/youtube]
Thank you!
By Rob G
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:49pm
That video just made my day.
Happens All The Time
By Darryl
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:31am
I work next to the tracks on Broadway and these trains come through 3-5 times a day. No one pays attention to them. I think most people think they are freight trains coming through, but usually it's a loco and 3 cars. Not worth rushing over the tracks for.
Ditto
By johnmcboston
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 12:13pm
I see it all the time as well.
At that same intersection I saw similar action to this video - but worse. The car on the tracks finally noticed the train and pulled ahead. Then the guy behind him then pulled forward INTO the tracks. Then, of course, was shocked to see a train a foot away form his passenger drivers side door.
Where the crossing light on?
By BostonDog
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:33am
There's no crossing bell audible in the video, only the bell from the train. Where the warning lights at the intersection even working?
Like Boston drivers pay
By Kinopio
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:36am
Like Boston drivers pay attention to traffic lights.
This was Cambridge not Boston
By anon
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:39am
This was Cambridge not Boston. Furthermore, it's a valid question.
Boston drivers
By adamg
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:45am
I think it's safe to say that when somebody mentions "Boston drivers" they are referring to people who are from roughly, oh, the area inside 128, just like people who speak "Boston English" may not actually get a chance to vote for or against Marty Walsh.
As someone who lives in
By anon
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 12:44pm
As someone who lives in Boston and has worked in both Cambridge and Boston, there is a huge difference between the two cities. Equating them as one and the same basically shows that you live in neither. Not saying you specifically, Adam -- my comment is aimed at the commenter who didn't bother to read even the most basic point of information about your post.
Quiet you!
By ElizaLeila
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:08pm
Axes are being ground.
Just for the record
By Michael
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:45pm
Which city do you think has worse drivers?
As a pedestrian, I'd say
By anon
Thu, 04/14/2016 - 2:44pm
As a pedestrian, I'd say drivers behave worse in Boston -- perhaps because of the street design and quicker pace. As a driver, I loathe driving in Cambridge mainly due to pedestrians in Central and Harvard Sq., where I more frequently drive; it's like a free for all with people crossing the street whenever and wherever without looking. Either way I would love to see cops enforcing the rules of the road for drivers -- stopping for red lights and stop signs seems to be treated as merely a suggestion.
Pages
Add comment