6 ms·
I'd really like there to be a study on the secondary impact of long trains. They cut entire towns in half for sometimes 30+ minutes at a time. In Portland, OR,
by mind-blight 2y ago
I'd really like there to be a study on the secondary impact of long trains. They cut entire towns in half for sometimes 30+ minutes at a time. In Portland, OR, extremely long trains would cut of entire sections of the city, and that's assuming they didn't have to stop for some reason.
It makes it really hard for emergency services to get to where the need to be. At least a couple of times a day, a train would cut Naito in half (the main road running on the west side of the river). The fire station was on one side, and a ton of apartment buildings were on the other. If a fire starts at the wrong time, it'll take 30 extra minutes to get there. Ditto for ambulances. Not to mention all of the impact on congestion in the city, which has tertiary effects on emergency services
- mananaysiempre 2y agoWait, there are no bridges over or tunnels under the rail tracks in a big city? What kind of twisted planning is this?
- michaelt 2y agoPresumably, planning that took place 100 years ago when a train would pass by in 60 seconds or so. Once you've built the rails, built the roads, sold off the land nearby and constructed buildings, adding a bridge later can be difficult. If your bridge is 22 feet high, and the approach ramps have a 6% slope, each approach ramp will be 360 feet long.
- mind-blight 2y agoThere is a pedestrian bridge, but the nearest for vehicles is a couple of miles away. There are 3 roads connecting these two parts of the city, but I've had a train cut off all 3, then stop. It must have been there for around an hour. There are often alternatives, but they add 10-30 minutes depending on where you're at. That's really bad in an emergency situation