why wasn't the road simply lowered by 2'4"?
wouldn't that have been cheaper and safer?
(, Mon 9 Nov 2020, 4:24, Reply)
I don't think so.
It'd be a huge job, because even assuming that there're no pipes or anything under the road to accommodate, you'd have to manage the gradient on both sides, and redesign the intersecting roads. It'd take weeks, during which time traffic would have to go somewhere else.
Raising the railway isn't a small thing, but in comparison, it's likely to be much more straightforward. Disruptive, yes; but not nearly as disruptive, and much simpler by comparison.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 9 Nov 2020, 9:58,
Reply)
Also by excavating that much material, you're probably going to be undermining the foundations of the bridge.
Raising the bridge will have been fearsomely expensive, so someone somewhere will have done the cost/benefit analysis on all the options before that was chosen as the best one. Or they could listen to some random internet person asking "well why don't they just..."
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Mon 9 Nov 2020, 10:10,
Reply)
I'm sure you're right. I'm no civil engineer,
but it still seems to me that lowering the road would have been the better option
(, Mon 9 Nov 2020, 11:31, Reply)
Sadly I know about this bridge and..
.. they can't raise it any more than they just have, plus they can't dig down as there's pipes or something underneath.
(, Mon 9 Nov 2020, 11:27, Reply)
Cheaper for Penske lorry hire to get shorter vehicles.
(
FeralCatMan Long ads need comments sections, Mon 9 Nov 2020, 13:19,
Reply)
