To: Chris Desser
Subject: Bridge Railing Info
I'll update your address. I'm e-mailing the things this time because it is
late. I omitted the graphic page entitled "Alternative Scenic Bridge
Railings for California" because it contains three photos that cause the
file to be very large. You can get a copy from Peter when you get to the
meeting -- or if you have a fast connection, I'd be glad to e-mail it to
The letter to Peter really contains the message that needs to be
gotten across. I want to assure you personally that I know I'm on solid
ground in what I say there. Not only does the Wyoming Rail meet the
AASHTO Standards, but these "standards" are just another example of
Caltrans's assertion of erroneous "facts" to buttress their positions.
The AASHTO Standards cited by Caltrans are actually guides for designing a
rail that will pass the crash tests. Of course, the Wyoming Rail has
passed the crash tests, making the guidelines irrelevant. Further, the
"standards" referenced by Caltrans are completely out of date, over 10
years old, prior to the adoption of the current crash test standards
(Report 350 standards). I could go on.
Please pin Caltrans down and make them
produce substantiation, so it can be refuted.
Thanks for your continuing efforts.
Another time, I will
be asking the Commission to request that Caltrans reconsider the bridge
width. You may recall that the width was driven by the assumption that a
crane would need to be on one of the newly constructed outside sections of
the bridge, forcing the section on the other side to be wide enough for
two-way traffic. The contractor has now made it obvious that Caltrans's
construction assumptions are suspect. Caltrans and the contractor are
jointly reviewing construction methods. They should be asked to determine
the feasibility of using a crane off the bridge. I'm sure that this would
be feasible -- which would then make feasible a significantly narrower