Dharma Cloud Foundation
P.O. Box 37
Caspar, CA 95420
Tel:. 707 964-6456
Fax: 707 964-7520 June 21, 1999
Peter Douglas, Executive Director
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Avenue, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Tel: (415) 904-5200
Fax: (415) 904-5400
Dear Mr. Douglas:
I see from the contents of the letter sent to Steven Scholl by Mr. Anziano on June 16,
1999 that we share something in common being attacked by Caltrans for doing our
job. This type of response by Caltrans -- belligerent and antagonistic, rather than
accommodating and cooperative -- exemplifies the attitude that Caltrans has exhibited
toward all sincere efforts to work together to achieve better solutions. I hope that you
will not dismiss it as "a standard practice" of Caltrans to which you have
become inured through repetition, but reflect on how it magnifies the antagonistic quality
of what ideally should be a cooperative process.
This type of belligerent response is at the core of what Im trying to change.
Consider that most citizens have nowhere near the resources that the commission brings to
reviews of Caltrans projects. When the Caltrans treats all efforts to bring about change
as an attack on itself and responds antagonistically, what chance do citizens have to
affect the outcome of a design process that vitally affects their communitys
well-being?
I see the upcoming revocation hearing as an opportunity for the commission to obtain
and expose to public scrutiny much more information about the standard operating
procedures followed by Caltrans in responding to citizen input. I fervently hope that you
will recommend to the commission that it authorize the commission staff to pursue further
investigation, including obtaining answers to the questions for Caltrans that I have
submitted to the commission. The evidence that I provided in my Grounds for Revocation
gives you ample basis for making such a recommendation.
Thank you for referring my call to you on June 18 to Bob Merrill. He explained to me
that you were planning to recommend that the Commission reject my request for revocation.
In view of Caltranss failure to meet the commissions deadline for making a
written response to the contentions raised in my request, I am surprised at this decision.
I understand that Mr. Anziano met with you and gave you various verbal arguments, some of
which Mr. Merrill relayed to me this morning. Without anyone there to rebut his points,
you apparently were influenced by them.
I consider it irregular and improper that Caltrans can give the staff arguments
verbally, rather than in writing as the commission requested. Verbal arguments are not
part of the record. Im thereby put into the position of having to try to answer
something that Caltrans can later claim it never said. This may seem an unwarranted
anxiety on my part, but based on Caltrans performance in this case to date, I believe it
is highly warranted. However, if I dont respond, Mr. Anzianos contentions will
go unanswered. These are not good choices, but given that these are the choices, I prefer
to respond.
To avoid this kind of situation in the future, I request that the commission consider
only evidence presented in writing, or if Caltrans wishes to make an oral presentation to
the staff, that I and/or my lawyer be given the opportunity to attend. I am glad to make
the reciprocal offer.
In the remainder of this letter, I will respond to Mr. Anzianos contentions, as I
understand them based on my conversation with Mr. Merrill. If there are inaccuracies in my
understanding, please let me know and I will modify my responses accordingly.
Mr. Anziano apparently made arguments and assertions in two important areas, each of
which I will consider separately:
- that there were not alternative railings fully approved by the federal government that
Caltrans could have known about sufficiently in advance of the March hearing to have
included them in its presentation, and
- that even had such alternative railings been available and the commission had knowledge
of them, the knowledge would not have "caused the commission to require additional or
different conditions on a permit or deny an application."
Contention: No alternative railings fully-approved by
the federal government were available
Apparently, Mr. Anziano attempted to create doubt that there
were alternative railings that were fully accepted by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) in the fall of 1998, when the controversy arose over the solid concrete railing
initially proposed by Caltrans. Please rest assured that there were many, many such
railings available at that time. Ive requested that Mr. Richard Powers of the FHWA
send me the May 30, 1997 summary listing of railings accepted by the FHWA as meeting
current crash-test standards. I will forward a copy to you for the record as soon as I
have received it. Mr. Powers assures me that the listing contains a large number of
railings.
In my request for revocation, I provided documentation on several railings that had
been issued acceptance letters by the FHWA. I understand that Mr. Anziano asserts that, in
one case the acceptance letter was issued only two days before the permit hearing, making
it unreasonable for me to term this an available approved railing, and in the other cases
that the letters of acceptance were qualified. Let me respond.
NETC railing availability
First, note that with respect to the 2-Bar Curb-Mounted
Railing of the New England Transportation Consortium (NETC), it was accepted by the FHWA
in May, 1997, as noted in the acceptance letter included in Appendix 2 of my Grounds
for Revocation. This 2-bar railing could serve as the traffic railing in the type of
railing system that I proposed as an alternative in my testimony at the permit hearing.
Thus, there is no question about the availability and relevance of this railing.
With respect to the 4-bar railing of the NETC, I explicitly noted in my Grounds for
Revocation that the acceptance letter, which was reproduced therein, was issued on
March 11, 1999; thus I was not trying to hide this fact from the commission. However, as I
also noted:
"
the letter requesting approval [for the NETC railing] was dated January
25, 1998, and crash tests were done in November, 1997; thus information on this railing
would have been provided if Caltrans had inquired of the FHWA in Fall 1998 about railings
that were or might soon be approved.
Because, as I explain later in this letter, the bridge railing would not have had to be
available for installation until the end of 1999, I considered and continue to consider
the NETC railing as a legitimate alternative that should have been presented by Caltrans
to the commission.
After Mr. Merrill told me that Mr. Anziano objected to inclusion of the NETC railing as
an alternative, I checked with Mr. Richard Powers of the FHWA to see why the railing took
more than a year to approve, a delay that might suggest problems with the railing. Upon
further checking, he found that the submission date of January 25, 1998 written in the
acceptance letter was in error. The correct date is January 25, 1999.
This new information led to the following questions: 1) Why did more than a year elapse
between crash tests and the request for acceptance, and 2) would Caltrans have been
informed of this railing if it had inquired of the FHWA in Fall 1998 of railings approved
or about to be approved?
Mr. Powers referred me to Charles McDivitt, a Structural Engineer in the Office of
Safety, Research, and Development of the FHWA. He was the contracting officers
technical reference for the NETC railing crash testing, and he explained the reasons for
the long delay after the crash tests were performed. The essence of his explanation was
that Southwest Research Institute, which performed the tests, was very tardy in preparing
the final report, in part because the chief investigator left the organization and in part
because of technical problems that were time consuming to resolve. There were not problems
with the railing, only with getting the necessary test data prepared for submission to the
FHWA. Obviously, because Mr. McDivitt was closely involved in this process throughout
1998, Caltrans would have been informed about the status of the NETC railing if it had
asked within the FHWA in Fall 1998 of railings approved or about to be approved.
Other referenced railings
I understand that Mr. Anziano asserted or implied that the
other referenced railings were not fully accepted by the FHWA. This is incorrect.
As shown in the letters included in Appendix 2 of my Grounds for Revocation, the
Massachusetts and Wyoming railings referenced were fully accepted.
The letter of acceptance for the Wyoming railing, dated July 1, 1996, expressed a
desire to see some minor design features changed (such as the configuration of the end
plate and the use of a brace bar for shipping), but it did not condition its acceptance on
these changes being made (which in any event could be easily done). It also expressed a
concern that Wyoming use a steel that would not be subject to brittle fracture at
extremely low temperatures obviously not a problem on the coast of northern
California.
I want to emphasize that the TL-3 version of this railing has been in widespread use in
Wyoming for at least 21 years. It is a time-tested design. I emphasize this because this
is the railing type that I would have used in the alternative design I proposed in my
testimony at the commission hearing on the Noyo Bridge permit, had Caltrans provided
information on its availability. However, I relied, as did the commission staff on the
unequivocal, unqualified assertions of Caltrans that no other approved railings were
available; therefore I proposed use of an unspecified "safety barrier."
As we all know now, there were many approved traffic railings that could have been
used. Because this type of railing system (traffic railing combined with pedestrian
railing) is well known within Caltrans, the Caltrans project staff could have told the
commission that this was an acceptable alternative rather than maintaining to the
commission staff, as I document in my Grounds for Revocation, that "the
see-through barrier incorporated in the project is the only one currently
approved."
The other referenced railing, the Massachusetts S3-TL-4 Steel Bridge Railing,
flush-mounted design, was fully accepted for use on sidewalks of any width. This is the
configuration that would be appropriate for the Noyo Bridge. Other discussion in the
acceptance letter referred to testing of a curb-mounted design; but this is not relevant
to the Noyo Bridge.
Summary
No points raised by Mr. Anziano detract in any degree from
the validity of my contention that at the time Caltrans was denying their existence, there
were a number of federally approved railings.
Contention: Knowledge of alternative railings would not
have affected the commissions decision
As I understand Mr. Anzianos argument, even had
Caltrans presented the commission with alternative, federally safety-approved railings, it
would have argued to the commission that incorporating any of these into the Noyo Bridge
would have entailed unacceptable delays. Therefore, even though they may have omitted
information on alternative, federally safety-approved railings, this omission would have
not caused the commission to reach a different decision or impose different conditions.
My understanding is that Mr. Anziano gave the following reasons why the other
alternative railings would have entailed unacceptable delays:
- "significant" time would be needed to assure that the federally approved
railings meet California safety standards, and
- current Caltrans policy is to use only concrete railings because they have lower
maintenance costs than metal railings; so the use of metal see-through railings would
require a change in Caltrans policy which according to Mr. Anziano could not be
done quickly.
Question One: Do California crash-test standards differ from
federal standards?
The first reason given by Mr. Anziano is that federally
approved railings would still require time-consuming additional testing to meet state
safety standards. As I documented in my request for revocation, Eldon Davisson, who is
Chief or the Office of Structural Design, under whom is conducted all bridge design and
state crash testing, told me that California will structurally accept a railing that is
accepted by the FHWA. Before you accept a different position from Caltrans, I would think
you should require a statement from Mr. Davisson contradicting my citation of him. To my
knowledge, Caltrans has not provided you with such a statement, which it could easily have
done by now.
But, even beyond the statement made by Mr. Davisson, I am highly skeptical that
there is any significant difference in federal and state crash-test procedures and
standards because the crash-test procedures required for federal acceptance of a railing
are extremely detailed, complex, and expensive to conduct.
The crash-test procedures required for federal acceptance are specified in NCHRP Report
350. For example, to achieve acceptance by the FHWA as a Test Level 4 (TL-4) railing, the
railing must be subjected to a crash tests for 1) a small sedan, 2) a pickup truck, and 3)
an 18,000 lb. single-unit van truck. Each of these vehicles must meet specified
measurements for center-of-gravity above the ground and distance between wheels. Each of
these vehicles must be crashed into the test railing at a specified angle and rate of
speed. Detailed acceleration, deceleration, and visual data must be recorded.
Given the difficulty and expense of conducting the federal tests, and their very high
standards for safety, I have great difficulty in believing that California conducts
additional, more demanding crash tests. But, whether I am correct or not is easily
resolved by asking Caltrans to provide the commission with copies of its written manuals
specifying safety standards that it applies to bridge railings. You should also ask
Caltrans to identify specific differences between Caltrans standards and the NCHRP Report
350 standards used by the Federal Highway Administration in certifying railing designs.
I want to stress the importance of getting Caltrans to provide copies of its approved
specifications, not simply a general description of its standards. The purpose of this
proceeding is to determine whether the commission can rely upon statements from Caltrans
personnel; therefore it is of the highest importance to require that Caltrans provide
detailed documentation of any claims that it makes.
Question Two: Would Caltrans policy on concrete railings have
precluded the commissions decision from being influenced by knowledge that
alternative, safety-approved railings existed?
The second reason given by Mr. Anziano is that current
Caltrans policy is to standardize on concrete railings and that changing this policy would
take so long that alternative metal railings could not be used on a "time-urgent
seismic-safety" project.
When I first heard this argument, I didnt know whether to laugh or cry -- laugh
because it is so patently ridiculous a reason for ruling out a railing that would preserve
the highly scenic views from the Noyo Bridge, or cry out in frustration because Caltrans
once again is citing its internal requirements as justification for rejecting an
alternative that it can find no substantive reason to reject.
The first point I want to emphasize is that this argument is a perfect example of how
Caltrans has responded whenever Ive refuted one of its "reasons" for
rejecting an alternative. It brings up another "reason," then another reason,
until when all else fails, it cites "Caltrans requirements."
You and the commission should be absolutely clear that during the permit process the only
reason that Caltrans cited for not using a better see-through railing was that there
were no other safety-approved railings. If Caltrans had other substantive reasons why
it couldnt use alternative railings, it would certainly have cited them. But, it
cited no other reason.
Rick Knapp said in a letter to the mayor of Fort Bragg, "At that [September 16,
1998] meeting, Caltrans committed to include a see-through railing design if we could
get an approved, safety-tested design before construction of the project." Note
well the underlined phrase. The only qualification Mr. Knapp made was "an approved,
safety-tested design."
Karen Tatman, Project Manager for the Noyo Bridge, responding to a citizen complaint
about the obliteration of views by the solid concrete railing initially proposed for the
Noyo Bridge, wrote:
A recently tested see-through railing developed by Caltrans passed the required safety
crash tests and is in the approval process with the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA.
We agree that see-through railing should be used at this site and we will include this
railing in our design.
Again, I want you to note that the only cited requirement for use on the project was
passing "the required safety crash tests."
Now that I have shown that there are a number of alternative, superior see-through
railings that have "passed the required safety crash tests," Caltrans is falling
back to its last line of defense: "They dont meet Caltrans requirements."
In this instance, the "requirement" is that the railings must be concrete in
order to minimize maintenance costs.
Given Caltrans very tardy assertion of this tired class of excuse, I would think the
commission staff would attach little weight to it. But, since you appear to be taking it
seriously, you should ask Caltrans some questions whose answers will help to inform the
commission about this supposed insurmountable barrier to metal railings.
The concrete-only railing excuse can be broken down into two parts, both of which must
be true if it is to stand as a reason for rejecting all metal railings: 1) current
Caltrans policy is that only concrete railings are acceptable to it, and 2) changing this
policy would take so long that alternative metal railings could not be used on a
"time-urgent seismic-safety" project. Consider each of these in turn.
Only concrete railings are acceptable to Caltrans
First, it is worth noting that the railing proposed by
Caltrans has a metal top rail and numerous vertical bars in the 11" horizontal
opening. Thus, Caltrans is currently willing to accept "some" metal components
on bridge railings.
Second, the Caltrans Redwood Creek Bridge, which I cited in revocation request, has a
pedestrian railing that is entirely metal. The engineering drawings supplied to me are
dated December 15, 1986 only 2-1/2 years ago. Thus, if Caltrans has a policy
against metal railings, it is less than 2-1/2 years old.
Caltrans should be asked to respond to the following:
- Please provide the written Caltrans regulations that specify acceptable construction
materials for bridge railings.
- Please give the date when the restriction to concrete for bridge railings was mandated?
- Please provide the commission with a list of any bridges that have been designed since
the time that the restriction to concrete for bridge railings was mandated and that
contain metal in the railings.
The requested answers and information will let the commission know exactly what is the
regulation being cited as preventing the use of metal railings, how long the policy has
been in place, and how strictly it has been enforced. If the responses show that the
policy does not exclude all use of metal railings, the concrete-only excuse would not have
been a valid reason for Caltrans to reject the alternative see-through railings.
Further, the responses will be relevant to determining the validity of the second part
of the concrete-only railing excuse.
The time required to change the concrete-only railing policy
would be unacceptably long
If the staff is to determine that knowledge of alternative
see-through railings wouldnt have affected its decision, it needs to accept Mr.
Anzianos assertion that changing this policy would have taken and "unacceptably
long time."
The first point is that accepting a metal railing on the Noyo Bridge would not
require a change in overall policy. As I noted in my oral testimony at the March hearing:
They [Caltrans personnel] have it totally within their power to make exceptions to any
of these rules and regulations. It is laid right out in their design manual, to make an
exception, and all that it requires to get that approved is a signature of the project
manager and the project development coordinator, another internal Caltrans official.
In the context of this hearing, where the staff report stated that Caltrans said it
would take 2-4 years to develop and test an alternative railing, the ability of Caltrans
to make exceptions to its design standards did not persuade a majority of the commission
to deny the permit. However, even in this circumstance, the vote for the permit was only 5
to 4.
Suppose instead that the commission knew of the alternative railings and that the issue
had come down solely to whether or not Caltrans was willing to make an exception to its
concrete-only railing policy. Mr. Douglas, are you certain in your own mind that in this
circumstance the commission would have made the same decisions? Are you certain enough to
recommend to the commission that it reject, without further investigation, my request for
revocation? I would like to receive your answers to these questions.
How much time is available to Caltrans to fully qualify a
railing for the Noyo Bridge?
In judging the merits of Mr. Anzianos contention that
delays in approval of federally approved railings for the Noyo Bridge would have taken
"too long" given that the bridge replacement is a seismic-safety project, the
staff and commission should recognize that the railing would not have been needed for
quite some time. Even on the accelerated bidding schedule proposed by Caltrans in
testimony submitted to the commission, a contractor was not expected to begin work until
August 1, 1999. Then, according to Caltrans:
With the contractor working seven days per week, it is possible [emphasis added]
that all of the water work (trestle construction, falsework piles driven in the river, and
cofferdams placed) could be completed by October 15, 1999 within the requirements of
construction permits. This would allow the contractor to work all winter constructing the
new footings and the new abutments.
Thus, even under the most optimistic schedule Caltrans could imagine, construction of
the new bridge sections could not begin until the phase of work described above were
completed, presumably in March 2000. The railings would not have been needed prior to that
time. As the alternative railings are already in use in other parts of the country, the
railing components should be readily obtainable. At a minimum, therefore, Caltrans would
have had until January 2000 to make whatever qualifications, policy changes, and
exceptions were required to utilize the superior railing alternatives. Not every aspect of
the alternative railings would have needed to be resolved at the time of the permit
hearing.
Delays in the Noyo Bridge not "unacceptable" to
Caltrans
Throughout the permit process Caltrans emphasized that the
Noyo Bridge project was an important seismic safety project and that any delays in the
project were unacceptable. Mr. Anziano rang the same tocsin in his June 16, 1999 letter to
Steven Scholl, chastising the commissions actions on "a very delicate matter
pertaining to a significant safety project."
From the statements coming forth from Caltrans, one would think that it would do
everything in its power to move the project ahead as fast as possible. Its actions
however, show that the vital necessity of replacing the bridge "as quickly as
possible" disappeared once it had its Coastal Commission in hand. Following the
imposition of the $1 million mitigation fee by the commission, Caltrans undertook an
internal review that was not completed until April 16, 1999. The self-imposed delay meant
that Caltrans could not meet the tight schedule that it had proposed to the commission for
completing in-water construction by October 15, 1999.
In announcing the outcome of its review, Caltrans stated, "
it is not likely
that significant work will be accomplished this year." Because of the conditions of
its permits, the delay caused by Caltrans meant that work on the Noyo Bridge could not
begin until June 2000. Caltrans may rejoin that the delay in seeking funding
approval was caused by the lack of a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
North Coast Region, rather than by its internal review. This would be disingenuous,
because without obtaining this permit, Caltrans did apply for and receive funding approval
at the June 7-8 meeting of the California Transportation Commission.
In Conclusion
Upon analysis, none of the assertions or arguments made
verbally by Mr. Anziano have any validity. The information I have provided herein should
persuade you to recommend to the commission that they authorize you to further investigate
my contentions and to request answers from Caltrans to the questions that I have provided
to the commission.
Sincerely,
Vince Taylor