Search
 
Dharma Cloud Foundation
PO Box 1066
Mendocino, CA  95460

March 8, 2001

Jeff Morales, Director                          
California Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 942873
Sacramento, CA 94273-0001

Dear Mr. Morales:

Under terms of the California Public Records Act, I hereby request access to (under §6253(a)) and copies of (under §6256  and §6257) the records described herein.  Please contact me to set up a convenient time and place to give me access to the requested records.  Please respond to this request in writing within ten days, as required by §6256 of the PRA.

I request that you give me access to and provide me copies of records described within any subsection of this request as soon as this can be done, without waiting to complete the collection of records requested in any other subsection of this request.  I further request that you give me access to and provide me copies of records described within any subsection of this request for the years 1998 to present as soon as this can be done, without waiting to complete the collection of records requested for earlier years.

Public Information Act Request Items

1.      For the period January 1, 1990 to the present, all records (as defined in the Public Records Act[i] and its legal interpretation, which includes e-mails) produced by anyone within Caltrans for either internal or external use or received by Caltrans from outside of Caltrans that pertain to any aspect of the identification, evaluation, modification, approval, or disapproval for use in California of any version of the “Wyoming Rail.” 

The Wyoming Rail was developed by the Wyoming Department of Transportation in two versions, an original version now rated at TL‑3 under testing procedures of NCHRP Report 350, and a more recent version rated at TL‑4. Include all records that pertain to either of these versions.  

Include communications between Caltrans and all contractors and consultants that are within the scope of the request. 
 

a.       This request specifically includes but is not limited to  records related to the decision of Caltrans to reject the Wyoming Rail for use in California, as referenced in a letter from Tony Anziano to the California Coastal Commission, dated July 14, 1999.[ii]

b.      This request specifically includes but is not limited to  records related to modifications made to the TL-4 Wyoming Rail by the Engineering Service Center  to create a version for inclusion in the scenic railing alternatives now being by Caltrans to the Coastal Commission.

2.      All  records related to the decision to approve a new railing design for use on State Route 89 in Emerald Bay on the southwestern shore of Lake Tahoe, as described in “Flexibility in Highway Design.”[iii]

3.      All records related to negotiations between Caltrans and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) over the design and construction of the Emerald Bay section of Route 89, as described in “Flexibility in Highway Design.”[iv]  Include records received from TRPA, those sent to TRPA, and internal Caltrans records.

4.      All records from Caltrans to the Coastal Commission from June 1999 to the present related to alternative scenic railings, including specifically all drawings, pictures, and other graphic presentation materials in all forms, including digital images, videos, CDs, and PowerPoint presentations.

5.      For the period January 1, 1997 to the present, all records related to the identification and evaluation of alternative railings for use on the proposed new Noyo Bridge (Coastal Commission Permit Application 1-98-100). Specifically include communications between Caltrans and all contractors and consultants that are within the scope of the request.

6.      All records that describe the name, charter, description and membership of the group within Caltrans that is or are responsible for approving bridge and guard railings for use within California (termed hereafter the “Railing Approval Group”).  If  there have been changes in the name, charter, description, or membership of the Railing Approval Group since 1990, include earlier as well as current records. 

7.      For the period January 1, 1990 to present, the minutes of all meetings held by the Railing Approval Group, all records produced by them and all records presented to them that relate to approval or disapproval of bridge or guard railings for use in California. 

8.      Any records produced by Caltrans since January 1, 1990 that specify procedures, criteria, and authority to determine the acceptability of railings for use on California highways and bridges.  If the procedures, criteria, or authority have changed between January 1, 1990 and the present, provide the earlier as well as current records that describe these.

 Sincerely,

  

 

Vince Taylor
Executive Director

cc:  Peter Douglas, Sara Wan, Chris Desser, Shirley Detloff

[i] “Recording" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostatting, photographing, and every other means of recording upon any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, and other documents. It includes e-mails and other computer files.

[ii] Letter from Tony Anziano, Caltrans, to Steven Scholl, Re Coastal Development Permit Application No. 1-99-100, July 14, 1999.

[iii] Flexibility in Highway Design, Federal Highway Administration, Publication Number FHWA-PD-97-062, pp. 167-174.

[iv] Ibid.

[ii] The history of the rejection of geometric and static design criteria was summarized by J. W. Hatton of the Federal Highway Association:

Until the late 1980’s designers relied on precedent, …AASHTO “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,” and their judgment to design a bridge railing for a particular site.  The Standard Specifications, as they still do, called for the application of a 10-Kip static load … as well as some dimensional requirements for the openings between rail elements and other cross section geometry [geometric design criteria].  Full-scale crash testing was not required, although a design that “passed” crash testing could be used even if it did not meet the static loading and/or geometric design criteria. [Emphasis added]

In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, actual tests were run on several commonly-used railings that had been designed under the static loading procedures.  The results were unexpected: several of the railings failed quite dramatically and it was shown that static design loadings were not sufficient to ensure adequate railing performance.  As a result of these findings, … [the FHWA] issued a policy memorandum on August 28, 1986, that stated that railings on bridges on Federal-aid projects must be (or have been) crash tested and meet the acceptance criteria in NCHRP Report 230 or equivalent procedures.

J. W. Hatton, Bridge Railing Design and Testing, a Discussion with the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, Technical Committee (T-7) for Guardrail and Bridge Rail, May 14, 1996.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Flexibility in Highway Design, Federal Highway Administration, Publication Number FHWA-PD-97-062.

[v] Ibid.