Here's
what, some readers think...
(an article similar to this, appeared in the Marin Independent
Journal on Friday, September 27,1996)
Eric J. Schmidt, Tiburon: On August 30, 1985- by adopting
Resolution No. 85-293, the Golden Gate Bridge Board of Directors
reversed the policy of; that body concerning a safety barrier
on the bridge. From the prior policy of encouraging proposals
for a safety barrier, and even paying large cash bonuses
to inventors whose proposals were deemed to have merit-the
policy was change to one which declared that no satisfactory
barrier could possibly be invented-and no consideration
whatever would be given to any barrier proposal presented.
For the next
ten years, Bridge users paid the price of this policy in
deaths, injuries and property losses. In 1996, inspired
in large part by Robert M. Guernsey of San Anselmo and others
of like mind, thousands of bridge-user signed an initiative
to compel Bridge officials to consider a cross-over barrier.
The initiative was signed by a sufficient number of voters,
but it was disqualified on a technicality. However, the
Bridge's ten year policy of summarily rejecting all consideration
of a barrier was overturned by public pressure. The Bridge
authorities,. In June of this year, approved the expenditure
of $ 42,500 to test a proposed barrier, and tentatively
approved an additional $ 50,000 for subsequent work toward
establishing that barrier.
"The present
proposal is for an articulated barrier to be built of several
thousand concrete blocks, which are to be moved several
times a day by a huge transfer machine. The project is estimated
to cost in excess of $7 million, (leaving out the cost of
a back-up machine to prevent massive traffic jams when the
first machine goes down, and leaving out the cost of operators
and other personnel on a 24-hour non-stop basis who will
receive large salaries annually. Eight or nine million dollars
would seem to be a more probable cost.
"The public
deserves to know that an alternative solution has been suggested
to the bridge authorities which will cost nearer to $1 million
in its entirety. The alternative solution merely adopts
a safety barrier system that has been uses for many years
on other bridges. It uses three thin steel barriers which
are never moved. The different configurations needed to
accommodate changes in traffic flow - 4/2, 3/3, and 2/4-are
achieved simply by changing the permitted usage of the lanes.
"The first
part of this procedure exactly describes the present system
that is in use on the bridge today, and has been for many
years past. However, the traffic flows today are separated
and kept apart only by plastic pins and mere lines on the
road's surface. What is lacking is cross-over barriers that
will end the tragedies.
"Such barriers,
surpassing strength requirements and only seven inches wide,
were invented years ago. They need only to be installed.
Installation will require about three months instead of
two or three years. Maintenance is negligible. Operating
costs are trifling. No personnel are required other than
those employed today. The bridge can be safe from all crossover
accidents for one-seventh of the cost of the project presently
being financed."
At a time when
District officials are engaged in long negotiations and
bidding processes to sell advertising space on the back
of the busses for a few thousand dollars, it is inappropriate
for them to ignore information that holds the possibility
of saving five or six million dollars on a barrier. I offer
to meet with any group of interest citizens who wish to
learn more about the strange background of the barrier story.
Rand Knox, San Rafael: "Whether the flexible movable
barrier or a fixed permanent barrier is used does not address
the projected long term problems of increased traffic volumes.
So a barrier whether fixed or permanent is merely a temporary
fix of a very specific problem. The movable barrier for
traffic separation is appealing, as it offers some flexibility
over the short run, but it will not prevent rear-enders
or side-to-side accidents. It can also be pushed out of
shape, causing vehicles in the opposite direction to scatter
to avoid impacting the barrier. Permanent barriers are not
as flexible.
However, if
the two center lanes were separated from each other and
from the outside two lanes on both sides with permanent
lane dividers, this would permit north/south commute lanes
flexibility, with some reduction in traffic flow efficiencies,
and essentially eliminate head-on collisions. "The
movable barrier could then he used at the bridge approaches
to articulate traffic into the three and three, or four
and two, commute or off-peak traffic lane configurations.
Traffic in the
center two lanes could not change lanes, but traffic in
the two outside lanes could. More adequate anticipatory
and approach signs showing lane diagrams would reclaim some
additional traffic flow efficiencies and could reduce the
potential for accidents caused in jockeying for lanes; an
important feature, given that many tourists unfamiliar with
the terrain drive this route while sightseeing. "A
long view approach would see something like a "BART
lite- rail, or high-speed monorail from Sonoma County to
the city' across or beneath the bridge."
Harold Clinton Brown, San Rafael: "Those seeking to
prevent accidents on the Golden Gate Bridge overlook the
well trained and efficient California Highway Patrol. Oddly,
the state commissioner of the Highway Patrol has permitted
a policy of mild enforcement of traffic laws on the bridge.
The patrol's officers now issue only two or three citations
per day to speeders and other careless or reckless drivers.
"(Doubled fines) will be futile if the Highway Patrol
continues to 'look the other way' at speeders and other
offenders."
"The bridge
authority reports that 65,000 vehicles cross the bridge
in a southerly direction through the toll gate each day.
A fair estimate is that a like number cross in a northerly
direction. Thousands of these drivers ignore the 45 miles-per-hour
speed limit, and many are negligent in changing 'lanes.
"Automobile drivers normally fear the patrol officer.
They are aware of the ignominy of the siren and arrest,
the citation and the fine, along with the increase in their
automobile insurance rates. This fear of arrest does not
apply to drivers on the bridge, as it is virtually unsupervised
and uncontrolled. Drivers take every advantage of this freedom
from effective surveillance, resulting in a dangerous and
deadly highway. "A bill recently passed by the California
Legislature ... will double the fine for those guilty of
speeding on the Golden Gate Bridge.
The fines for
exceeding the 45miles per hour speed limit on the bridge
will range from $77 to $250. This legislation will be futile
if the Highway Patrol continues to 'look the other way'
at speeders and other offenders. "Strict enforcement
of the traffic laws can be accomplished by assigning more
officers to patrol with the aid of a modernized radio communications
system. The 'speeder' need only be spotted by the officer
and reported to the toll gate for detention. "It appears
that if the Highway Patrol makes a radical change in its
present policy of inaction to one of strict enforcement
the fines will be more than sufficient to pay for the acquisition
of modern detection equipment.
It will also eliminate the need for a barrier between the
lanes with its attendant great cost. More importantly, a
vigilant Highway Patrol will make drivers aware of the severe
consequences of speeding or recklessness on the bridge.
The result should be a much safer highway."
Dave Sutton, Sonoma: "As one who drives across the
Golden Gate Bridge on a frequent basis, I truly believe
that a median barrier is the immediate answer to head-on
collisions. A median barrier would totally eliminate the
possibility of a head-on accident. "Banning lane changing
is another solution that could positively prevent crossover
head-on collisions. That makes sense especially in the southbound
direction, where there are no exits that require lane changing.
(You're going into the toll plaza.) "No one really
needs to change lanes going northbound from the north tower,
either. "The proper placement of a few signs is all
it would take to save lives. It's not a very expensive solution
to the problem, and can be done quickly before we have another
tragedy. Why not?"
"Crack down on speeders first"
It's foolish to consider any barrier on the Golden Gate
Bridge before trying more simple measures. In any case,
a barrier will reduce the width of the lanes, making it
too difficult for buses. The future obviously holds a much
greater need for buses. How else do we handle the growing
population?
Excessive speed
and reckless driving are the immediate problems, and we
could try some simple solutions first. We can put two people
in a car that goes back and forth exactly at the speed limit.
The passenger, using binoculars, records the license number
of any car that passes or travels recklessly. If this violates
some dumb law, get it changed.
I know the authorities
will bring up many reasons we can do this, but let's do
it anyway. The California Highway Patrol has no imagination,
and the Golden Gate Bridge District board is a notorious
dinosaur. We shouldn't have to risk people's lives while
they fumble around.
"Build a permanent barrier"
I had the great experience of being present when the Golden
Gate Bridge was opened. At that time, it was three lanes
north and three lanes south. I agree with the IJ editorial
(July 14) saying it's time to "bite the bullet."
Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year changing
lanes in the morning and afternoon? Why even consider spending
millions for machines and men for a movable barrier? With
four lanes north and two south in the afternoon, the jam
south goes past the tunnel and sometimes to Marin City.
Is this fair? Of course not.
How much time
is saved with the extra lane? Five to 10 minutes? What about
Doyle Drive, another killer? And San Francisco will not
move its position on the "no fix." Most Marin
residents are not aware that the Golden Gate Bridge District
is controlled by a majority of San Francisco directors.
Thousands upon thousands of homes will be built north of
us in the next two decades.
We will never
catch up unless we build another bridge. It will take you
one, two or three hours to commute. Let's make three north
and three south a permanent thing, with a solid, 6inch padded
barrier right down the middle. Everyone gets a fair shake,
and the district saves millions. This is a tough call, but
I know most people feel as I do when stuck in traffic and
the HOV lane is clear or has very few fast moving cars.
I am a firm believer of no lane-changing and very tough
speed control.
"One bridge speed for all lanes"
This may seem too simple to work, but I think it would have
a noticeable effect on the Golden Gate Bridge: Put up several
signs that say, "Speed limit is 45 mph in all lanes."
Take down the sign that says, "Slower traffic keep
right." These are psychological steps that may slow
traffic. The sign would help ease the pressure drivers in
the far left-also the most dangerous lane-feel to speed
up. This lane on the bridge is not a fast lane, as on a
freeway. The flow speeds should be equal in all lanes.
"No changing lanes!"
Regarding your editorial, "Enforce the speed. limit"
(Aug 9): That would be a useful first step, but what is
really need to avoid head-on collisions . is a huge sign
at each end: "NO CHANGING LANES!"
|
