On
bridge safety
Dear editor,
I read the editorial
you reprinted from the Marin newspaper about the median
barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge. I appreciate the attention
you brought to a very important decision that the directors
will be making later this year.
As your readers
know, the lanes on the bridge are narrower than standard
width. The total road is limited to the space between the
towers. When- I first jointed the board several years ago;
I read all of the many studies of the 2-foot wide barriers
in use elsewhere.
They predicted we would have many more people seriously
injured (though not by crossovers) due to much narrower
lanes, and the barrier being shoved far into the oncoming
traffic. That is why the judge decided as she did. The most
recent tragic accident (not the lawsuit) spurred the barrier
designers to propose a new 1-foot barrier, with springs
to limit the distance it would move into oncoming traffic.
The bridge paid part of that
development cost.
Now the bridge
has hired the Northwestern University Traffic Institute
to examine this new barrier. They will examine lane widths,
results of deflection, and will predict what the results
will be on the overall safety of our drivers. That report
is due this fall.
Meanwhile, we
are paying over $100,000 per year to the California Highway
Patrol for extra patrols, we have received permission for
a double fine zone, we have two warning vans, driving the
bridge during the day and have bought the latest technology
laser gun for the CHP to use on the bridge. I agree with
your headline that we are "obliged to ensure bridge
safety." All of the directors will be using the standard
of overall safety for all of our drivers, when the decision
is made.
Sincerely,
Ginny Simms
Napa County Director of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and
Transportation District
The article appeared in The Press Democrat- 1996
|
