Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge

 Robert M. Guernsey

Founder &  Chairman of the Board

Director Schweiger 

Director Kirkbride

Meeting of October 25, 1996

TO:          Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Board Of Directors
From:       Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge©
Subject:    Posting of the 45 M.P.H. signs And Golden Gate Transit Bus Ads
Background:  STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF the 45 m.p.h. speed limit on the Golden Gate Bridge appears to be paying off. Cars are moving more slowly, says California Highway Patrol. That's great. But the success of the higher fines and increased patrols should not obscure the need for the Golden Gate Bridge District to continue to seek a barrier system that will prevent dangerous head on collisions.
   Speeding, it turns out, was a clear factor in only one of this summer's four head on bridge crashes, which killed one and sent 12 others to the hospital. An effective barrier would probably have prevented those accidents. The bridge district should continue to encourage Barrier Systems Inc., the company currently testing a new barrier design for the bridge. And in December, the district should, as promised, conduct an independent test on the Barrier Systems design to determine if it meets federal standards. The district has, in the past, shown interest in the barrier, only to drop the ball when estimates proved costly or designs were flawed or inappropriate.                                                                                  (source Marin IJ Oct 16, 1996)
    Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge©, would like to know the status of the BSI barrier engineering progress to develop it "New" one foot movable barrier and when will the testing of this barrier begin.

    Wilson OK a bill to 'ensure safety' SACRAMENTO It's going to cost more to speed on the Golden Gate Bridge, thanks to a bill signed into law yesterday. Gov. Pete Wilson signed a measure that adds the bridge to an existing pilot program intended to reduce fatalities on dangerous state highways.

    "We must ensure the safety of our highways and protect California motorists from those who disregard the traffic laws and put innocent people at risk," Wilson said. Senate Bill 1367, by Sen. Jack O'Connell, D Carpinteria, would double the base fines for speeding and other traffic violations on the bridge.

    The bill becomes law immediately, but it wasn't clear late last night when it actually would be put into effect. Bridge officials say they hope to post signs next week at each end of the bridge notifying drivers of the bolstered penalties. The new law is part of a legislative war bridge directors declared on speeders after a June 24 head on crash on the bridge killed a San Francisco woman, sent four other people to the hospital and tied up North Bay traffic for hours. Two more head on crashes happened on the bridge earlier this month. Hours before Wilson signed the bill yesterday, bridge directors voted unanimously to begin a two month experiment in which mini vans displaying the 45 m.p.h. speed limit will drive back and forth on the bridge every day to discourage speeding. 

(source I J .Sacramento bureau Sept 14, 1996)

    The Board of Directors has approved a proposal to display advertising on the sides of Golden Gate Transit buses. The Board awarded an advertising services contract to Transportation Displays, Inc. (TDI) that will generate more than $1.3 million over two years to help fund the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic and Wind Retrofit Project. "We've put off bus side advertising for years now," said Bridge District General Manager Carney J. Campion. "But with the Seismic Retrofit Project looming, the Board was willing to take another look at the ads because they could raise revenue without directly impacting our customers. 

    In a competitive bid process, four companies responded to the District's Request for Proposals. After careful evaluation, the Board awarded the contract to TDI, based locally in San Francisco. TDI guaranteed $1,350,000 over the two year base term of the contract, and $3,700,000 if the District exercises three additional one year option terms. The contract will officially begin next month, and the non permanent adhesive vinyl bus side ads will appear shortly thereafter. TDI has extensive experience in moving outdoor media, and works in every major market in the country. Locally TDI represents San Francisco Mini, AC Transit and Santa Clara County Transit among others. The District's Marketing Department has sold "bus back" advertisements on Golden Gate Transit buses.                                                 
                                   (source GGB,H&TD August 23, 1996) 

    Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge© Would like to know if the Golden Gate Transit Bus Divisional Manager Wayne Diggs, has Plans in the future to affix the "Drive 45 on the Golden Gate Bridge" Bumper Stickers on the Golden Gate Transit Buses to show good faith, also does the Bridge authority directors have plans for these bumpers stickers to be placed on their own personal vehicle as part of the overall plan to reduce the speeding on the bridge, under current law now being enforced. 

     Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge© Would like to know, under current advertising campaign to raise revenue for seismic upgrades through bus side ads, will some of the revenue be used to expedite the movable barrier testing program, in light of the public's interest in, and the importance of the movable median traffic barrier on the bridge? 

Respectfully submitted:

Robert M. Guernsey 
Founder & Chairman of the Board

 


Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge

 Robert M. Guernsey

Founder &  Chairman of the Board

Director Schweiger 

Director Kirkbride

Meeting of November 22, 1996

TO:        Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Board Of Directors
From:     Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge©
Subject:  Resolution NO. 84-172 and the use of Rumble Strips
Background: On June 8, 1984, this board adopted Resolution NO. 84-172.. Which established the standards.. To be required of all barrier systems for use on the Golden Gate Bridge.
The first standard says: (a.)      The barrier system shall give adequate audio-visual clues to the driver when vehicle approaches barrier. This may be in the form of raised pavement markers adjacent to the base of the barrier.. or some other warning device to alert a driver that corrective action must be taken to avoid contacting the barrier.
The second standard says: (b.)   The barrier system shall give advance physical warning to impending barrier encroachments.  There is a big difference between a car drifting into a barrier and drifting into another car that is traveling forty-or fifty- or sixty miles per hour in the opposite direction!
1.    Accident reports show that many cross-over accidents on the bridge were caused by drifters who could have corrected their drift if they had only been alerted!

2.    The new barrier on Highway 37 has been provided with rumble strips to keep drifters from going into the barrier.. or even going off the pavement onto an empty shoulder!

3.    The cost of rumble strips is almost nothing! They can be installed on the whole bridge in a couple of weeks. They don't need two months of testing. They've been tested for fifty years. They save lives. 

    Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge© question is: Why haven't the Bridge Authorities installed "Rumble Strips" years ago? And why don't they immediately do so Now? 

Respectfully submitted:
 
Robert M. Guernsey
Founder & Chairman of the Board

  


Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge

 Robert M. Guernsey

Founder &  Chairman of the Board

Director Schweiger 

Director Kirkbride

Meeting of November 25, 1996
 

TO:             Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Board Of Directors
From:         Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge
Subject:     Inquiry for information Resulting in the installation of a Movable Median Barrier. 
Background:    STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF the 45 m.p.h. speed limit on the Golden Gate Bridge appears to be paying off. Cars are moving more slowly, says California Highway Patrol. That's great. But the success of the higher fines and increased patrols should not obscure the need for the Golden Gate Bridge District to continue to seek a barrier system that will prevent dangerous head on collisions.
1.    Speeding, it turns out, was a clear factor in only one of this summer's five head on bridge crashes, which killed one and sent 12 others to the hospital. An effective barrier would probably have prevented those accidents. The bridge district should continue to encourage Barrier Systems Inc., the company currently testing a new barrier design for the bridge. And in December, the district should, as promised, conduct an independent test on the Barrier Systems design to determine if it meets federal standards. The district has, in the past, shown interest in the barrier, only to drop the ball when estimates proved costly or designs were flawed or inappropriate. 
                                                                                                (source Marin IJ-Oct 16, 1996)
 
    Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge: 
    
1.  Would like an up-date on BSI's barrier engineering and development progress report for 
     its "New" one-foot movable barrier.
2.  When will the testing of the BSI barrier begin, 
3.  When will the results of such testing be published. 

"Status Up-date:"     As of this date-1996, seven out of ten proponents of Movable Median Barriers or MMB's, have contacted the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District, behind closed-doors and have provided them with some detailed information concerning their MMB's for the bridge. (Note: As of this date December 24, 1999, all proponents of Movable Median Barriers have been turn down. The only survivor that is still standing is "Barrier Systems Inc, of Carson City, Nevada.
    Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge:  Would like to know if the District, and Bridge Engineer are looking into other proposed MMB's designs for future use on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Respectfully submitted:

Robert M. Guernsey
Founder & Chairman of the Board

 


AGENDA - ITEM No. 11
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 


MERVIN C. GIACOMINI, RE.                                                                                         
DISTRICT ENGINEER

Nov 26, 1996
For: Dec 06, 1996 

TO:                       Building & Operating Committee
FROM:                  Mervin C. Giacomini, District Engineer
SUBJECT:             GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE Movable MEDIAN BARRIER-STATUS REPORT
INFORMATION:    The Board, by Resolution No. 96 161, authorized District participation in the cost, not to exceed $42,500, of crash testing a Movable median barrier by Barrier Systems, Inc. (BSI), pursuant to National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report No. 350, and certification by an independent testing agent. BSI will research design, develop, and construct a Movable median barrier suitable for crash testing. A letter of intent, pursuant to Board Resolution No. 96 161, was signed by BSI July 30, 1996.
    In addition, Board Resolution No. 96 161 authorized the General Manager to expend up to $50,000 to engage Northwestern Traffic Institute (Northwestern) and, if deemed necessary or appropriate, additional traffic engineering and safety consultants to evaluate and make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Directors pertaining to BSI's proposed resolution of certain technical issues raised by the District Engineer, and to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board of Directors concerning traffic, operation, and safety trade-offs between installation of such barrier and the operation of the Bridge without the barrier.

    Based on staff negotiations with Northwestern, a Notice to Proceed was issued effective September 12, 1996, for an amount not to exceed $25,000, on a time and materials basis for the following scope of work: (A. Analyze the following information and data for other bridges on which Movable Median Barriers (MMB) have been installed:
A.   Traffic volumes on these other facilities total and average daily and peak hour both before and after installation of the particular MMB:
1.     Traffic volumes for buses, trucks and other wide vehicles; 
2.     Lane widths, lane configurations and total roadway width before and after the installation;
3.     Accident history before and after installation, including: 
        (a.  Overall accident rates and statistics; 
        (b.  Accident rates and statistics by type of accident- (e.g., fatal, serious injury, crossover,    near end, side swipe, hit  object, etc.);
        (c.  Experience and accident rates for buses, trucks and other wide vehicles, especially in lanes less than eleven feet wide; 
        (d. Accident statistics for vehicles adjacent to the MMB; 
        (e. Frequency and magnitude of deflection of the MMB upon impact; 
        (f. Accident rates for collisions of vehicles on the opposite side of a deflected barrier (e.g., with the barrier itself or involving a vehicle attempting to avoid a deflected barrier); 
        (g. Accident rates where was or may have been a reduced sight distance causal factor.

4.     With respect to the Golden Gate Bridge, traffic volumes, lane widths and accident history as described above, as well as all other relevant safety, operational, physical and natural conditions applicable to the Golden Gate Bridge.

5.     All other information and data which warrants the Traffic Institute's consideration.
B.     Perform a preliminary comparative risk, safety and operational analysis of the one-foot MMB if installed on the Golden Gate Bridge versus the condition without any median barrier in terms of:
 
1.     Type, frequency and severity of accidents; 
2.     Traffic speeds and flow and capacity rates; 
3.     Emergency vehicle access; 
4.     Geometric conditions pertaining to the Golden Gate Bridge and its approaches including, e.g., sight distance and lane width limitations; 
5.     Barrier end treatments; 
6.     Barrier vehicle operation; 
7.     Any other features of the one foot MMB or the Golden Gate Bridge which warrant the District's consideration.
 
C.    Make recommendations concerning possible lane widths, configurations and striping in the event a one foot MMB is installed on the Golden Gate Bridge, and to the extent possible, make other recommendations concerning the standards and/or performance characteristics to which the one foot MMB should conform.
 
    The above scope of work constitutes a first phase of the engineering work. Final conclusions with respect to the one foot MMB impact on traffic flow, safety, and capacity will be preliminary and subject to modification once the MMB deflection characteristics are determined by testing.

    BSI is continuing with research and development of a prototype one foot barrier in conjunction with its own internal testing necessary to finalize the design. In addition to changing the width and shape of the barrier, BSI is re designing the hinge mechanism between the barrier segments to reduce the barrier's lateral deflection upon impact. They have fabricated approximately 100 feet of the 300 feet of barrier needed for testing. Crash testing at BSI's plant is tentatively scheduled for mid December. Upon the completion of BSI's testing, an independent testing agency will perform crash testing of BSI's one foot Movable median barrier for certification under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Staff is currently reviewing independent testing agencies for this testing.

    Northwestern is collecting and analyzing information and data for other bridges on which Movable median barriers have been installed. (See scope of work item "A" above.)  Staff met with Caltrans on November 20, 1996, to discuss the application of the one foot Movable median barrier to the Doyle Drive Viaduct and their participation in the project. Caltrans expresses interest and will be meeting with staff to define their participation.

    Founder and Board Chairman Robert M. Guernsey for Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge; Presented a report recommending rumble strips to the Board at its November 22, 1996 meeting, and asked the question, "Why haven't the Bridge Authorities installed 'Rumble Strips' years ago? And why don't they immediately do so now?"  The lane lines on the Golden Gate Bridge are provided by 3/4 inch high pavement markers. The markers are spaced 4 feet 2 inches apart and consist of a repeating sequence of four 4 inch diameter white ceramic markers followed by one 4 inch square reflective marker.

    The lane markings on the Golden Gate Bridge are consistent with Caltrans standards and provide both a visual and auditory warning to the motorist. Rumble strips as proposed by Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge are inconsistent with Caltrans standards. 



Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge

 Robert M. Guernsey

Founder &  Chairman of the Board

Director Schweiger 

Director Kirkbride

Meeting of December 6, 1996

TO:            Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Board Of Directors
From:         Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge
Subject:      Golden Gate Bridge Movable Median Barrier-Status Report
 

Meeting of the Board Of Directors Item No. 11 for Dec 06, 1996/Page 3 

    
    Mr. Robert M. Guernsey, Founder and Chairman of the Board for Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge, presented a report recommending rumble strips to the Board at its November 22, 1996 meeting, and asked the question, "Why haven't the Bridge Authorities installed 'Rumble Strips' years ago? And why don't they immediately do so now?"  Engineer's Response: The lane lines on the Golden Gate Bridge are provided by 3/4 inch high pavement markers. The markers are spaced 4 feet 2 inches apart and consist of a repeating sequence of four 4 inch diameter white ceramic markers followed by one 4 inch square reflective marker. 

    The lane markings on the Golden Gate Bridge are consistent with Caltrans standards and provide both a visual and auditory warning to the motorist. Rumble strips as proposed by Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge are inconsistent with Caltrans standards.
"Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge:" 
    Response by Founder & Chairmen of the Board, Robert M. Guernsey: "What seems to be inconsistent is how you use Caltrans Standards and the pursuant to National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) in protecting your Engineering Professional. Mr. Giacomini, are you afraid to admit, that there is no problem with your present day Yellow Plastic Peg markers, and their relationship between all cross-over's on the bridge " 

Note: Improving Highway Safety:
    Kerry Mazzoni has been an outspoken advocate of both traffic safety and traffic reduction in Marin and Sonoma counties. After numerous deaths and injuries alone Highway 37, Kerry successfully fought for the construction of a median barrier to save lives along the nine-mile stretch of roadway known as "Blood Alley." 

Comment: This stretch of road has been provide with both visual markings and auditory "Rumble Strips," to warn the motorist, if they drift towards the barrier or towards the shoulder of the road. Caltrans Authority installed a permanent barrier and "Rumble Strips" along nine miles of Highway 37 after countless deaths. Was Caltrans inconsistent by installing the Rumble Strips on hwy 37. "What your opinion? 

Respectfully submitted:

Robert M. Guernsey
Founder & Chairman of the Board

 


Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge

 Robert M. Guernsey

Founder &  Chairman of the Board

Director Schweiger 

Director Kirkbride

January 8, 1997

TO:            All Media
From:        Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge
Subject:     Movable Median Barriers Vital Role in Saving Lives on the Span 

Background:
   Their have been thirty two head-on collisions, resulting in thirty-four deaths, since 1970. Thousand of citizens in several counties have exhibited much concern for more than four decades, and cried out for some type of barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge span. There have been more than one hundred independent inventors with designs and specifications for movable median barriers who have approached the Bridge District Engineer, but with no success because the designs did not meet the bridge engineer's criteria, therefore all barrier concepts were criticize for one reason or the other. The barrier issue was put to sleep in 1985 and was never addressed again until 1996. 
    On June 27, 1996, a Board of Directors meeting was held at the District Administration Office. Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge Committee and many individual citizens were in attendance. They demanded that action be taken by the Golden Gate Bridge Authority and the Board of Directors, for the installation of a median traffic safety barrier to eliminate all head-on collisions on the span Now.
Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge Committee;  
Expressed interest and much concern in:

    1.    The installation of a median barrier; 
    2.    The enforcement of the 45 mph speed limit; 
    3.    "Bus Back" advertisements on Golden Gate Transit buses as; Back Stickers (double fine zone-driver 45 on the bridge; 
    4.    A "No-lane change" policy; 
    5.    CHP patrol on bike's on the sidewalk during the commute hours with use of high-speed radar & cameras; 
    6.    Rumble strips adjacent to the base of the markers/barrier.
    Since, June of 1996, the Bridge District has been in many sessions regarding the issue of and the feasibility for a movable barrier, including the one foot wide Quickchange or MMB now being developed by Barrier Systems, Inc. In July 1996, the District authorized participation in the cost, not to exceed $42,500, of crash testing BSI's one foot MMB pursuant to National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report No. 350, and certification by an independent testing agent. BSI will research, design, develop and construct a prototype MMB suitable for crash testing.

    In addition, the Board has allocated up to $50.000 to engage the Northwestern University Traffic Institute again and, if deemed necessary or appropriate, additional traffic engineering and safety consultants to evaluate and make appropriate recommendations pertaining to BSI's proposed MMB, including resolution of certain technical issues raised by the District Engineer, and to equate and make recommendations concerning the various traffic and safety ramifications of traffic, operation, and safety trade-offs between installation of the BSI barrier.
Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge: 

    We are led to believe, based on the facts presented thus far, that the Bridge District
has accomplished a great deal to assure traffic safety by complying with many suggestions presented to and by the Board of Directors. Thank You.

Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge: 
    Feels, in light of the Bridge Districts actions towards the testing of BSI'S movable median barrier system, that testing will show that it is possible to save lives and ensure all commuters their safety while on the span. 

· We further agree:         That the daily commuter shall be granted safe passage with the installation of a barrier system.
 
· We are in agreement:  That a Movable Median Barrier is needed for the Golden Gate Bridge and that the District will see that this action is taken as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted:


Robert M. Guernsey
Founder & Chairman of the Board

"Return Home Safe"