However, one line in one document read "Structure shall be design self supporting: Guys are not permitted." There was no justification for this statement, since WAPA could easily have obtained easements on the State land for guy wire installations. The pole in question is on State land by way of an easement. The State has accepted guy wires on all other poles in this run where the wire direction changed.
When I questioned David Christy about this, asking for documentation to support the decision to use a stand-alone pole, I received the following, which also doesn't make much sense and seems to be inaccurate.
Jonathan Ganz
David,
Regarding the guy wires, your response doesn't make seem to make
sense, given
1) The State has accepted guy wires on all other poles in this run
where the wire direction changed. It seems to me that WAPA could
have obtained easements on the State Land for guy wires for this
pole.
2) Previously, WAPA has claimed it was a security issue.
Do you have the documentation that supports the reasoning behind
the size/shape justification? The two responses don't seem to jibe.
His response:
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:52:43 -0700
From: "David Christy" CHRISTY@wapa.gov
To: "Jonathan Ganz"
I gather your underlying question is why don't we put in a smaller pole
and support it with guy wires. Guy wires generally are used to support
a structure at an angle.
The pole behind the office is basically in line with the existing line,
not on an angle. The simplest engineering solution in this case was to
use a self-supporting structure based on a proven Western design that
would fit within the existing right-of-way. Guy wires would have to
extend into the bike path easement (which would have presented a
hazard to the general public) so are not a preferred option.
My reference to security relates to reliability. Western wanted a
self-supporting structure that would still function with the loss of
either the Folsom or Nimbus line.
No comments:
Post a Comment