Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bridge Rails Highway1 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caltrans presents narrower '5‑11H' bridge rail option as Highway 1 speed limits are set to drop
Summary
Caltrans staff told the Monterey County collaborative they are studying a narrower, historically styled bridge rail (the '5‑11H') that could be allowable now that engineering speed surveys show lower driving speeds on parts of Highway 1; county public hearings and Coastal Development Permit processes remain prerequisites to any installation.
Caltrans staff on Thursday described a potential shift from the heavy, crash‑tested “86H” bridge rail toward a narrower, visually lighter alternative known in presentation material as the “5‑11H,” and said a recent speed‑zone study opened that option by supporting lower posted limits in the corridor.
The agency presented the 5‑11H as a rail with narrower baluster widths and a slimmer profile that preserves larger visual openings. Scott Smith, Caltrans office chief for environmental work on capital projects, described the 86H as “designed as what they call a test level 4 railing” intended for higher‑speed highways, and said the 5‑11H is a lower test level railing that “was already crash tested in Texas.”
Caltrans staff said engineering speed‑zone surveys covering Coast Road to Garapata showed drivers are using lower speeds than the previous 55 mph postings. That data, the presenters said, supports replacing the heavier 86H with a rail engineered for lower posted speeds while allowing room for aesthetic treatments tailored to individual bridges.
Why it matters: the corridor includes historic arch bridges and a widely shared interest in preserving coastal views. The switch from a heavier rail to a slimmer, crash‑worthy alternative could reduce visual obstruction for motorists and visitors while meeting safety requirements, the Caltrans team said.
Supporting details: Caltrans said the speed limit work remains an administrative process: the survey is nearly complete, the California Highway Patrol has concurred in the findings, and Monterey County must be given the opportunity to hold a public hearing under state law. Presenters outlined proposed postings: South of Coast Road to just north of Rocky Creek would move from 55 to 40 mph; from north of Rocky Creek to Garapata would move from 55 to 45 mph, subject to the county hearing and final approvals.
Caltrans emphasized the 5‑11H would not be forced on any bridge automatically. Aaron Wolfram, a Caltrans project manager who covers multiple mid‑coast projects, said each bridge will be evaluated individually and that the agency is seeking community input and possible localized aesthetic adaptations rather than delivering a single, final design.
The agency said the 5‑11H (and a related 5‑12H variant) are expected to be available for use in California later this year if approvals complete; final selection and installation at any site would still require engineering, Coastal Development Permits where applicable and coordination with the Coastal Commission and Monterey County.
Community response and next steps: attendees welcomed early sharing of the concept rather than a finished design. Participants asked Caltrans to provide dynamic visuals simulating the view from a vehicle at proposed posted speeds and stressed that treating the set of coastal bridges as a coherent visual corridor should factor into design choices.
Caltrans said it will continue design work, coordinate with the Coastal Commission on permitting, and follow the county’s public‑hearing schedule for speed limit changes. No final decisions or installations were approved at the meeting.
