Investigating the Angels Flight Accident

It looks like all the parties involved in the remodeled Angels Flight project had their good reasons (“Funicular Car Design Had Called for Brakes,” March 1). Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc. had good reason to specify an emergency brake system in its design for the new Angels Flight; it made good sense. To Parsons Brinckerhoff’s credit as prudent engineers, they never backed down from their emergency brake recommendations.

The bankrupt lift-mechanism supplier had a good reason; he couldn’t figure out how to build a brake system. The construction manager had a good reason; he depended on the safety recommendations of the bankrupt lift supplier. The general contractor had a good reason; the CRA accepted the project without the emergency brakes it originally contracted to supply. What was the CRA’s good reason? I suppose that it was just too much trouble to follow the design engineer’s safety recommendations and insist that its construction manager, general contractor and lift supplier live up to their contractual obligations to build a safe Angels Flight system instead of one that was an accident waiting to happen.

LOUIS J. FRANCUZ PE

Riverside

* The Times’ investigative report was very revealing. In a nutshell, the contractors and builders of the system discarded the engineers’ design for a proven system with redundant safety features and concocted one that they liked better--undoubtedly a more profitable one. (In construction, changes invariably mean more money in the contractors’ pockets whether or not the owner ever sees any savings.) As a follow-up, could someone find out how such changes were allowed by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, which approved the original plans and inspected the work?

STUART M. O’GUINN

Huntington Beach