Print
Email
The Washington Department of Transportation wants to move ahead to put new barriers on the George Washington Memorial Bridge — commonly known as the Aurora Bridge — to help keep people from jumping off. They've tried other techniques, like installing phones, but the rain of bodies continues. It's the city's favorite spot for jumpers and has long been synonymous with Seattle's reputation as a suicide town.
The fencing project is now estimated to cost over $8 million, and a sample of the 10-foot-high fences is not pleasing preservation advocates. The Queen Anne Community Council is opposed to the project, citing its high cost, questions about whether it will actually prevent suicides, and worry about damage to the bridge's historic character. Also against the plan is Susan Boyle, the highly respected local architect and preservationist who "strongly opposes" the current plan, saying in an email "I see it daily as a beautiful, inspiring urban element that enhances my life, and those of others who look at it as well as those who view the city from it." The vast majority of citizens, needless to say, are not inspired to take a leap.
But others argue for the fencing. I contacted Philip Dawdy, a former Seattle Weekly colleague and the best mental health reporter in the country. He writes regularly and provocatively on mental health issues on his blog Furious Seasons. He's has written about the Aurora Bridge for Seattle magazine and also has covered suicide. A memorable piece was his story about the death of popular KUOW radio personality Cynthia Doyon in which he argued it was time to fight the "epidemic" of suicide which he described as a "full-blown public health problem."
Dawdy thinks the fencing will prevent some suicides, but it will also protect cops and firemen who often have to pull would-be jumpers off the ledge. "It's kind of miraculous that not one of them has ever been pulled off," Dawdy says. Other first responders put at risk are scuba divers who have to go hunting for corpses in the Lake Washington Ship Canal.
A fence might protect the psyches of the living too. It's not uncommon for office workers to see jumpers fall, or watch them land on nearby streets and parking lots below. (Not everyone hits the water.) This is no surprise to longtime Seattleites. I had a cousin who lived in a houseboat under the bridge and had tales to tell. But the "audience" for suicides is bigger now with the boom in office space in Fremont. There are more folks to witness the deaths and injuries that occur. When the area was blue collar, few made a big deal about the suicide perception from below. Now that the neighborhood is full of high-tech office workers, Burke-Gilman cyclists, and Lake Union kayakers, the standards are shifting.
Any modification of the bridge has to be reviewed by the Seattle Landmarks Board. The historic bridge is a city landmark, and it is also on the State Heritage list and National Register of Historic Places. The board will be taking up the latest plan at its June 3 meeting. WSDOT's plan can be found here (pdf).
There's no question that the Aurora Bridge is an icon and widely recognized as an important 1930s span (and a critical piece of infrastructure, which is one reason they won't close it to pedestrians). Maintaining its integrity as a historic property is part of the mandate now, and there's a process for ensuring that it meets preservation standards.
Sit through a landmarks design review of building alterations within a historic district, say Columbia City, and you will hear property owners, architects, and tradesmen defending such minutiae as what kind of brackets and bolts should hold a new sign, or you'll hear a city worker talking about the texture of a stretch of concrete for a new city sidewalk, or questions about what the fall colors of new street trees will be. Preservationists tend their treasures like obsessive gardeners protecting their plantings, fending off pests and pulling weeds.
It's micro-managing, but the review process is crucial to effective preservation, even while the standards remain somewhat subjective — reasoned (hopefully) but not scientific. Passing judgment about a structure's alteration can come down to issues of "integrity" or "scale" and other qualities on which reasonable people might differ.
One problem some have with the WSDOT plan is cost. Is $8 million for suicide gates really a good use of public money in these economic times? Even Dawdy is given pause by the cost. A letter from the Queen Anne Community Council wondered if it might not be better spent on suicide prevention programs. The people who jump from the bridge are a small minority of suicides (about 15 percent says Dawdy; the majority use guns). Perhaps mental health out-reach would be a better investment.
Another factor is how the fencing will impact the bridge's look. Pictures of a mock-up indicate it's awfully clunky, featuring vertical bars like a jail cell, which will change the bridge's profile and block views of those who cross on car or on foot. Another question raised by Boyle: Why hasn't the state fully studied the use of nets or some less intrusive system? Are there viable alternatives that will do the job without harming the bridge? WSDOT says it rejected netting due to expense: it costs about the same as fencing to build, but ongoing maintenance isn't cheap.
The Aurora Bridge isn't the only landmark that has had a suicide problem. The observation deck of the Space Needle was altered with barriers to keep people from jumping off after some particularly grim suicides in front of tourists and diners. However, the changes had little impact on how the Needle looks. Dawdy isn't moved by a visual argument. "I don't really think anyone should be screaming about the aesthetics of the bridge. That thing ain't pretty," he says. Prettiness isn't a standard for historic preservation, but there are likely people who share that view.
Tragically, suicide is part of the bridge's history. More than 200 people have jumped to their deaths from the bridge, the first before it was even completed. But no one wants to "preserve" that history. The right solution has to be found for accomplishing two things: the protection of people in dark distress, and the integrity of the landmark. Rarely do landmark decisions have life-or-death consequences. This one does.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 7:14 a.m. Inappropriate
oh good god
let them jump
put in an observation platform
bring in some sharks to feed on the bodies
and let's build a memorial to the mossback
for the time that he wasn't out of gas
instead of being a balloon with nothing
interesting to write about
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 7:58 a.m. Inappropriate
This is not academic for many of us. In 1997, Seattle designer Cheryl Glass jumped to her death from the Aurora Bridge. Reportedly in pain from injuries sustained in her racing career, she left those of us who knew her wondering if the bridge had been too easy, too convenient, too available. But there are so many high places in Seattle. Investing $8 million to close off one of them is naive, and a misdirection of public funds. Better to invest those millions in mental health treatment and drug rehabilitation resources. When there are no longer wait lists at rehab centers, suicide barriers on Aurora may be a supportable investment.
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 8:09 a.m. Inappropriate
The mockup of the fencing doesn't look that bad to me, actually. The high cost must be because they're trying to do something that looks decent, not just chain link.
I'm a little bit confused here, though. I thought that WSDOT was planning to move the pedestrians paths below the bridge deck, and use the extra width to put a barrier to prevent head-on collisions? Was that plan scuttled because of perceived safety concerns for bikers and walkers?
I suppose that there are probably more suicides than deaths from collisions on the bridge each year...
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 9:23 a.m. Inappropriate
I've been a loyal listener to "Music from the Swing Years" almost since its inception, and have even spoken to Cynthia Doyon several times on the phone. This is the first I've heard that her death was a suicide. What a pointless, tragic loss.
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 10:09 a.m. Inappropriate
Maybe our local and state and federal politicos can find $8,000,000 in federal stimulus porkulus borrowed tax dollars and 'save and create' a few jobs by building the fence. "Yes We Can."
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 12:06 p.m. Inappropriate
Just wanted to clear up a misconception about project funding. The project is funded by the gas tax. Section 40 of the Washington State Constitution requires spending gas tax revenue on "highway purposes." Because of this, funding for the Aurora Bridge project could not be shifted to suicide prevention programs.
Also, the $8 million figure is the amount budgeted for the project. We expect the actual cost of project to be $1.5 to $2 million lower. This is due to an increasing competitive project bidding climate, the removal of new street lighting from the project scope, and the recent drop in steel prices.
Greg Phipps
WSDOT Communications
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 2:49 p.m. Inappropriate
Barriers eliminate suicides on a particular bridge. But it's not entirely clear that they reduce suicides. The studies that claim barriers do reduce suicides in a community also acknowledge that the reduction is statistically insignificant.
The fact is, if you put up a big ugly expensive barrier on the Aurora Bridge, people will do something else. Jump out of a window in Belltown, or overdose on sleeping pills.
The money would be better spent on more counseling and suicide prevention outreach.
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 3:41 p.m. Inappropriate
Humbert, the point in my post is that the money cannot be spent on counseling and suicide prevention outreach. That would violate Section 40 of state constitution.
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 5:03 p.m. Inappropriate
"I see it daily as a beautiful, inspiring urban element that enhances my life, and those of others who look at it as well as those who view the city from it."
But what about the Adobe or Google engineer who experiences a dry landing, not to mention the pain of the surviving families? They are suffering for your art. From someone who grew up in Seattle and left, finally, in middle age, I can say that this kind of argument would be unthinkable elsewhere.
Suicide will not end with the barrier but it will at least slow the process down a critical few moments. Long enough for someone to stick their head out of a car window and say something, anything, to show the afflicted that someone cares, or is attempting to try. That will save lives.
I don’t understand the pricing. Budgets are tight. There are associated opportunity costs of projects forgone.
But if this discussion is primarily about aesthetics, then put up the fence.
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 5:45 p.m. Inappropriate
I have lived directly underneath the North end of the bridge for the past 10 years and have personally witnessed at least 20 jumpers. Assisted fishing them out of the waterway...washed the debris of their bodies off the sidewalk..off the side of our car. Watched innocent walkers, cyclists, motorists just missed being killed by jumpers themselves. Watched tourists in the Duck detoured to avoid seeing bodies hanging in bushes, in powerlines. Taken in shattered neighbours who were sitting on their back decks for dinner one minute, and watching a jumper land on the Burke Gillman Trail 15 feet from their kitchen the next.
Enough is enough. It is arrogant to attempt to reconcile the esthetic appeal of a bridge versus the possible loss of innocent lives. It might be argued I could move. True. (We could argue that other residents of Seattle don't have to deal with this, or if they did something would have been done sometime ago.)The city/state allowed commercial and residential development under the bridge, and thus have a minimal responsiblity to keep innocent people (read employees, cyclists, etc.) safe from the implications of that choice.
It is true that the troubled people who take their own lives off the bridge could/would do it somewhere else. Perhaps. What is also true is that having a jumper landing on a mom out walking their child for a walk, or a group of tourists taking pictures of our fair city, should not have to be watching out above them.
Perhaps Getty Images, Adobe,the Lake Washington Rowing Club, etc. should be compelled to put a "beware of falling bodies" sign up on their private property?
The ( currently empty ) final development of the Quadrant buildings have a fantastic view of the Adobe parking lot.Once this building is finally occupied, I am reasonably confident that office employees witnessing a few hard landings ( such as the one this spring where the person hung off the bridge for the better part of an hour before plunging into the Adobe parking lot starting at 8.30 AM )may change the thinking of anyone who thinks work on this project is not necessary.
Maybe the naysayers about this issue should get a job in that building, with a great Lake Union view.
Posted Mon, Jun 1, 7:06 p.m. Inappropriate
"Watched innocent walkers, cyclists, motorists just missed being killed by jumpers themselves."
I was not aware of this. The money is earmarked, correct? What would the City pay to settle a lawsuit if an innocent were injured or killed -- given the history you cite here? Eight million dollars perhaps?
Why is this topic even debatable?
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 12:08 a.m. Inappropriate
Update. Another jumper( how brutally ironic ) tonight at midnight tonight. Landed 2 feet from the turn on the Burke Gillman Trail adjecent to the retaining wall on the south side of 34th Avenue. Appears to be a young woman. The Seattle FD and Police are responding as I type this.
Just missed 2 cyclists out for what otherwise would have been a warm summer evening ride.
Build the fence. End this.
Now.
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 6:17 a.m. Inappropriate
How about using taxpayer funds instead to finance euthanasia. Radical idea? Not at all. Holland has had euthanasia for more than a decade, and allows medically assisted deaths for pscyhiatric problems. If we had a system of approved euthanasia, it would keep our parks from being used as shooting galleries, and our bridges as suicide vehicles. Put up the fence and people who want to commit suicide will just go sit on the railroad tracks. If they are going to do it, let us have a place where they can do it in dignity.
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 6:20 a.m. Inappropriate
I lived under that bridge for 10 years. Sometimes we had a jumper a month. That bridge was there, and people were jumping off it, long before Quadrant, Adobe, and the Burke Gilman Trail showed up. We have fished them out of the water and all the rest of it. So I have as much experience with this as Kingneptune does, and the opposite opinion.
Not a nickel, I say. Not for this. It's meaningless. It won't necessarily stop one suicide; it will only stop it in that one spot. Let them jump. People who can't take it should go elsewhere.
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 9:11 a.m. Inappropriate
Thanks for wading in on the dialogue Ivan.
Without being too trite, I can only hope that it's not your mother/wife/daughter/you walking/riding the BG Trail, or parking your car in the paid parking lots, or going to work, that at best have to witness this crap, or at worst is killed by the selfish idiots/troubled people that make this choice.
Fact is, if this was happening on Queen Anne, or Cap Hill, or Laurelhurst, the issue would be addressed.
The point here is not to stop the suicides Ivan (et al.). It's to stop the endangerment to other innocent people. I think we can all agree that that is the key point.
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 10:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Excuse my ignorance, is the barrier designed to span the entire bridge or just those sections of the structure that are over land? falling bodies threaten boaters too but I can't remember any reported collisions.
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 11:13 a.m. Inappropriate
This is sounding like other Seattle Process debates where otherwise-reasonable people stake out extreme positions in order to move the resolution in their direction (which all too often this results in a hash of a solution or none at all). How else to put a kind construction on the troubling lack of empathy expressed in previous posts for both the people who jump and the people who find the bodies? It's a tragedy for all; we fellow citizens need to intervene, through both WAshDOT and suicide-prevention programs, on behalf of all parties.
Preservationists have legitimate concerns too (and I am one of them); the net idea seems to have been dismissed prematurely. But the fence needs to be considered as well from below and from a distance. Looking at the bridge from Gas Works, say, I think the impact would be minimal.
Rather than take bikes and pedestrians off the bridge, I think it would be safer for all if there was more pedestrian traffic - it would seem less like a remote place for a distraught person to go jump.
This project should not be delayed, but it should be considered as just a portion of the work needed to make the bridge safer. It seems nuts that there are three narrow lanes in each direction, with narrow sidewalks. The bus often has to move partially into the next lane.
How about reducing the auto lanes to two lanes in each direction? This would allow for a center barrier, the new side barriers that prevent another bus from going over the side, as well as bike lanes and wider walks. Better walks would make the new fences seem less penal, and would make a crossing of the bridge on foot a pleasant experience rather than a desperate act even for those who are not suicidal.
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 11:36 a.m. Inappropriate
Why not just take out the sidewalks? Almost nobody walks across the bridge, anyway (no one walks on Aurora Avenue, for gosh sakes); no one needs to walk across the Aurora Bridge. No one needs to bike across it, either. This would be easier and cheaper, even with the median barrier...
Posted Tue, Jun 2, noon Inappropriate
We shouldn't take out the sidewalks, because getting about by car should not be mandatory.
We need to be less alienated from our surroundings, not more. Let's make it possible and safe to walk or bike, yes even along Aurora.
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 12:21 p.m. Inappropriate
To answer Kieth's question, the fence will span the entire bridge, land and water.
And to respond to Argus, netting prevented more problems than increased costs for maintainence and replacement. Netting would also impede bridge inspections and present unique challenges to emergency responders.
Greg Phipps
WSDOT
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 12:31 p.m. Inappropriate
Officials in the Bay area are having the same debate over adding a barrier to the Golden Gate Bridge, given that iconic status of that structure and the increased frequency of tragedies we could learn a little.
http://www.ggbsuicidebarrier.org/
...or actually not. I used to work for the consultant that coordinated the public involvement portion of the study project. Collecting feedback through public meetings and internet the large majority didn't want a barrier added to "their" bridge.
Perhaps we're expecting too much of an absolute solution. Yes, even an $8 million barrier can be climbed over. But if that same logic were applied elsewhere motorcycle helmet & seat belt laws shouldn't exist either.
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 4:03 p.m. Inappropriate
It is their bridge. Whose else would it be?
Bike helmet and seatbelt laws are aimed at protecting people who wish to do themselves no harm. That is a different than erecting public barriers to keep people from harming or killing themselves intentionally.
Posted Tue, Jun 2, 8:15 p.m. Inappropriate
The Aurora Bridge a beautiful historic landmark that has to be preserved as is? You have got to be kidding. Must be the same people who wanted to maintain that old ugly restaurant in Ballard. Give me a break.
Posted Wed, Jun 3, 12:13 a.m. Inappropriate
I would suggest a combination of Argus and Orino's response. I have walked that bridge a number of times, and it was death defying as is due to the narrow lanes, high speeds, and oversized vehicles.
I would offer that for 8 million, we should remove the sidewalks on both sides, and make the lanes as wide as they should be, or with a siding for stalls and the like. Then install a bike and pedestrian path in an enclosed chain link style tube underneath it. There are many pedestrian underpasses... replicate the style then create an attractive 8 to 10 foot path the length of the underside of the bridge deck. Chain link it floor to ceiling.
Safer for cars, safer for pedestrians and bicyclists alike, open with great views thanks to the chain-link, but would be a floor to ceiling barrier to impulse jumpers....
The entire addition would not add a lot of weight, and would barely show up in distant views.
Even if 16 million, it would be safer for everyone.
An Interesting side note -- my Grandfather was on the bridge the day it was dedicated, and got a speeding ticket driving it the next day. Till his passing he could recall the officers name.
Posted Thu, Jun 4, 10:46 a.m. Inappropriate
@hacknflack: That was the serious proposal from wash-dot, maybe 5 or 6 years ago. I thought it was a nutty proposal and probably would have fought it, but I'm curious about why it quietly disappeared (or maybe I just wasn't paying attention).
I think there's a strong argument for making the bridge two lanes in each direction, and widen the sidewalk. The reduced weight from removing traffic should counteract the increased weight in concrete. Bicyclists could actually pass by each other without dismounting, and people would consider walking across the bridge more than once.
("Need" is a silly concept here. I could pose an equally ludicrous comment: drivers could easily take 15th or the Fremont bridge. Extra traffic might make it take a half hour longer, but they don't "need" to cross Aurora. If they don't have to take the trip, they should stay at home. If they have to drive, the extra half hour is still worth it. Was that constructive?)
Even with just the added barriers, though, it will make the bridge feel a bit safer to walk on - you can use the two feet along the railing without sensing that you're about to be bumped off by a semi's rear view mirror.
But this is all tangential to the goal of reducing the draw of the Aurora Bridge as a suicide location. We've locked down the balcony at the top of the downtown federal courthouse because it was too attractive to jump from. We can't lock down Aurora, but we can add a deterrant. There are constraints on weight and cost for the solution, and I think wash-dot's is a good balancce.
Posted Mon, Jun 8, 2:09 p.m. Inappropriate
I am usually a strong advocate for preserving local landmarks and making no or few alterations, but, in this case, I agree with Philip Dawdy. The number of suicides off of the Aurora Bridge have simply been too numerous and leave survivors and observers permanently shaken. There should be a solution that from a distance does not change the overall appearance of the bridge, but still saves lives and the psyches of would be survivors. While it is true that would be suicides may find other ways to do the deed, my suspicion is that the Aurora Bridge is just too easy. Find the solution and please build the fence!
Posted Tue, Jun 9, 9:21 a.m. Inappropriate
@Rob K - Excellent points.
As you point out, and as Philip Dawdy does in the article, the proposed fence will benefit others beyond the suicidal; emergency responders and ordinary pedestrians will be safer. That's more bang for the 8 million bucks than the Hobbesian "let them jump" posters allege.
So while we're at it, let's scare up some stimulus money and address Aurora Bridge problems in a holistic way. The issues there are not confined to suicide; it's suicide and structural integrity of the bridge and historic preservation and pedestrian safety and bicyclist safety and preserving views from the bridge and auto traffic flow and being able to merge on to Aurora as a driver and being able to slow down safely to turn off to Queen Anne and not having buses and semis straddle two lanes to avoid sideswiping one side or the other et cetera. The Seattle Process involves garnering support for public projects by throwing bones to multiple interest groups; perhaps those who say the fence is too expensive a means to prevent a decrease in the surplus population would find a reason to support a more comprehensive set of project goals.
Posted Tue, Jun 9, 10:13 a.m. Inappropriate
"Kingneptune" makes me rethink my idea of "let them jump" ... since the jumping
ought not to pose a danger to those below. one could chain off those
parts that are over land... if someone feels they want a watery death... be my guest, no? on the other hand "hacknflack" with his grouchoist name has a fine idea with a chain-link sausage underneath. and no wire cutters allowed for anyone who walks through!
a friend of mine from california
whom i alerted to the discussion, suggested "a curtain"....
Posted Tue, Jun 9, 1:33 p.m. Inappropriate
It's sad that there are people out there who would urge another human being to jump rather than think of ways to prevent suicide. It's just plain sad.