The Final Leap (23 page)

Around the country, suicide prevention advocates applauded the Bridge District's decision as well, but had reservations about a net. No other major bridge has a net to prevent suicides; they all have taller railings. Because taller railings on bridges have proven to be effective while there's less evidence to support a net, and because whatever action is taken on the Golden Gate Bridge is likely to influence the decisions made on other bridges around the world, a net wasn't their first choice.

It wasn't Tom Ammiano's first choice, either. If it was up to him, he says, he would have opted for a higher railing. Nevertheless, the board approved something rather than nothing—at last.

According to Denis Mulligan, from an engineering standpoint there's little difference between a net and variations of a taller railing. “They all add extra weight and affect wind suspension,” he said, noting that both the net and taller railing passed the wind tunnel study. That made both options viable. In terms of cost, he said, there's also little difference: “The bridge is 1.7 miles with sidewalks on both sides, so anything you do requires adding three-and-a-half miles of stuff. Whether it's a net on each side or a taller railing on each side, the cost per square foot is about the same.”

Then he explained some of the details, starting with the fact that even a small change in a cross section can affect how longspan bridges like the Golden Gate Bridge perform. No one wants to see a repeat of the disaster that happened when the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Puget Sound, Washington, collapsed. He also talked about installing attachments for the net. This will require removing the existing paint on the underside of the bridge— paint that's 67 percent lead-based and can't be released into the environment so it has to be contained. After that, the base steel has to be primed, and the attachments installed every twenty-five feet on both sides for the net to hang from. Because the new attachments will interfere with the couplings used now for the four rolling bridge painters' scaffolds, new scaffolds and couplings will have to be designed and fitted. Last but not least among the hundreds of things to consider is the cost of two Snooper trucks, used to retrieve anyone who jumps and lands in the net.

Bridge District directors chose a net for two reasons. First and foremost, it was the preference of people who voted for a suicide deterrent in the Bridge District's online opinion poll, as well as the option that was favored by the San Francisco Planning Department and the National Park Service. This made it more palatable politically. A net won't interfere with the views of people on the bridge; it'll only interfere with someone who wants to jump. The net will be stretched taut and angled so as to make climbing out of it difficult, though not impossible. Anyone who falls into the net will be likely to suffer broken bones and dissuaded from jumping again—or so the thinking goes.

If there is a jump, the person will be extricated with a special piece of equipment called a Snooper truck. The truck will have a hoist and bucket at the end like that used by utility workers to repair power lines and trim tree branches. A bridge worker, wearing a harness, will be lowered over the railing and into the net to rescue the jumper. The Snooper truck costs $250,000, takes ninety minutes to get to the site where the person jumped and ninety minutes to get back, and ties up one lane of traffic during that time. Bridge District officials aren't worried about the risk to bridge workers or the inconvenience of closing a lane of traffic for three hours, though. The purpose of the net isn't to save people after they've jumped; it's to deter them from jumping in the first place. A second Snooper truck, only smaller, will be used to retrieve garbage from the net.

The second reason why the net was chosen was cost. Whereas variations of a higher railing produce annual maintenance costs of $429,000 to $466,000 according to Denis Mulligan, maintenance costs of a net will be $78,000 per year. A major reason for the difference is because the net, made of marine grade stainless steel, doesn't need to be painted while a higher railing does (according to Bridge District officials, the net also will blend in more if it's unpainted). In addition, Bridge District officials don't want to inconvenience pedestrians or restrict access to bicyclists during construction. If taller railings were installed, the work would have to be done at night, resulting in overtime costs.

The evidence supporting a net comes from an unlikely source—a medieval castle in Switzerland. Prior to 1999, there were two to three suicides per year at Munster Terrace in Bern. After a net was installed there, suicides from the site ended.

Basing a decision on what happened at a castle in Switzerland might seem problematic. It doesn't necessarily equate with a bridge in San Francisco. Moreover, two to three suicides per year pales in comparison with the death toll at the Golden Gate Bridge. Nevertheless, a net is what has been approved, given the bridge's unique circumstances, and everyone is determined to make it work. Even the smallest deterrents—a stranger's smile, the inability to find a parking space, or a locked gate (which was enough to turn back Casey Brooks when she first went to the bridge)—can be effective, so there's every reason to believe that a net will do the job. One woman was prevented from jumping because her skirt was so tight that she couldn't swing her legs over the railing. She was too modest to take the skirt off, giving a patrol officer time to pull her back from the edge.

Now the big question is: When will the net be erected? Even though Bridge District board members approved it, they're adamant that future bridge tolls won't pay for it. The last of the construction bonds was retired forty years ago, and annual total revenues for the Bridge District exceed $85 million, yet the district is broke, according to the board and staff. Without sales tax or property tax revenues, the Bridge District has to rely primarily on bridge tolls and transit fares, which aren't sufficient to cover other costs, they claim, much less pay for a suicide deterrent. As a result, the last major hurdle is raising the money for construction. That's $45 million according to Mulligan—$30 million for the net system, $10 million for modifications to the bridge, $4 million for new, redesigned maintenance travelers (the four sets of rolling scaffolding for painters and other bridge workers), $500,000 for the two Snooper trucks, and $500,000 in miscellaneous costs. A $5 million grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (again secured by Tom Ammiano) is paying for final plans, which are meant to be completed by spring 2012. After that, the project will be “shovel-ready,” meaning that ground is ready to be broken or, in this case, that air is ready to be filled. If all of the funding is in place, work can start immediately thereafter since the final environmental impact report was approved in February 2010. If not, everything will be put on hold. Actual construction will take two years, according to Mulligan's estimates.

Because the Bridge District isn't willing to put up any money for the net, it's natural to wonder how committed officials are to ending suicides from the span. Some barrier supporters, such as Kevin Hines and his father, believe that board members voted for a net in 2008 in order to appear compassionate and take heat off of them, but really they have no interest in moving the project forward. If board members truly wanted to prevent suicides, critics believe, they would find the money, just as they did for the bike barrier. Instead, they're leaving it to others to secure the funding.

When I asked Mulligan how committed the district is to the net, he said unequivocally, “We welcome it and look forward to building it. It will save lives and will not mar the bridge.”

As of this writing, however, no money has been identified to erect it. Bridge Rail Foundation volunteers have been pursuing a variety of legislative options, so far without success, and no one else is working on it. Unless there's a dramatic change— either the Bridge District decides to accept responsibility and budgets the amount needed, government funding is secured, or a wealthy donor steps forward—the deaths will continue.

I asked Eric Steel how he feels about the bridge today. He responds immediately, talking faster and with increasing passion until he stops himself mid-sentence and remarks that all of his feelings seem to have resurfaced after just a minute or two of conversation, even though it has been more than five years since his movie premiered. Once something changes, Steel believes, once you start to see it differently, you can't go back to seeing it the way it was. The Golden Gate Bridge is like that. Knowing all of the tragedies associated with the bridge changes one's perception of it. No longer can a person view the bridge simply as an architectural wonder and international icon. No longer can someone walk, bike, or drive across it blissfully. No longer is it possible to go sailing on the bay, turn on the radio to the Coast Guard frequency in order keep abreast of current weather and conditions, hear someone report, “Person in the water,” and believe that it refers to something other than a suicide jump.

Still, there are people who continue to oppose any kind of barrier on the bridge. For some, the cost isn't worth it. For others, aesthetics trump everything—even human lives. By far the most commonly voiced argument, though, is that it won't be effective, that it will only cause suicidal people to choose another location or means. If they end up dying anyway, opponents believe, why worry about it? Why spend millions of dollars and change the look of the bridge if it will have no impact?

This is at the heart of the ongoing suicide barrier debate. It's not much of a debate, however, once one learns the facts. Intuitively, it makes sense to think that when one option is closed, a suicidal person will resort to another lethal means. If a gun jams, then swallow a bunch of pills. If your car doesn't start, then tie a noose. If a bridge has a barrier, then go to a train crossing instead. In reality, however, this isn't the case. As the next chapter shows, the evidence is overwhelming. Most people who are suicidal have a preferred means of death. If access to that means is restricted, they don't try to kill themselves another way. Instead, they resign themselves to living.

 

Casey Brooks, 17, jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge several months after this photo was taken by a friend. An excellent student, she had been accepted at Bennington College in Vermont—her first choice for college—where she planned to study environmental science and journalism.

SOURCE:
John Brooks

 

In 2008, after their daughter died, John and Erika Brooks began advocating for a suicide barrier on the bridge. It was too late for Casey, but others could be saved.

SOURCE:
Marin Independent Journal

 

Dave Hull's world stopped after his 26-year-old daughter jumped from the bridge. He didn't shave, get haircuts, or go to work for weeks.

SOURCE:
San Francisco Chronicle