Even Nyquil won’t help you get your Zzzz’s if you live near the Aurora Bridge and you’ve heard it. By “it,” we mean that “loud as a monster woodpecker banging on a metal tree” sound that might have interrupted a few good nights’ rest.
It’s the latest development in the Aurora Bridge Fence Project (the anti-suicide barrier) from WSDOT. We’ll let them tell it:
A couple of weeks ago our contractor began using a tool called the Rivet Buster to remove rivets and bolts on the historic bridge. In many ways the Rivet Buster was a great tool. It was fast, efficient, safe and environmentally sound. But it was really loud. Can’t get any sleep loud. So loud that some of your neighbors got up in the middle of the night to write us or call our 24-hour noise hotline (206-440-4099). And we listened.
As of this posting the Rivet Buster is on hiatus while we look into quieter ways to remove the rivets and bolts that meet our safety and environmental standards, and keep us on schedule. If those don’t pan out, the Rivet Buster will be on a 10 p.m. curfew.
Counter-intuitively, WSDOT says the work can’t be done during the day.
It comes down to safety and traffic. Workers need to close two lanes of the bridge to create a safe work zone. When two out of three lanes are closed at night, traffic can scoot by without many slowdowns. But if we closed two out of three lanes during the day, that could cause some lengthy backups on Aurora Avenue and send the spillover traffic over to Fremont and Dexter avenues.
It’s a delicate balancing act where one person’s cost is another person’s benefit. The bus rider that gets on the 358 at N. 46 St. wants to get to work on time. The person living under the bridge wants a good night’s sleep. The taxpayer wants the project to stay on budget. And the construction worker wants to come home safe. And yes, we really do think about how our decisions affect each of them.
They expect to have the work done by the end of this year or early 2011.
32 responses so far ↓
1 holz // Aug 1, 2010 at 7:12 pm
we live over 1/2 a mile away and it’s been keeping us up.
also, it’s ridiculous to call this an ‘anti-suicide’ barrier- it doesn’t prevent suicides from occuring. it does prevent people from jumping, but those people can still commit suicide elsewhere. it’s an anti-jumping waste of money.
2 Splitshot // Aug 2, 2010 at 9:27 am
$6million cost will keep you awake too. All a jumper has to do is jump in front of a car as it passes on the bridge. I think the project is for the people below, not for the suicide prevention, but to keep the residents and business folks from having to deal with the horror of the results.
3 Will in Seattle // Aug 2, 2010 at 9:53 am
Those of us who live in Fremont, other than the rich people below the bridge, regard this whole Fence as a massive waste of tax dollars.
4 Blah // Aug 2, 2010 at 11:12 am
In these modern time NONE of the infrastructure of yesteryear could be built because of all the whining.
5 Greg Phipps // Aug 2, 2010 at 11:23 am
Holz: Fences have been very effective at reducing suicides on other bridges, even when other bridges are nearby. This is because suicide by jumping is know being understood as an impulsive act that becomes more likely when it is easier and more accessible. Obstacles like fences make suicide more difficult and less accessible, which helps to deter the impulse.
In addition, those in the impulsive class of suicides are less likely to try it again than those who choose more premeditated means. The issue is summarized well in a New York Times Magazine article at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?emc=eta1.
6 Greg Phipps // Aug 2, 2010 at 11:26 am
Splitshot: Yes, it is about protecting both. The same principle applies to guardrail, curbs, walls, etc. You are preventing people from driving off the road, but also protecting the people on the sidewalk.
7 Greg Phipps // Aug 2, 2010 at 11:35 am
Oops, forgot to mention that I am with WSDOT. In the interest of full disclosure, etc.
8 Lynx 65 // Aug 2, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Why didn’t the geniuses who thought up this ugly fence take a look at the barrier recently proposed for the Golden Gate Bridge? It consists of basket-type devices BELOW the sight line of those on the bridge. It catches jumpers and holds them until authorities come to safely remove them. It will work and is NOT an eyesore.
9 Marine Vet // Aug 2, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Lynx,
They did look into using a net like on the GG bridge. However, there is no easy way to access it like there is on that bridge.
It was determined that the net could put the lives of rescue workers at risk and so they went with the fence instead.
I think people have every right to kill themselves. What they don’t have is a right to jump off a bridge and land on a pedestrian below, taking their life as well.
The barrier and its construction sucks, but it’s necessary.
10 holz // Aug 2, 2010 at 1:15 pm
yes, reduces suicides on other bridges. it DOES NOT reduce the number of suicides. this waste of taxpayer funds will not go towards the one thing that needs to be addressed: the severe shortage of resources and funding for mental health issues.
nearly 98% of suicides are by methods OTHER than jumping from bridges. if we are going to spend $6 million on just one hideously ugly suicide barrier, are we willing to spend billions on other methods of dealing with suicide? it’s a giant waste of money, a horribly designed eyesore and a terrible approach to a legitimate problem. is the solution for a leaky pipe to put it in a larger pipe? definitely not, but this is exactly the approach WSDOT and the state of WA are taking with this mistake.
11 boom // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:06 pm
So messed up in so many ways.
It will not prevent any deaths, only move them someplace else. Trying to help those below the bridge avoid seeing the sad results? Fine. We could have saved all that money by just putting a few signs that said” Please don’t commit suicide by jumping off the bridge. Really, please, don’t do it. But if you are going to jump off the bridge, please go out to the middle and jump off there so you don’t land in someone’s yard and freak them out. Really, we hope you won’t jump, but if you must, please do it over there —>. Thank you.”
That would be just as effective as this boondoggle, wouldn’t cost millions, and wouldn’t ruin one of the greatest views in the city.
But we can’t have that - something practical and logical that works - this is Seattle, where idiocy rules. Morons.
12 nprfool // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:51 pm
holtz and boom - there have been studies that show bridge barriers *permanently* reduce suicides. They don’t just move them somewhere else, or to another method. Jumpers tend to be particularly impulsive, so reducing the temptation is usually all that is needed to effective. Read the Times article - it is quite surprising.
I completely support the bridge barrier. The noise, not so much.
13 TheFremontTroll // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Is it really that loud? I live close by and sleep with the windows open and haven’t heard it yet.
14 joejmac // Aug 2, 2010 at 5:50 pm
People who are against the barrier on the basis that it won’t prevent suicides have not read the wealth of research that demonstrates that barriers do in fact prevent suicides over the long term. I think this is a both/and situation. Yes, we absolutely need more services for people in mental distress, and we need to keep people alive long enough to be able to access those services when they are most in need of them. Jumpers are a unique breed of suicides, in that the majority of people who are talked down, or prevented from jumping, actually never make another suicide attempt throughout their life.
I’ve seen people jump. Just last month I watched a man land on 34th ave, in the middle of traffic. 1 second later would have put him through the windshield of an 18 year old young woman, who also would have died. It is not just rich people who live under/near the bridge. I am not rich, far from it, but I do live a few blocks away, and walk under and near the bridge all the time. My wife won’t even drive under there anymore.
Watch somebody jump. Look into the eyes of the other people who were forced to witness it. Put your hands on the shaky shoulders of a young girl whose life almost ended because a jumper nearly went through her windshield, then enter this discussion. This barrier is the right thing, for potential jumpers, for their families, for people who work/live/walk in the area; both as an issue of compassion and of public safety. This is one thing that Seattle is doing correctly.
15 holz // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:07 pm
there is no study that says a suicide barrier permanently prevents suicides.
i am aware of several studies and the NYT article.
5 suicides a year over the last decade is 0.00015% of the total suicides in the US/year (about 32,500)
if we are willing to throw $6M at an eyesore that MAY deter a few jumpers a year, we MUST be willing to throw equal amounts of money to prevent the remaining 99.99985% of people that commit suicide. to do otherwise is simply a waste and incredibly asinine.
16 nprfool // Aug 2, 2010 at 7:13 pm
holz, there are indeed studies on this. And the Aurora Bridge is second only to the Golden Gate for suicides. My spouse works near that bridge, and though he did not witness the suicide that joejmac did, he only missed it by a matter of minutes. Jumpers cost this city and its residents quite a bit in time, money, and trauma, not to mention family and friends. This money is buying a permanent solution, is quite cheap by renovation standards, comes from funds set aside for public works projects, and is very, very well spent. I am sorry you cannot see this.
17 Mondoman // Aug 2, 2010 at 7:27 pm
It does seem that we got by OK without the barrier for the past 70 or 80 years since the bridge was built. Land values in the area under the bridge have risen quite handsomely, so the fear of being jumped upon must not be very strong or widespread. Has anyone actually been hit/injured by a jumper?
I know boom was a bit facetious about marking the “not safe to jump” zones at the ends of the bridge, but maybe something with a similar effect would help the people underneath feel safer without ruining the aesthetics of the bridge.
18 jones // Aug 2, 2010 at 11:22 pm
i love how someone on here always has to blame the rich. no matter what it is, under every article
19 sarcasm // Aug 3, 2010 at 12:23 am
So they are making it a ten foot higher jump? What a waste of money. If you take my bridge away I’ll jump in front of a bus.
20 yep // Aug 3, 2010 at 6:56 am
poor fremonters can’t sleep because of some tool? give me a break!!!
get some earplugs already; it’s temporary at best.
21 boom // Aug 3, 2010 at 8:07 am
Actually, I was serious.
What problem are we really trying to solve here?
I think what’s REALLY the goal is to make the people below the bridge feel OK. Of course, this is Seattle, where we can’t be honest about public policy (see Mayor, Tunnel, Budget Concerns).
If what we’re really trying to do is make the folks below the bridge feel safer and make it so they don’t have to deal with the aftermath of the suicides, then I’m serious: just ask the jumpers to please depart from the center of the bridge. Paint a big arrow on the sidewalk with a sign saying “If you’re really going to do this, please do it here so you don’t upset someone below. Thank you.”
This would be at least as effective as this multi-million dollar fiasco. Maybe more so, since it suggests to the jumper that there are others to consider.
No, I’m not kidding.
Of course, this assumes that the local citizenry are adults. I know, that’s not necessarily a valid assumption.
22 nprfool // Aug 3, 2010 at 11:13 am
boom, the “problem being solved here” really is to reduce suicides. Bridges all over the world have been installing these barriers with immediate results. They are a surprisingly effective way to not only decrease suicides off the particular bridge, but to keep most potential jumpers from later carrying through with any form of suicide. Bridges attract a particularly impulsive type, and if they are prevented from carrying through the act once, the vast majority never make a second attempt by any other means.
As others have noted, this also has huge benefits for those who live and work around the bridge as well as for the city-paid emergency responders who have to deal with the aftermath. The Aurora Bridge is particularly unique in that half of it covers dry land, so we have a much higher percentage of jumpers who hit land, not water. Cars have been totaled, and there have been many close calls with innocent people walking, biking, and driving under the bridge. Kids as well as adults have been unwilling witnesses to these suicides. The Burke-Gilman trail, several roads, company parking lots, houseboats, and a small park are all located under this bridge and in the “landing zone”.
Do a little reading on the subject - I was surprised to see exactly how simple and effective these bridge barriers are. And as far as road projects go, they are dirt cheap. This is an easy, cheap, effective, and humane fix.
23 jojmac // Aug 3, 2010 at 12:06 pm
nprfool, you’ve said it well. Thanks for your clear logic and comments. I understand the reaction of some that this is a waste of money and resources, but some reading and study on the effects of similar barriers on bridges all over the world does show that they are stunningly effective at preventing jumpers from committing suicide both in the moment and in the long term. And the cost is comparatively low for road projects.
My only question is, why does this seem like such a long construction process? Does anybody know when it’s actually scheduled to be completed? Completion in early 2011 seems vague and quite far away for this type of project.
24 Tiktok // Aug 3, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Gosh, I guess if it saves even one life, it’s all worthwhile. Isn’t that how the argument went?
25 boom // Aug 3, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Indeed. Should enclose every road, every bridge, every sidewalk and bike trail in chainlink fencing and install airbags every 3 feet?
It would save a life somewhere, at some point, I’m sure.
Is it a smart way to run the city? Oh, wait…
I remain unconvinced that such projects really save many lives. Maybe one or two, but honestly - most people who would to jump off that bridge will just find something else to jump off of, or some other way to do themselves in. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually. The question to me is not, “will it save a life” the question is, is this an appropriate way to spend scarce public money. In my view, it’s not.
And you don’t need to preach to me about the realities of being around this bridge: I am about 200 feet away from it right now. I have lived and worked right around/under it for a long, long time.
This project is a perfect example of what’s wrong with Seattle these days.
26 nprfool // Aug 3, 2010 at 4:49 pm
The literature says otherwise, boom. Which is why barriers are going up all around the world on bridges which attract suicides, and not just Seattle.
27 Mondoman // Aug 3, 2010 at 5:30 pm
nprf - posting a link to such literature would greatly boost the impact of your argument.
28 DB601 // Aug 4, 2010 at 6:54 am
If Seattle were serious at preventing suicide, it would close the Aurora bridge to foot traffic. Then there would be zero chance of a high dive. Isn’t that what Seattle govt wants — zero risk?
It would also have the benefit of preserving the 70 year architecture and views rather than marring both.
29 nprfool // Aug 4, 2010 at 10:57 am
Closing the bridge to foot traffic was considered, DB601, but there was too much opposition to the idea.
30 nprfool // Aug 4, 2010 at 11:07 am
mondoman - I posted 10 links to peer-reviewed papers in major journals last night, and it is awaiting moderation. These papers, and others, have been used to craft public policy on suicide prevention methods.
31 nprfool // Aug 4, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Still waiting for moderator approval. In the interim, here are the first 5 papers without links. You can find the abstracts by doing a title search on PubMed.
1. Where are they now? A follow-up study of suicide attempters from the Golden Gate Bridge.
Seiden RH.
Suicide Life Threat Behav. 1978 Winter;8(4):203-16.
2. Preventing suicide by jumping: the effect of a bridge safety fence.
Pelletier AR.
Inj Prev. 2007 Feb;13(1):57-9.
3. Effectiveness of barriers at suicide jumping sites: a case study
Beautrais AL.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2001 Oct;35(5):557-62.
4. (followup on same bridge when barriers were reinstalled in 2003)
Removing bridge barriers stimulates suicides: an unfortunate natural experiment.
Beautrais AL, Gibb SJ, Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Larkin GL
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2009 Jun;43(6):495-7.
5. Effect of barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge, England, on local patterns of suicide: implications for prevention.
Bennewith O, Nowers M, Gunnell D.
Br J Psychiatry. 2007 Mar;190:266-7.
32 nprfool // Aug 4, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Here are the remaining 5 papers:
6. (examines the type of people and locales that jumpers use and effectiveness of bridge barriers on certain populations of jumpers)
Suicidal behaviour and suicide from the Clifton Suspension Bridge, Bristol and surrounding area in the UK: 1994-2003.
Bennewith O, Nowers M, Gunnell D.
Eur J Public Health. 2010 Jul 14.
7. (this one is just a literature review from 1997, but supports the proprosal that barriers work and the majority of twarted jumpers do not make a second attempt)
Suicide by jumping.
Gunnell D, Nowers M.
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1997 Jul;96(1):1-6.
8. Suicide by jumping and accessibility of bridges: results from a national survey in Switzerland.
Reisch T, Schuster U, Michel K.
Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007 Dec;37(6):681-7.
9. (large study that concluded educating physicians and restricting access to lethal means prevents suicide)
Suicide prevention strategies: a systematic review.
Mann JJ, Apter A, Bertolote J, Beautrais A, Currier D, … (many others as well)
JAMA. 2005 Oct 26;294(16):2064-74
10. (seminal paper discussing how reducing access to certain suicide methods can permanently reduce suicide rates)
Method availability and the prevention of suicide–a re-analysis of secular trends in England and Wales 1950-1975.
Gunnell D, Middleton N, Frankel S.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2000 Oct;35(10):437-43.
Leave a Comment