Creativity a Hallmark of Bridge Barrier Alternatives, Funding
[Noozhawk’s note: This is the second article in a four-day series on Cold Spring Canyon Bridge. Click here for Noozhawk publisher Bill Macfadyen’s explanation of our series. Click here for Day One’s main story: Public Safety, Preservation Collide on Cold Spring Canyon Bridge. Click here for a related slide show.]
Ever since it was built, suicides have been a consistent problem at Cold Spring Canyon Bridge. In 2005, however, the idea of a preventative barrier gained renewed interest.
That summer, the Santa Barbara community was rocked when an 18-year-old star athlete from San Marcos High School fell to his death from the bridge. Calls poured in to the Glendon Association, a nonprofit mental health organization, as classmates and community members sought answers to their questions about what signs they had missed and what could have been done to prevent the tragic outcome.
In November of that year, a task force of public safety and mental health representatives was formed, and the Cold Spring Canyon Arch Bridge Suicide Prevention Committee met to identify strategies to thwart future incidents at the bridge. The group decided that installing a physical barrier would be the most effective, and several types were considered.
One of the alternatives was a “mesh” barrier with welded wires, spaced one to two inches apart. Another alternative would space vertical steel rods six inches apart between the posts. Both barriers would, to some extent, obstruct the views of those traveling across the bridge on Highway 154. Not building anything was the third alternative.
“The project would result in substantial adverse impacts to the visual environment,” according to the project’s environmental report. “Both proposed barrier alternatives would be incompatible with the natural character of the surrounding landscape, would distract from the existing architectural style, and would diminish the historic qualities of the bridge.”
In the end, the mesh barrier was selected because it would inhibit views less. Renderings show the barrier extending nine feet above the surface of the roadway, on both sides of the bridge. The top of the barrier curves inward toward traffic.
A host of other ideas was explored, too, ranging from infeasible to outlandish. One proposal had a giant net stretching across the canyon, located just beneath the bridge to catch would-be jumpers; that idea was discarded because a person could jump out of the net anyway before rescue crews could arrive. Another alternative deployed horizontal bars instead of vertical ones, but was dismissed because the “ladder-like” configuration could still be scaled.
Perhaps the most thought-provoking alternative not chosen was that of a “human barrier,” which relies on a personal intervention to stop a jumper. Under the proposal, video cameras and call boxes connected to crisis intervention would be installed on the bridge, which would be patrolled by surveillance teams trained in suicide prevention. The Golden Gate Bridge employed a similar system between 1993 and 2007, but the bridge actually recorded higher numbers of deaths despite the measures.
The logistics of the personal intervention proposal also proved difficult to overcome because of the bridge’s remote location. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department estimates that deputies can get to the bridge in 15 minutes, if they don’t encounter any delays.
Sheriff’s Cmdr. Dominick Palera said the department supports elements of the human barrier, like call boxes on the bridge.
“We think they’re important measures and that people have a chance to reach out,” he told Noozhawk. “But these aren’t going to prevent what’s occurring.”
Public workshops on the project began in 2006, with public comment “overwhelmingly supportive of the proposed barrier,” according to the project’s environmental impact report.
But people also spoke out in opposition to the project, citing varied reasons. Arguments that the money could be better spent elsewhere; questions about the effectiveness of a physical barrier; and comments that touched on individual liberty, that people have the right to commit to suicide if they choose, were all made at the workshops.
Public input continued into 2008, and more controversy arose the next year, this time centered around the project’s funding. Money for the barrier project originally was to come from Caltrans’ safety improvement program, but the agency began to investigate other ways to fund the barrier.
Construction on a deteriorating Highway 101 overpass in western Goleta was about to be stalled by California’s financial woes, and Caltrans proposed a three-way trade. In an elaborate swap, federal stimulus funds were chosen to fund the Cold Spring Canyon Bridge project instead. If monies reserved for highway safety projects could replace more volatile funding from the state, the Goleta project to fix the Hollister Avenue overpass could move forward.
Further, the Goleta project’s state funding was transferred to another project on Santa Barbara’s Eastside, where the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, or SBCAG, has been working to widen the freeway and make improvements between Milpas Street and Hot Springs Road. This money was then used as that project’s reserves and $1.5 million in stimulus money that had formerly served as the Milpas/Hot Springs reserve was moved to Cold Spring Canyon Bridge to begin construction.
The bridge barrier project’s state highway operation and protection program funds were then given to the Ellwood/Hollister interchange project in Goleta, completing the swap.
But moving stimulus money to a rural location from a critical urban highway project didn’t sit well with some members of the public. Marc McGinnes, a leader of the preservationist group, Friends of the Bridge, opposed the decision, asserting that the SBCAG board had violated the Brown Act because of the way it had listed the item on its meeting agenda in the process. The item went back before the board, and five members of the public showed up to oppose the funding swap.
The transaction was ultimately approved unanimously by the SBCAG board.
Last July, it was assumed the bridge barrier project would be ready for construction by the end of 2009, and if delays caused stimulus funding to become unavailable, the funds could be reallocated to alternative local projects.
So far, Caltrans has said the project is being funded primarily through those stimulus funds, and with the other half coming from state monies for highway safety improvements. The total amount of the project is about $3 million.
“It’s a good use of our stimulus dollars because we can do it right away and it gets money pumped back into the economy, in addition to solving this issue with the fatalities,” said Jim Kemp, SBCAG’s executive director. “We thought it would be good to have a reserve there so we can continue to pay the bills ... if for some reason the state funds just dried right up.”
With stimulus funds as reserve, those monies must be spent within a certain time frame or they can no longer be used.
“It was becoming apparent that we were going to have to put those funds into something else because the state’s cash crunch for the Milpas to Hot Springs Project has been cleared up, at least for the time being,” Kemp said.
Funding for the Cold Spring Canyon Bridge project has been there for about three years, according to Kemp, and is from Caltrans money specifically dedicated for safety improvements on Highway 154.
Because the state of California owns the highway system, it must evaluate and develop solutions for areas with high accident and high fatality concentrations.
“If it has a higher number than average of injuries or fatalities, then the state is compelled to do something about that,” Kemp said.
Regarding the SBCAG board’s unanimous vote to approve the bridge barrier project, Kemp says each member may have had different reasons for supporting it. SBCAG’s 13-member board consisting of all five county supervisors and one city council member from each of the county’s eight cities: Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang.
Personally, Kemp said he expects the barrier to be very effective at preventing fatalities on the bridge.
“I think that it’s not going to be the magnet that it is today for people wanting to end their lives,” he said.
“If it saves the lives of people, I think this is money that’s well worth it. This is throwing a life preserver to someone in a stormy sea.”
Noozhawk’s Cold Spring Canyon Bridge Series
Tomorrow: For Barrier Opponents, There’s No Bridging This Divide
» Click here for free suicide prevention resources that are available 24 hours a day.
» Click here for the first story in Noozhawk’s four-day series on Cold Spring Canyon Bridge: Public Safety, Preservation Collide on Cold Spring Canyon Bridge.
» Click here for Day Three’s main story: For Barrier Opponents, There’s No Bridging This Divide.
» Click here for Day Four’s main story: Bridge Barrier Debate May Be Resolved in Span of a Month.
» Click here for Noozhawk publisher Bill Macfadyen’s explanation of our series.
» Click here for a timeline of Cold Spring Canyon Bridge.
» Click here for a list of the various suicide prevention measures that were considered.
» Click here for a list of landmark bridges around the world employing suicide-prevention barriers.
» Click here for Cold Spring Canyon Bridge facts and engineering numbers.
» Leading Off: Just What Can We Say, and How? Suicide is a touchy topic for the media. Here’s what Noozhawk does, and why.
— Noozhawk staff writer Lara Cooper can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Staff writer .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) contributed to this report.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 05.04.10 @ 07:13 AM
This isn’t going to save lives, but rather save the person the trouble of going to cold springs bridge and somewhere else instead. I hate to say this, but it is sadly true. You can try to stop someone all you want but in the end the problem is not the areas around them, but the person themself. Why not spend the money that would go to the bridge on soemthing more effective, like councelling or funding existing suicide programs.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.04.10 @ 12:15 PM
These guys could’nt runa mini market right, and we need to sub conract out all services to the private sector. The reason a person works for government is he or she is a failure in business—like welfare—not the sharpest tools in the shed working for Gov.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.04.10 @ 12:23 PM
Dear Ms. Cooper (author of the article above),
In your article about the Cold Spring Bridge in today’s edition you write that “The total amount of the project is about $3 million.” Documents of public record say otherwise.
The Caltrans budget provides $2.256 for staff time and other non-construction costs, with an additional $1 million for construction (see Report of Caltrans Chief Financial Officer McKim dated Dec. 12, 2007). When Caltrans could not get the $1 million for construction from the State, it went after and succeeding in diverting $1.5 million in federal stimulus funds.
The sum of $2.256 million and $1.5 million is $3.756 million, no? Way closer to “about $4 million” than “about $3 million,” if one is rounding off the millions, yes?
If you agree, kindly publish a correction. If you do not agree, kindly let me and other readers know what is wrong with the math. And in the event that you are advised that Caltrans and/or SBCAG have cooked up some other numbers, kindly publish them for all to see.
Thank you very much.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.04.10 @ 01:03 PM
I agree with the first post, this isn’t going to stop people from suicide, they’re just going to go about it another way. Spend the money on outreach, education, and counseling.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.04.10 @ 04:16 PM
Good articles, Noozhawk.
There is extremely strong scientific evidence that people dissuaded from jumping from bridges do *not* go on to kill themselves. See the information and the many, many references at:
http://www.stopthetragedy.org/
Sure, there will be people focused on suicide no matter what.
There are people who can take heroin and, surprisingly, they don’t get addicted.
But policy and infrastructure should not be decided on the fringes, but on the more common situations. And in this case, the evidence is very strong in favor of the conclusion that a barrier saves lives.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.05.10 @ 09:52 AM
... and here comes the barrier supporter spam.
For those of you following this issue, how many times have you read this exact same message from sevendolphins? Does he think that if he repeats it enough times it will somehow become true?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.05.10 @ 02:27 PM
The scientific literature simply supports the construction of barriers, and that is better to focus on than snarky personal attacks.
Statements never become true or false by repetition of the same arguments. Absorbing the real papers, referenced at:
http://www.stopthetragedy.org/
is a more sure way to truth or falseness. Of course there are people who prefer that no-one know about or read those peer-reviewed articles, and so those people attack anyone who mentions the articles. Sad.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.05.10 @ 03:48 PM
I’ll actually endorse that. If you care about the science (or lack thereof) behind suicide barriers, read the papers for yourself. You might be surprised at what they actually say ...
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.06.10 @ 08:49 AM
No science is perfect. In fact, there is considerable evidence that improvements intended to increase safety on freeways do just the opposite… people respond to the safety improvements by driving faster and then causing worse accidents.
There is a strong, science-based, broad consensus that barriers do save lives. Imperfect, though, and there are dissenters who argue against the barriers.
I think Caltrans, SBCAG, and our local law enforcement have done pretty well in choosing a solution.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.06.10 @ 12:06 PM
LOL. I guess sevendolphins doesn’t want you to read the studies for yourself after all.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.06.10 @ 12:59 PM
Laugh all you want. Yes, for sure, everyone should read the papers themselves and come to the conclusions they feel are justified.
Nevertheless, there is a consensus that barriers work. Maybe that’s a wrong consensus, but it is quite easy to understand that a consensus of many serious people forms a solid foundation for Caltrans/SBCAG/Law Enforcement to base their decisions on.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.06.10 @ 11:21 PM
If you want people to read the papers for themselves, why don’t you stop telling them what to think and just let them do it? What are you worried about?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.07.10 @ 07:55 AM
I’m not telling anyone what to think. Quite the contrary. I’ve given the references to the actual literature on the subject, unlike Krakatoa, to enable people to actually go and read the literature.
But snarking and bullying will not prevent me from pointing out the fact that there is a consensus that the barrier will save lives. That is why, for example, SBCAG voted overwhelmingly (if not unanimously) to go ahead with the Cold Spring barrier.
Now it is fine to disagree with that consensus, but to claim the consensus is non-existent is not factual.
The `Friends of the Bridge’ do try to stomp on anyone who points out basic facts like that. It is simple intimidation, or an attempt at intimidation. Some of the intimidation is documented in this link:
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jul/23/suicide-barrier-suit-filed/
describing Marc McGinnes’ shouting at SBCAG, outside of normal comment period.
Similarly, a number of the anti-bridge commenters have used a trick as old as the Spanish Inquisition, consisting of asking me whether I have renounced violence against anti-bridge commenters. The fact is I never suggested violence against anyone, and I abhor and utterly reject violence. But gradually they turned an absence of renunciation of violence into claiming I advocate violence. Simple rhetorical dishonesty.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.07.10 @ 09:20 PM
Dude. You have issues.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 05.08.10 @ 08:35 PM
Uh… Marc McGinnes shouts at SBCAG outside of comment period. Talk about having issues.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Bridge Barrier Debate May Be Resolved in Span of a Month
Construction, lawsuit head toward commencement and possible conclusion in May. Fourth in a four-day series
Bill Macfadyen: With Suicide, Just What Can We Say, and How?
Suicide is a touchy topic for the media. Here's how Noozhawk handles the subject
For Barrier Opponents, There’s No Bridging This Divide
Friends of the Bridge places emphasis on human intervention as best prevention but looks to legal system to mount challenge. Third in a four-part series
Landmark Bridges Around the World Employ Suicide Barriers
Pasadena, San Pedro bridges have been outfitted with barriers; Golden Gate, Coronado bridges considering them
Creativity a Hallmark of Bridge Barrier Alternatives, Funding
Consensus builds around mesh fence while elaborate three-way funds swap is mapped out to get the job done at Cold Spring Canyon Bridge. Second in a four-day series
Weather: Fair 57.0º
Search Noozhawk »
