Colorado Street Bridge Task Force Community Meeting Maranatha High - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Colorado Street Bridge Task Force

Community Meeting Maranatha High School

169 S. St. John Ave. Pasadena, CA 91105 February 20th, 2018 6:30 to 8:00 PM

2

Why a Task Force? - Recap

• On July 19, 2017, due to a recent and alarming trend, City Staff

provided the City’s Public Safety Committee a presentation on the Colorado Bridge; its history relative to suicides, statistics and literature

• n the subject, how others have dealt with similar issues, and several

sample treatments or deterrents.

• After which, the City’s Public Works Director assembled a Task Force

with Community Members and representatives from the Historic Preservation Community, First Responders (Police and Fire), Public Health, Mental Health, Architects, and Engineers in hopes of developing options that are amenable to all stakeholders and the Community at large.

3

Task Force Recap – Who We Are

• Ms. Claire Bogaard

Pasadena Heritage, Pasadena Resident

• Mr. Melvyn Green, SE

Structural Engineering Consult., Melvyn Green & Assoc.

• Ms. Sue Mossman

Pasadena Heritage, Pasadena Resident

• Mr. Chris Peck, AIA, PE

CM Peck Consulting, Pasadena Resident

• Ms. Andrea Rawlings

Architect, Pasadena Resident

• Ms. Patricia Speelman,

Division Director, Suicide Prevention Center - Didi Hirsch

• Dr. Ying Ying Goh, MD

Health Officer, Pasadena Public Health Detective Darryl Harris Pasadena Police Department

• Mr. Michael Johnson

Director of Public Health, Pasadena Public Health

• Mr. Ara Maloyan, PE

Director of Public Works, Pasadena Public Works

• Ms. Kris Markarian, PE

City Engineer, Pasadena Public Works

• Mr. Brent Maue, PE

Assistant City Engineer, Pasadena Public Works Corporal Brad May Pasadena Police Department

• Ms. Takako Suzuki

City Council District Liaison Deputy Chief Jon Trautwein Pasadena Fire Department

4

Task Force Recap – Mission and Vision

MISSION

The mission of this Task Force is to engage the community in developing solutions that will deter people from attempting suicide on the Colorado Street Bridge while preserving its national historic character and significance.

Vision

Allow the community to experience and enjoy the Colorado Street Bridge and the Arroyo as a safe and beautiful environment now and in the future.

5

Task Force Recap – Amended Timeline

• Oct. 18, 2017 Task Force Meeting – Introduction; Define Mission and Vision
• Nov. 9, 2017 Task Force Meeting – Create agenda for Community Meeting
• Nov. 16, 2017 Task Force Meeting – Bridge Site Visit
• Nov. 29, 2017 Community Meeting – Introduction, Listen, Learn; Solicit ideas from

Community Members

• Dec. 13, 2017 Task Force Meeting – Evaluate ideas expressed at Community Meeting;

Begin to define options

• Jan. 18, 2018 Task Force Meeting – Further refine options
• Feb, 1, 2018 Task Force Meeting – Determine feasible options to be presented to

community for review and comment

• Feb. 20, 2018 Community Meeting – Present vetted options to community for comment
• Mar. 2018 Public Safety Committee – Present Alternatives for Committee

recommendation to Council

• Apr. 2018 City Council Meeting – Present Alternatives for Council action

Tentative Date Tentative Date

6

Task Force Recap - What are the Problems?

With an overall height of 7 feet 6 inches, the existing barrier would appear to be adequate but there are several problem spots.

7

Task Force Recap - What are the Problems?

Existing Barrier = Concrete Balustrade + Fencing

• Existing Combination Provides Footholds for Climbing

Existing Balustrade and Fencing

Cross-Section of Ex. Barrier and Fencing

4’ Balustrade

3’ – 6” Fence

• Footholds reduce effective vertical height to

4 feet easing effort needed to scale barrier.

• Multiple Peer Reviewed Studies indicate a

minimum height with no footholds of 7’-6”.

Possible Footholds

8

Task Force Recap - What are the Problems?

Alcove on the Colorado Street Bridge

Alcoves

• Seating area, balustrade/concrete rail,

and light pedestal combine to provide “steps” to an elevation where jumpers can climb over the fencing.

• Gaps in the fencing at the light pedestals

allow for even easier access.

• There are 20 alcoves on the bridge – 10
• n each side.

9

Task Force Recap - What are the Problems?

Ends/Approaches

• Potential jumpers can climb to the
• utside of the barrier at these end

points and “walk the ledge” to greater heights over the Arroyo.

• Light pedestal and concrete balustrade

combination provides climbing ease for jumpers to get over any additional fencing “extension” that may be installed.

West Bound Approach – NE Corner of Colorado Street Bridge

10

Task Force Recap - What are the Problems?

Ends/Approaches Cont.

Existing Ledge

Section Through Cornice Ledge or “Cornice” Is 7 inches wide

Once over the barrier, the outside ledge or “Cornice” allows a potential Jumper ease to move along bridge span, creating difficulty for First Responders.

• Negotiator setup affected
• Firefighter/airbag setup is hindered

Task Force Recap What’s Been Done: Temporary Measure

Alcove Fencing

As a result of the recent uptick in suicides and attempts from the bridge, City Staff contracted the installation of temporary fencing at the alcove locations.

a. Fencing is 10 feet tall located at all 20 alcoves. b. This fencing prevents entry to the locations which provide the easiest access over the barrier. c. This fencing is a temporary measure until a more permanent solution is identified and implemented.

11

12

Task Force Recap Temporary Measure: Alcove Fencing

13

Task Force – Prior Community Meeting

• Oct. 18, 2017 Task Force Meeting – Introduction; Define Mission and Vision
• Nov. 9, 2017 Task Force Meeting – Create agenda for Community Meeting
• Nov. 16, 2017 Task Force Meeting – Bridge Site Visit
• Nov. 29, 2017 Community Meeting – Introduction, Listen, Learn; Solicit ideas from

Community Members

• Dec. 13, 2017 Task Force Meeting – Evaluate ideas expressed at Community Meeting;

Begin to define options

• Jan. 18, 2018 Task Force Meeting – Further refine options
• Feb, 1, 2018 Task Force Meeting – Determine feasible options to be presented to

community for review and comment

• Feb. 20, 2018 Community Meeting – Present vetted options to community for comment
• Mar. 2018 Public Safety Committee – Present Alternatives for Committee

recommendation to Council

• Apr. 2018 City Council Meeting – Present Alternatives for Council action

On November 29th, 2017 the Task Force met with the Community at the La Casita Del Arroyo to introduce the function of the Task Force, provide background information on the suicide issue at the Colorado Street Bridge, and listen to the Community’s experiences relative to this issue as well as their ideas for solutions.

14

Prior Community Meeting – Nov. 29th, 2017

• Dr. Ying Ying Goh

15

Prior Community Meeting – Summary of Ideas

Physical Measures

16 Partial Barrier (Excludes Piers) Clifton Suspension Bridge UK

1. Partial Vertical Barriers – focus on “weak points” in the existing barrier. − Pros

• Literature suggests a significant reduction in suicides
• Efforts are focused so potentially less aesthetic/visual impact
• Could be installed relatively quickly

− Cons

• Remaining barrier still relatively easy to circumvent
• Less effective than other measures researched
• Will affect aesthetics

2. Full Length Vertical Barriers – barriers are installed for the full length of the structure − Pros

• Literature suggests most effective measure in suicide reduction
• Increase chance of intervention
• Most preferred by survivors of suicidal jumps

− Cons

• May have large aesthetic impact
• Design likely to present structural challenges

Physical Measures – Continued….

17 Existing Temporary End Treatment

• 3. End Treatments – barriers are installed

perpendicular to the bridge to prevent access via the ends or approaches to the bridge

− Pros

• Reduces a potential jumper’s ability to get out
• nto the ledge or “cornice”
• Could eliminate the need for “cornice”

modifications

− Cons

• Affects bridge aesthetics
• If barrier is circumvented, would make return

more difficult

Physical Measures - Continued….

18

• 4. Ledge Modifications – surface could be

modified to create a more difficult walking surface

− Pros

• Potential jumpers may be deterred from making

an attempt if unable to use ledge for access or mobility

− Cons

• Modification would have an aesthetic impact
• If barrier is circumvented, return may be more

difficult

Existing Outside Bridge Ledge

“Post Attempt” Measures

19 Rendering of Bridge Netting

• 1. Horizontal Barriers – netting could be installed below

the bridge deck to catch or otherwise discourage jumpers − Pros

• Studies show significant reduction in suicides
• Limited effect on views from bridge

− Cons

• Significant impact on overall aesthetics of bridge
• Presents new challenges for First Responders – extraction

from netting

• Nothing prevents jumpers from completing a second jump
• 2. Plant Trees – plant trees below the bridge to cushion

landing or otherwise discourage jumping attempts − Pros

• Positive effect on aesthetics

− Cons

• Weak evidence of effectiveness – no verifying scientific data
• Long time to maturity
• Can’t be planted along entire length

“Post Attempt” Measures – Continued…

20 Trees in the Arroyo

Planting Trees is not possible at several locations along the bridge alignment, including:

• At the bridge’s highest point – above the channel
• Over Arroyo Boulevard
• Over the portions of the alignment which are private

property

• These locations total 320’ or just over 20% of bridge’s

length

Areas Where Planting Trees Not Possible

Active Measures

21

• 1. Intercoms – install intercoms or call boxes

− Pros

• Allow for almost immediate interaction once alerted

− Cons

• Installations at other locations have been largely

ineffective

• 2. Volunteer Patrols – utilize volunteers to patrol bridge

− Pros

• Human contact may be important in deterring suicide

attempts

− Cons

• Weak evidence of effectiveness
• Patrols would require training
• May increase liability risk

Intercom or Call Box

Active Measures – Continued…..

22

• 3. Cameras – install cameras that could monitor bridge

activity

− Pros

• Would allow for remote monitoring
• Would allow First Responders to observe and assess

situation before responding

− Cons

• Privacy concerns
• Who has monitoring responsibility
• Unknown effectiveness
• Requires response before any intervention can take place
• 4. Motion Sensors – install devices that detect motion

and alert responders

− Pros

• Earlier detection of potential jumpers

− Cons

• False alarms
• Unknown effectiveness

Closed Circuit Camera

Change Environmental Conditions

23

• 1. Modify Lighting – modify lighting to increase

visibility or otherwise alter bridge environment

− Pros

• Additional lighting may serve as a deterrent

− Cons

• No evidence of effectiveness
• May have negative environmental effects on residents

and wildlife

• 2. Plant Hedges – plant hedges or landscape to

provide positive psychological messages

− Pros

• Could have positive aesthetic effect

− Cons

• No evidence of effectiveness
• Would require a great deal of maintenance

Lighting on Colorado Street Bridge

Self Help Measures

24 Sign on Golden Gate Bridge

• 1. Signs – Install signs with positive messages

which include contacts for counseling

− Pros

• Evidence of reasonable effectiveness
• Utilize existing services
• Low time to deployment

− Cons

• Rely on suicidal individual to take action
• 2. Phone Line – advertise/implement use of “self

help” phone line

− Pros

• Utilize existing services
• No/low time to deployment

− Cons

• Rely on suicidal individual to take action

Self Help Measures – Continued…..

25 “Text” Support Sign on Golden Gate Bridge

• 3. Text Line – advertise/implement use of “self

help” phone line

− Pros

• Evidence of reasonable effectiveness
• Utilize existing services
• Low time to deployment
• Data shows teens and young adults much

more likely to use “text” services

− Cons

• Rely on suicidal individual to take action

26

Summary of Ideas - Revisited

27

Mitigation Measures: How Do We Choose?

Evaluation Matrix

Measure Type Physically Expected Environmental Effect On Time To Full Prevent Jumps? Effectiveness Aesthetics Impact

• Emer. Services

Implementation

Partial Barriers at Weak Points Yes Intermediate Full Length Barriers Yes Intermediate End Treatments Yes Intermediate Ledge or "Cornice" Modifications Possibly Intermediate Planting Trees No Many Years Horizontal Barriers (Netting) No Intermediate "Cushioning" Landscaping No Short to Inter. Additional Lighting No Short to Inter. Landscaped Encouragement No Short to Inter. Cameras No Intermediate Motion Sensors No Intermediate Volunteer Patrols No Short Speakers/Intercoms No Intermediate Signage No Short "Self Help" Text Line No Short "Self Help" Phone Line No Short

Measure Type Physically Expected Environmental Effect On Time To Full Prevent Jumps? Effectiveness Aesthetics Impact

• Emer. Services

Implementation

Partial Barriers at Weak Points Yes Intermediate Full Length Barriers Yes Intermediate End Treatments Yes Intermediate Ledge or "Cornice" Modifications Possibly Intermediate Planting Trees No Many Years Horizontal Barriers (Netting) No Intermediate "Cushioning" Landscaping No Short to Inter. Additional Lighting No Short to Inter. Landscaped Encouragement No Short to Inter. Cameras No Intermediate Motion Sensors No Intermediate Volunteer Patrols No Short Speakers/Intercoms No Intermediate Signage No Short "Self Help" Text Line No Short "Self Help" Phone Line No Short

28

Mitigation Measures: How Do We Choose?

This Column Guided Our Recommendations

Measure Type Physically Expected Environmental Effect On Time To Full Prevent Jumps? Effectiveness Aesthetics Impact

• Emer. Services

Implementation

Partial Barriers at Weak Points Yes Intermediate Full Length Barriers Yes Intermediate End Treatments Yes Intermediate Ledge or "Cornice" Modifications Possibly Intermediate Planting Trees No Many Years Horizontal Barriers (Netting) No Intermediate "Cushioning" Landscaping No Short to Inter. Additional Lighting No Short to Inter. Landscaped Encouragement No Short to Inter. Cameras No Intermediate Motion Sensors No Intermediate Volunteer Patrols No Short Speakers/Intercoms No Intermediate Signage No Short "Self Help" Text Line No Short "Self Help" Phone Line No Short

29

Mitigation Measures: How Do We Choose?

This Column Guided Our Recommendations

These

1. Prevent most attempts from even

• ccurring.

2. Show prevention rates between 80% and 100%, depending on design variables. 3. Would significantly reduce or nearly eliminate strain on first responders. 4. Are “passive” and would therefore not require human oversight or intervention to mitigate an attempt. 5. Would require primarily a single “up front” installation cost and minimal

• n-going or legacy costs.

30

Mitigation Measures: How Do We Choose?

Measure Type Physically Expected Environmental Effect On Time To Full Prevent Jumps? Effectiveness Aesthetics Impact

• Emer. Services

Implementation

Partial Barriers at Weak Points Yes Intermediate Full Length Barriers Yes Intermediate End Treatments Yes Intermediate Ledge or "Cornice" Modifications Possibly Intermediate Planting Trees No Many Years Horizontal Barriers (Netting) No Intermediate "Cushioning" Landscaping No Short to Inter. Additional Lighting No Short to Inter. Landscaped Encouragement No Short to Inter. Cameras No Intermediate Motion Sensors No Intermediate Volunteer Patrols No Short Speakers/Intercoms No Intermediate Signage No Short "Self Help" Text Line No Short "Self Help" Phone Line No Short

TT These Then Become

Primary treatments and all others are complimentary in nature

Recommendation – The Immediate Future

31 Existing Signage Suggested Signage

First Step – Update signage to incorporate more widely used hotline number and text line

Recommendation – Future Objectives

32

Design and Install:

• 1. Full Length Vertical Barriers
• With a minimum height above highest toehold of 7’– 6”
• Which will cover both sides of the bridge for its entire length,

including the existing weak points

• 2. End Treatments
• Which deter a person’s ability to walk the outside ledge to a location

where a jump would cause serious injury or death

• 3. Complimentary Measures
• Will work in concert with the measures above to mitigate suicides

and suicide attempts from the bridge to the greatest extent possible

Next Steps - Timeline

The task force tentatively expects to present recommendations to City Leadership according to the following timeline:

33

• Mar. 2018 Public Safety Committee – Present Alternatives for Committee

recommendation to Council

• Apr. 2018 City Council Meeting – Present Alternatives for Council action

Next Steps – Project Design & Environmentals

Upon Council approval and appropriation of funds, City Staff will generate a “Request for Proposals” to solicit interest and select a consultant whose tasks will include:

• Development of a vertical barrier design concept and completion of

required environmental studies

• Public Outreach at critical steps in the design process, ensuring the

stakeholders have a “voice” in the final design

• Complete “Final Design” and construction documents for a barrier

system and complementary components meeting the criteria determined by the task force

After completion of the tasks above, Staff will return to City Council for project approval and appropriation of construction funds.

34

We would like to open the floor for comment.

For more information, please visit the City’s Website at:

https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/engineering-and-construction/construction/colorado-street-bridge/

Additional Information and References

36

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169625

http://www.sprc.org/sites/default/files/migrate/library/SuicideHotspotsGuidance%20PDF.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129714/pdf/westjmed00296-0031.pdf https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09020296 http://seattlefriends.org/files/seiden_study.pdf