BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 755
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: ammiano
VERSION: 2/21/13
Analysis by: Eric Thronson FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: July 2, 2013
SUBJECT:
Suicide barriers on bridges
DESCRIPTION:
This bill requires anyone planning the construction or
reconstruction of a motor vehicle bridge to take into account
the need for a suicide barrier in order to be eligible for
specific funds.
ANALYSIS:
Due to their size, transportation projects often take many years
to complete requiring the state and regional transportation
planning agencies to adopt multi-year funding plans for projects
in their jurisdictions. These agencies estimate what resources
will be available in the coming years, and then plan projects in
a way such that they will have the funds necessary to complete
the work. Regions adopt a plan called a Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP), which the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) compiles into a statewide plan called
the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In the
same manner, Caltrans develops a plan for future reconstruction
and rehabilitation of the state highway system called the State
Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). These
multi-year plans enable the state and regional agencies to most
efficiently and effectively utilize available resources to
deliver transportation projects.
Existing law requires state and local transportation planning
agencies to complete a number of assessments and reviews in
order for a transportation project to be included in these
multi-year plans and therefore be eligible for federal or state
funding. For example, projects cannot be included in an RTIP or
STIP without a completed preliminary design document, called a
project study report, which outlines the project's estimated
scope, cost, and timeline.
AB 755 (AMMIANO) Page 2
State and local transportation agencies have a number of fund
sources available for the development and construction of
transportation projects in the state, such as the federal fuel
excise taxes, the state fuel excise taxes, state and local sales
taxes, and bridge toll revenues. Statutory formulas allocate
most of these revenues to various transportation providers
throughout the state. For example, each month the controller's
office allocates by formula roughly one-third of the funds in
the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA), which are derived from
diesel and gasoline fuel excise taxes, directly to cities and
counties in the state.
This bill requires anyone planning the construction or
reconstruction of a motor vehicle bridge to take into account
the need for a suicide barrier in order to be eligible for
federal funds apportioned to the state, funds made available
from the HUTA, or toll bridge revenues.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . According to the author, restricting easy access to
lethal bridge jumps can significantly reduce the number of
bridge suicides. Many people experience episodes of
depression or distress, but people are only acutely suicidal
for short periods. A key to preventing suicide is to make it
difficult for a person to access the most highly lethal
methods during these short periods of suicidal crisis. The
author contends that if suicide deterrents are considered
during the development of bridge projects, then deaths can be
avoided, as well as the high costs of adding a deterrent or
barrier after a bridge is constructed.
2.Bridge suicide barriers . A bridge suicide barrier is a
physical barrier designed to prevent people from attempting
suicide by deliberately jumping from a bridge. Many suicide
barriers are tall, fence-like structures that prevent people
from easily jumping. They are, however, often unpopular due
to aesthetic concerns. Suicide nets extending horizontally
below the bridge to prevent suicidal jumps can be a popular,
but costly, alternative because they do not significantly
impact the view from the bridge. San Francisco Bay Area
officials are proposing a suicide net for the Golden Gate
Bridge estimated to cost $50 million.
While suicide in any case is tragic, it is not clear whether a
AB 755 (AMMIANO) Page 3
bridge suicide barrier will actually save lives. Studies show
that a well-designed suicide barrier can stop people from
jumping at a particular site, but no study has shown that the
presence of a suicide barrier will actually lower the overall
suicide rate in the surrounding area. One recent study of the
effects of a recently installed bridge suicide barrier showed
that after the installation at the Bloor Street Viaduct in
Toronto, the rate of jumping from other bridges in the area
increased and there was no decrease in the overall jumping
rate. Suicide prevention advocates disagree with these
findings and further argue that it is the transportation
officials' responsibility to ensure that commuters using their
highways, bridges, tunnels, or overpasses are protected from
safety hazards. They further argue that if individuals are
killing themselves using structures for which these
transportation officials are responsible, then the officials
need to consider ways to address the problem.
3.While the cause be noble, the execution is wanting . It is
difficult to argue against an effort to reduce tragedies such
as suicidal bridge jumps. While opponents recognize the good
intentions of this bill, they raise valid concerns about the
potential consequences should it be enacted. First, the
language of the bill is very vague, requiring someone to "take
into account" the need for a suicide barrier while planning
the construction or reconstruction of a motor vehicle bridge.
This ambiguous language leads to questions such as who is
responsible for considering the need for a suicide barrier,
how and to whom do they demonstrate that they considered the
need, and to what end does consideration of the barrier lead?
Without answers to these questions, state and local officials
cannot implement this bill. Second, opponents raise a
liability concern related to this new mandate. Currently,
cities and counties are not liable for suicides on public
property, but it could be argued that if planners did not
demonstrate compliance with this new law, then liability for
not doing so could equate to liability for any tragedies
occurring on these structures. Third, transportation
officials are concerned that tying the consideration of a
suicide barrier, in the way described in this bill, to the
funding of bridge projects could slow or stall work necessary
to keep bridges open and California's motoring public safe.
Finally, opponents argue that this bill is unnecessary because
transportation planners already consider the need for suicide
barriers on the construction or reconstruction of motor
vehicle bridges.
AB 755 (AMMIANO) Page 4
One way to accomplish the author's goal of requiring state and
local planners to consider the need of a suicide barrier is to
include a demonstration of the consideration in every bridge
project's study report. This would, in a more implementable
way, tie the consideration of such a barrier to federal and
state transportation funding, while not requiring more work
than is already done since planners already consider the need
for these barriers. The only change is that now the planners
will include within the documentation that initially spells
out the scope of a project something demonstrating that the
barrier was considered during the process. To address
implementation concerns, the author has agreed to amend the
bill to require planners to include in a bridge's project
study report a document demonstrating the consideration of a
suicide barrier.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 57-10
Appr: 13-2
Trans: 14-0
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, June 26,
2013.)
SUPPORT: Mental Health America of California
OPPOSED: California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
Placer County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California