Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
The netting is one of five barrier concepts analyzed by the report; the others all involve a 10- to 12-foot tall steel railing, interspersed with tall clear panels, to prevent a person from jumping.
Though the idea of a suicide barrier has been toyed with since the bridge was built in 1937, it has repeatedly met opposition. Many argue that suicide is a societal issue and should not motivate major structural changes to a historic landmark.
A previous design for an 11-foot-high fence was rejected in 1999 as unsightly and possibly ineffective.
The report comes at a time when the bridge has grown increasingly lethal. While suicides have long averaged 20 to 22 a year, totaling about 1,250 since 1937, there were at least 34 in 2006 and 38 in 2007, according to the Marin County coroner’s office and Mary Currie, spokeswoman for the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District.
Currie said the district will take public feedback on the concepts and may decide whether to endorse a plan this fall. However, no one yet knows how the pricey plan might be funded.
The netting option carries a $40 million to $50 million price tag. It might require a special crane to pluck the jumper from the net, which would reduce bridge traffic by one lane and could take several hours, Currie said.
Two other options would add 8-foot barriers on top of the existing 4-foot railing. Two others, that involve removing the existing railing and replacing it with a 10- or 12-foot railing, would impact the historic value of the bridge, the report said.
All of the railing options could cost $40 million to $50 million, and would adversely affect the view from the bridge, the report stated.
Paul Muller, board member of the Bridge Rail Foundation, a suicide-barrier advocacy organization, said prevention tactics are long overdue and would undoubtedly save lives.
Eve Meyer, director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, said the majority of all suicides off the Golden Gate Bridge are impulsive acts that could be prevented.
“It’s a matter of the moment, and if you can get someone through that moment, the pain will move on,” Meyer said.
Examiner staff writer Will Reisman contributed to this report.
The draft environmental impact report on suicide barriers for the Golden Gate Bridge outlined variations of three concepts.
Steel net
» 20 feet below the bridge, 20 feet wide
» Requires special equipment to pluck jumpers out of the net
» Cost: $40 million to $50 million
Addition to the existing railing
» Adds 8 feet of vertical or horizontal rails to the 4-foot railing, interspersed with clear panels
» Adversely impacts view from the bridge
» Cost: $40 million to $50 million
Replacement of existing railing
» Replaces 4-foot railing with 10- or 12-foot vertical or horizontal rails, interspersed with clear panels
» Adversely impacts view from bridge, removes historic property
» Cost: $40 million to $50 million
Source: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District



Comments from Examiner Readers
10:06 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 11, 2008 re: "Bridge tolls expected to increase by September"
Report as inappropriate
9:57 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 10, 2008
re: "Fog surrounding toll increases may start to lift"
Report as inappropriate
1:02 AM MST on Mon., Jun. 9, 2008
re: "Crossover crash shuts down Golden Gate Bridge traffic"
Report as inappropriate
9:57 AM MST on Thu., May. 8, 2008
re: "Fog surrounding toll increases may start to lift"
Report as inappropriate
1:12 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008
re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"
Report as inappropriate
12:31 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008
re: "Commuters await price for congestion toll"
Report as inappropriate
4:29 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008
re: "Commuters await price for congestion toll"
Report as inappropriate
6:37 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 17, 2008
re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"
Report as inappropriate
9:09 AM MST on Mon., Mar. 17, 2008
re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"
Report as inappropriate
11:14 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 14, 2008
re: "Congestion fare zooming ahead"
Report as inappropriate
3:07 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 29, 2008
re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"
Report as inappropriate
12:56 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 9, 2008
re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"
Report as inappropriate
4:33 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008
re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"
Report as inappropriate
11:18 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008
re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"
Report as inappropriate
10:57 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008
re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"
Report as inappropriate
Mark Winshel said:
When the Bay area's various major bridges opened they had extremely low tolls, and such as for instance 15c or so, and which the politicians solemnly insisted would soon disappear, and therefore within a few years or less make the bridges totally free. But then the politicians insisted that due to to unforseen circumstances they needed a short one time extension of the toll before they became totally free. And then still later they needed to again extend it "just one more time." And then finally they stopped the charades of pretending that the bridge toll was just a temporary thing, and then they even started to raise the tolls, so now they have finally reached about five dollars or so, and obviously in the coming years the tolls will continue to keep on going up. In other words, the most permanent thing on earth is a temporary tax.
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
nonprofit gypsy said:
I absolutely agree, take control away from GGB board. They are not practicing ethical oversite ofour resources!
4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Has there been any more news of the condidtion of Grace dammann, the driver of the Honda CRV that was hit on the Golden gate Bridge 17 days ago?
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The state should take ownership of this bridge, the GGB board is trying to fill their pockets for years.
9 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The usual anti-tax, anti-fees lobby will whine and cry about increased tolls for Doyle Drive. That is until, of course, there's a major seismic event which cripples beyond use or collapses Doyle Drive. Then, of course, they will blame the government for doing nothing beforehand. We can't have it both ways.
9 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Hmmm New York was smart enough to say no to the congestion tolls for Manhattan.
7 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"If congestion-based tolling is necessary to secure the grant money, what about LOWERING non-peak-hour tolls by, say, 25 cents? Result: congestion-based tolling without further discouraging those of us who already think twice before taking our discretionary income across the bridge, either direction."
7 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If congestion-based tolling is necessary to secure the grant money, what about LOWERING non-peak-hour tolls by, say, 25 cents? Result: congestion-based tolling without further discouraging those of us who already think twice before taking our discretionary income across the bridge, either direction.
11 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gladwyn d'Souza said:
This traffic does more than just go down Doyle Drive. In San Mateo County cities like SSF double in population during the day while Redwood Shores sees a factor of twenty increase. And we lose bicycle access, on Ralston over 101, because traffic coming to Oracle and EA caused the interchange to be reconfigured, to allow more on ramps ramps from Oracle, so much so that the interchange has become the number one location for bicycle car collisions in Belmont. So what does Supervisor McGoldrick mean by regional cooperation? This is an example of how Caltrans uses regional ignorance to keep CMAs like SFTA and CCAG in their car trance.
9 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
When Doyle Drive is paid off, can we reverse the toll back to 0? I don't think so. Liberal taxes are driving people away. I already bought a home in Nevada. Maybe its time to get out of this hellhole. The next earthquake is coming anyway and everyone is going to die... JK
8 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Grant Gilligan said:
I was hit head on on the bridge. I was not even in far left lane. The woman next to me died and had no air bags. My friend and I survived the 100+ mile an hour impact. I drive across the bridge 5 times a week. I welcome the barrier!
35 agree | 33 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
So, will this barrier extend along Doyle Drive as well? The yellow tubes are hazardous (in addition to preventing the crossover problem) - they are frequently knocked loose and thrown about (very comforting on a motorcycle; there's already plenty of junk on CA highways).
42 agree | 41 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I rather enjoy risking a drive across the Golden Gate Bridge as is. I believe such beauty is cleary worth taking my chances. Sometimes I even hazard a quick glance to one side or the other, to catch a glimpse of either the amazing Pacific Ocean or San Francisco's unique cityscape. I've been doing it for 31 years now without a scratch on me or my car.
52 agree | 46 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Walter E.Wallis said:
Using new high strength steel, towers could be strengthened at the same time the roadway was widened, allowing 3 lanes each way and a premanent divider. Move the walkways either up or down and gain an emergency lane.
59 agree | 51 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Ian H said:
.64 fatalities per million miles traveled didn't sound so bad ... until I looked up the national average, which is 0.0098 fatalities per million miles traveled. In other words, drivers are 65 times more likely to be killed driving across the Golden Gate Bridge than the average US roadway. The Examiner should make a little extra effort to put its statistics into context. I'm in favor of the barrier now.
46 agree | 55 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree