Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct

Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May 28, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having recommended to the Budget Committee that it recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, that up to $1.5 million be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account to undertake the project to avert suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May 28, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide the Urban Environment and Development Committee with recommendations to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Street Viaduct.

Funding Sources and Requirements:

Funds of between $40,000.00 and $60,000.00 for the proposed Request for Proposals and design process can be absorbed within the approved 1998 Transportation Capital Works budget.

Preliminary estimates indicate that the installation costs for barriers/safety netting/equipment on the Viaduct will range from $400,000.00 to $700,000.00 plus operating and maintenance costs ranging from $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 per year. These estimates are based on the provision of basic safety systems and do not include any costs associated with architectural or artistic enhancements to conform with City urban design practices. The cost of these enhancements is unknown at this time but could increase the costs to between $800,000.00 and $1,300,000.00. The Works and Emergency Services Department does not have funds allocated for this project in either its Current Budget or Capital Budget for 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee support, in principle, the introduction of measures, as outlined in this report, to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Street Viaduct;

(2)a Request for Proposals be issued, as outlined in this report, to solicit proposals for design concepts and full architectural services, with the submissions being evaluated by a Project Steering Committee comprised of representatives from:

-the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-the Council on Suicide Prevention;

-the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto;

-Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning;

-the Transportation Division, Works and Emergency Services Department; and

-the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee.

(3)a further report be submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the selection of a preferred design, the detailed budget requirements and a project schedule; and

(4)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on April 16, 1998, the Council of the City of Toronto adopted Clause No. 3 of Report No. 4 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Prevention of Suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct". In the aforementioned Clause, the Urban Environment and Development Committee reported, for the information of Council, having:

(a)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to consult with the Bridge Society of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario and submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on April 16, 1998, on any progress that has been made with respect to this matter and, specifically, on any short-term initiatives that can be implemented immediately;

(b)requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the appropriate City officials, to submit a report to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998, regarding:

(i)a public education program which would set out the actions that should be taken by members of the public if confronted with a potential suicide situation; and

(ii)improved services which can be implemented in an effort to prevent suicides; and

(c)referred the following motions by Councillor Moscoe to the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, with a request that he submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998:

"That the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommend that Council:

(a)support, in principle, the concept of barriers or safety netting to avert suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct;

(b)refer the design of the barriers or safety netting to the Toronto Historical Board, the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, and the Interim Functional Lead, Culture, Arts and Heritage, with a request that the design process be in accordance with the City's policies and that an artist be included on the design team; and

(c)that this process be fast-tracked.".

In response to Item (a), the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, submitted a report to City Council at its meeting on April 16, 1998, which provided information on the progress that had been made to date with respect to safety measures on the Bloor Street Viaduct.

At its meeting on April 20, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it the following reports:

(i)(April 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services recommending that:

(1)City Council urge the Ontario Minister of Health to make a financial commitment to the Mental Health Reform Strategy by:

(a)allocating funding immediately to ensure that a comprehensive crisis response system is in place for Toronto;

(b)ensuring that the community services dealing with suicide (i.e., distress centres, phone-in lines) are adequately funded to meet increased demands for these services; and

(c)implementing key components of related community-based services (e.g., case management, housing, etc.) as quickly as possible; and

(2)the Medical Officer of Health report via the Board of Health on the range of prevention and educational services already in place within the City and, in consultation with the Canadian Mental Health Association, identify further educational components needed to better equip the general public in the area of suicide awareness and prevention, and explaining that suicide prevention needs to be seen in the context of mental health reform, which requires a financial commitment and timely implementation by the Province; and

(ii)(April 15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, advising that preliminary estimates for installing barriers or safety netting on the Bloor Street Viaduct range from $400,000.00 to $700,000.00 plus operating and maintenance costs ranging from $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 per year, and that these estimates are based on the provision of basic safety systems and do not include any costs associated with architectural or artistic enhancements.

Discussion:

In response to Council's directives, transportation staff initiated a series of working team meetings and consultations. The working team included representatives from the following agencies:

-the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario (2 representatives);

-the Council on Suicide Prevention (2 representatives);

-the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto (1 representative);

-Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning (1 representative); and

-the Transportation Division, Works and Emergency Services Department (2 representatives).

The working team focused its activities in five areas as follows:

(A)review of experience from other jurisdictions with respect to suicides from bridges;

(B)review of data with respect to suicides in the City of Toronto;

(C)review of the feasibility of installing barriers/covered walkway/safety netting on the Bloor Viaduct to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Viaduct;

(D)review of the feasibility of installing telephones on the Bloor Viaduct; and

(E)review of the feasibility of developing non-structural options (e.g., police patrols) to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Viaduct.

 Following is an overview of the working group's conclusions in these five areas:

(A)Review of Experience from Other Jurisdictions:

The Transportation Division does not have staff with expertise in suicide prevention issues and therefore relied on external experts to provide knowledgeable opinion and assessment on this topic.

The Council on Suicide Prevention requested Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry to conduct a comprehensive review of the current research literature and statistical information available on bridge suicides. Some conclusions that have arisen from the review are:

(a)There is no doubt that certain landmarks become favoured spots for suicide. Publicity from the media undoubtedly enhances the popularity of such suicide points.

(b)Accessibility undoubtedly facilitates choice of suicide method. Thus, any measure that impedes accessibility to jump from a bridge will lower the suicide incidence on that bridge. This has been shown at bridges such as the Duke Ellington Bridge in Washington, D.C.

(c)There is absolutely no evidence available that closing off access to suicide from the Bloor Viaduct will lower the overall suicide incidence in Toronto... Equally, there is no evidence that suicides will increase at other bridges in Toronto if steps are taken at the Bloor Street Viaduct.

Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, Psychiatrist, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, and Professor of Psychiatry and Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, made an overhead presentation to The Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting on March 23, 1998, entitled "A Rationale for Preventing Suicide on the Prince Edward (Bloor) Viaduct". Due to the significance of the presentation in providing background information, the working team requested that a copy of his presentation material be attached to this report.

Between April 15 and 18, 1998, an international conference, hosted by the American Association of Suicidology, was held in Washington, D.C. Ms. Karen Letofsky, Executive Director of the Toronto Distress Centre and a member of the Council on Suicide Prevention, prepared a summary of the conference as follows:

"This conference was of historical significance in that it brought together a number of groups, whose interest in suicide reflects quite different goals and perspectives: the American Association of Suicidology; Survivors of Suicide; Suicide Prevention Awareness Network; and the International Association of Suicide Prevention. Psychologist, Dr. Seiden, was honoured at the event for his advocacy work in trying to suicide-proof the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge. This structure still remains the number one location, worldwide, for highest number of suicides per year.

In discussion with a number of professionals about the San Francisco experience, it was learned that:

(a)partial safety measures have not been effective from an overall perspective;

(b)total barricading has been advocated for over 20 years;

(c)resistance has come from the Historical Board for aesthetic reasons and from citizen groups espousing an individual rights/responsibility argument; and

(d)there is full international professional support for the total proofing of the bridge.

There was general consensus amongst those surveyed, that denial of access to means was a recognized effective strategy in suicide prevention.

In reference to concerns about substitution of means, it was agreed that there was no evidence to suggest that either all individuals did not substitute, nor that they only substituted with other bridges. Therefore, in order to document the effectiveness of barricades, it is important to look at the overall suicide rate for a community over a number of years, rather than merely at rates for neighbouring structures. In this case, the Washington situation is a glowing endorsement for the utility of this strategy. Other supportive strategies undertaken by some communities, including foot patrols, also lend credence to the notion that preventing an attempt is effective in ultimately preventing suicide. This has been demonstrated in a number of follow-up studies, wherein only 20 percent, within a five to ten-year time period, of those who were stopped went on to complete."

In summary, there is sufficient experience, in particular, from the following three bridges:

(i)Sydney Harbour Bridge, Australia;

(ii)Ellington Bridge, Washington, D.C.; and

(iii)Glenn Street Bridge, Glen Falls, New York;

to demonstrate that the installation of fences can eliminate the incidence of suicide attempts from that bridge. The Washington, D.C. example is of special interest in that the installation of the fence did not promote a transfer of suicides to an adjacent bridge.

(B)Review of Toronto Data:

These data have been provided to all Councillors in a separate memo together with other letters and literature from suicide experts and researchers.

The number of suicides from the Bloor Viaduct and the significant increase of suicides in 1997 is a major concern. In view of this situation, the working team hopes that installation of protective measures will occur in 1998.

(C)Feasibility of Installing Barriers/Covered Walkway/Safety Netting:

The construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct was completed in 1919, with a bi-level deck construction across the Don River at Bloor Street/Danforth Avenue. The maximum difference in elevation from the top of the handrail to the ground below is approximately 40 metres (131 feet) at the Don River and 27 metres (89 feet) at the Don Valley Parkway.

The Viaduct has a total length of 469 metres (1,539 feet) between the east and west abutments. To effectively prevent people from jumping off the bridge, a barrier will be required over the entire length of the structure.

Three types of preventive barrier designs were investigated and approximately costed as follows:

(1)installation of safety fencing of sufficient height ($400,000.00 - $520,000.00);

(2)installation of covered walkways ($700,000.00); and

(3)installation of safety nets below the structure ($530,000.00).

Relative to each other, all three options have various advantages and disadvantages such as view obstruction, bird nuisance, paper pollution, vandalism, high wind and ice loading stress and maintenance costs. Some members of the working team wish to include all three options with equal standing in the Request for Proposals. Transportation staff have concerns with respect to solutions involving safety netting and/or covered walkways for the following reasons:

(a)there is no documented evidence that safety netting is being used anywhere in the world to deter suicide attempts from bridges. In addition, the retrieval of people from the netting is problematic with respect to both safety and cost;

(b)a covered walkway is the most expensive of the options being considered. Also, there are major concerns with maintenance and cleanliness issues, based on our experience with bus shelters; and

(c)there are a number of success stories with fences, particularly, the Ellington Bridge in Washington, D.C.

Further meetings of the working team will be held to discuss these concerns in more detail and to develop the final details of the Request for Proposals. In preparing the Request for Proposals, it is the working team's intent to encourage innovative solutions provided they meet the three prime criteria, namely, deter suicide attempts; meet the architectural/artistic requirements; and be appropriate from both a capital and operating cost standpoint.

(D)Installation of Telephones:

Information was received from Bell Canada regarding the installation of telephones on the Bloor Viaduct. These phones would enable would-be jumpers to reach out for help/contact and would also enable passers-by to call for emergency services if required.

The working team, in reviewing the issue of installing telephones on the Bloor Viaduct, concluded as follows:

(1)six telephones should be installed, three on each side;

(2)the phones would need to be clearly visible, with appropriate signing;

(3)there are costs associated with the receiving end service (Distress Centre) that need to be taken into account; and

(4)telephones on the Bloor Viaduct can play a role in reducing the number of suicides but will not be nearly as effective as barriers or safety netting.

We estimate that the supply and installation of six telephones on the Bloor Viaduct including appropriate signing will cost approximately $15,000.00. The effectiveness of the telephones will depend on a number of factors, in particular, the capability to provide an immediate response at the receiving end (Distress Centre) where the calls will be immediately identified as either "emergency response required" or "counselling requested". When details regarding the operational implications, costs, and funding requirements of providing this service are finalized and approved, it will be possible to proceed with the installation of the six telephones.

(E)Non-Structural Measures:

In consultation with the Department of Community and Neighbourhood Services, and the provincial Ministry of Health, the working team is continuing to investigate other measures to reduce the number of suicides from the Bloor Street Viaduct.

These measures include:

(i)police patrols;

(ii)community group patrols;

(iii)public education program; and

(iv)change in public perception.

They will be investigated as supportive, rather than substitutive measures.

Conclusions:

In attempting to provide an answer to the question, "What actions should be taken to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Street Viaduct?", the working team reviewed and evaluated an extensive amount of information, a synopsis of which is contained in this report.

For a project which involves installing either barriers or safety netting on the Bloor Viaduct, the engineering requirements of these systems can be clearly defined. However, given the unique architectural and aesthetic requirements, a two-stage architect/designer selection process is being recommended. The first stage will solicit "Expressions of Interest" from the architectural/design community. From the responses, a short list will be developed of the most qualified respondents. During the second stage of the competition, the qualified respondents will develop and submit design solutions and cost estimates. The selected candidate from the second stage will be retained to complete the design document, tender and manage the entire project. This approach will enable proposers to apply innovative designs that meet both the functional and aesthetic requirements of this project. It is estimated that this two-stage selection process could cost between $40,000.00 and $60,000.00. Funds for this process will be reassigned from the 1998 Transportation Capital Works budget.

A Project Steering Committee will be established to evaluate the proposals and to provide guidance during this process. It will be comprised of representatives from:

-the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-the Council on Suicide Prevention;

-the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto;

-Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning;

-the Transportation Division, Works and Emergency Services Department; and

-the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee.

This process will lead to a solution which best meets the various criteria.

Contact Name:

Mr. Les Kelman, Assistant Director, Construction, 392-5372.

(Presentation material filed by Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, entitled "A Rationale for PreventingSuicide on the Prince Edward (Bloor) Viaduct",referred to in the foregoing report.)

Some Suicide Bridges and Other Suicide Spots Mentioned in the Medical Literature:

-Golden Gate, San Francisco-Oakland Bay;

-Beachy Head, Sussex, United Kingdom;

-Clifton Suspension Bridge, Bristol, United Kingdom;

-Duke Ellington Bridge, Washington, D. C.;

-Taft Bridge, Washington, D. C.;

-Brooklyn Bridge and Mid-Hudson Bridge, New York;

-Arroyo Seco Bridge, California;

-Aurora Bridge, Seattle;

-Story and Gateway Bridges, Brisbane, Australia;

-Sydney Harbour Bridge, Australia;

-Four Bridges, Odense, Denmark;

-Eiffel Tower, Paris, France; and

-Empire State Building, New York.

What happens to bridge jumpers?

-Fate is determined by height, velocity, angle, surface (falls onto pavement likely to be fatal or lead to serious injury; falls into water lead to severe internal damage and likely death).

-In jumping into water horizontal falls more likely fatal.

-San Francisco cases experienced death-rebirth, transcendence.

-Golden Gate survival rate moved up from one percent to five percent. Because of rapid transportation to hospital.

Rationale for Bridge Barriers:

-There is a specific scenario for each person's suicide in that person's mind. Compare the Coal Gas story (Kreitman).

-Deterring the act by barriers may buy time. The suicidal impulse is often temporary.

-Safety measures prevent injury or distress to those in proximity.

 -The preference of suicides for specific bridges is romanticization of death. Attention focused by the media fosters this "brand preference" similar to commercial advertising.

-The Sydney Harbour Bridge barrier is effective (15-fold reduction in 50 years).

-A high proportion of jumpers in some cities are actively psychotic schizophrenics responding to auditory hallucinations (cf. Brisbane vs. Bristol).

Case example: The Ellington Bridge, D. C.*

-Did the barrier prevent suicide from the Ellington Bridge?

EllingtonTaft

Pre ("79-86") 25 12

Post ("86-90") 0 10

* O'Carroll (1994) as corrected by Berman (personal communication, 1998).

Alternatives to Barriers:

-Hanging safety netting (but trampoline effect must be eliminated).

-Renaissance-style structure.

-Toughened glass or perspex fence with relocated pedestrian walkway. Need to prevent vibration due to wind force.

-24-hour dedicated hotline telephones.

-Change public perception is very important (Annual Jazz Festival on Ellington Bridge suggested). Need to convert image from bridge of death to bridge celebrating lifestyles (Greek and other ethnic communities?).

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (June 11, 1998) from Dr. Robin R. Richards, Head - Division of Orthopaedics, St. Michael's Hospital, expressing strong support for the efforts of the Committee in increasing the safety of the Prince Edward Viaduct and other pedestrian bridges in Toronto; advising that most patients who jump from this bridge do not survive, but that those who do usually suffer severe musculoskeletal injuries that result in permanent disability; and urging the Committee to take action with regard to this issue.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Al Birney, President, East York Chapter and Chairman, Bridge Committee, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-Mr. Ray Doucette, Scarborough;

-Mr. Michael McCamus, Spokesperson of the Bridge Committee, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-Police Superintendent Aidan Maher, Toronto Police, 55 Division;

-Dr. Paul Links, Arthur Sommer Rotenberg Chair in Suicide Studies, University of Toronto;

-Dr. Robin R. Richards, Head of Orthopaedics, St. Michael's Hospital;

-Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, Psychiatrist, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, and Professor of Suicide Studies, York University;

-Ms. Karen Letofsky, Executive Director, Suicide Survivor Support Programme, Toronto Distress Centre;

-Mr. Dale Wright, Canadian Airmotive Ltd.; and

-Councillor Jack Layton, Don River.