Save the Murray Morgan Bridge? ( 9. August 2007, 10:03 by Derek Young) ~ Darn Upkeep Costs...
The TNT puts up a blog post about the Murray Morgan Bridge and my inbox lights up …
The recent bridge tragedy in Minnesota is causing municipalities around the country to take a look at their bridge infrastructure. In Tacoma, a city with a particular sensitivity toward stories of falling bridges, this brings back the Murray Morgan Bridge debate.
Should the city take over ownership of the bridge from the state? Who should pay for its upkeep? Should it come down? No option is inexpensive. The bridge is an icon of downtown, but what’s that worth? To us, a lot… but we’re not everybody.
Link to the TNT Inside the Editor’s Page
Link to The News Tribune
Update
10/23 State Closes Bridge
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
It’s a vital lifeline to the port and emergency pathway, as well as a great symbol. Fix ‘er up and keep it there!
1 | Posted by KevinFreitas | Aug 9, 10:45 AM
I use that route home from work everyday. Great way to avoid the freeway on my way to Puyallup! Save the hulking, beautiful beast.
2 | Posted by Tracy | Aug 9, 11:25 AM
It’s a rusted out eyesore that has outlived it usefulness. Tear it down and rebuild.
3 | Posted by shingst | Aug 9, 12:21 PM
Maybe they could tear it down and somehow incorporate 2 floors of condos with street level retail. 10 year tax abatement!
Seriously though, it should be fixed up. Its definitely part of our history.
4 | Posted by Tacoma (A)roma | Aug 9, 12:42 PM
The irony being that Pierce County Executive Ladenburg negotiated a compromise in which the city gave up the vision for residential development on the eastern side of the Foss in return for keeping the bridge.
Where are you city and county leaders? What’s the plan for saving the bridge?
5 | Posted by ma | Aug 9, 12:50 PM
John Ladenburg and Norm Dicks made that promise along with the Port of Tacoma, they must be held accountable.
We have an inventory of historic sites, infrastructure, open space and an urban forest. These are all crucial for our sense of belonging, for the uniqueness of our space and our connectedness to the past and within it to the future. Yet landmark after landmark crumbles, gets gutted for parking or stands empty and vandalized to the point of no return. The Murray Morgan has been let go so long that soon it will not be salvageable. Our urban forest has been abandoned; the trees along Commerce Street are in total neglect, girdled by the tree grades. In the open green space that belongs to the residents of this town, trees are being topped, cut down for individual views and gulches dumped upon with yard waste.
We can not have a downtown with character if we loose historic buildings and bridges. We can not be a green city if we let our trees die and abandon our forests. The city budget needs to be prioritized with protection and upkeep of existing inventory first. Perhaps more parking studies and hiring out of town consultants will have to wait….
“I use that route home from work everyday” ...Shhh dont tell anyone that, although ever since the light went up by the casino on-ramp the traffic back up on Portland has negated any gain.
Keep The Morgan… it could prove usefull in any future planning to have instant access from the downtown core to an industrial area (soon to be residential area).
It also keeps future growth and parking problem solutions on the table, such as installing central parking structures in the port areas, then providing some sort of transit shuttle from the parking directly downtown (kind of like a tacoma station phase 2)
7 | Posted by Art Vandalay | Aug 9, 02:25 PM
Tear it out and replace it. I would like to see another artery across the flats that quickly connects BP to downtown. Some type of bridge / road combo that would have easy on/off access for current and future development, most likely with elevated sections to allow the port to be a port. It should have space for future transprtation options as well. Or in other words nothing like the 509 cluster f*** that is there now.
8 | Posted by richard | Aug 9, 03:00 PM
I am not in favor of replacing the Murray Morgan precisely because it does allow easy access to downtown for an “industrial area (soon to be residential area)”. If Tacoma is serious about developing its core downtown area, exporting higher density development across the bay would be a big step backwards. I don’t think that a bridge is in the city’s interest any more than the 705 was.
If some form of bridge is going to be retained, however, I’d prefer that the Murray Morgan be saved due to its historical value.
9 | Posted by Erik S | Aug 9, 03:34 PM
They should close the road and leave the bridge up as a landmark.
10 | Posted by snoopy | Aug 9, 03:52 PM
I never liked how that bridge looked… it’s ugly as all get out… If it were not so danged expensive, I’d say tear it down and build a boring concrete overpass. I think it does serve a purpose for as long as it can hold itself up, but I don’t think it carries enough traffic to justify spending a lot to fix/replace it.
11 | Posted by zintradi | Aug 9, 04:37 PM
If we loose the bridge, then we loose the one structure (other than the Tacoma Dome) that clearly defines Tacoma. Since its construction, a significant portion of the photos defining this city has involved the bridge along with Mt. Rainier and, say, Old City Hall and the NP building.
Its a very unique and historical structure. Not very many road bridges of this vintage exist in-use today; especially one that slants in one direction (by design). The historical significance of this bridge is huge to this city. When this bridge was erected in 1913, it represented a permanent link (it’s actually the second bridge built) for the people of Tacoma and the jobs which most of them worked. It provided the first easy access walkway between Downtown and the Municipal Dock. It was national news; Hollywood filmed its opening!
Why not keep the bridge and shoot towards an eventual rehabilitation? Why build another bridge? According to Peter Callaghan’s piece in Tuesday’s TNT , another bridge would cost more than rehabilitation! Meaning, if it comes down, chances are that another bridge won’t be coming anytime soon, if ever. And for that replacement bridge; how could it ever equal the uniqueness that the current bridge has? Personally, I haven’t seen any bridge construction in this state, since the early 50’s (with the exception of Olympia’s new 4’th Ave. bridge), that I find particularly attractive. Therefore, I believe a stabilization effort, to assure the bridge’s surivial, should be the
current goal.
Food for Thought: Take a look at Oregon. One of the things that I love about the State of Oregon, and that I dislike about Washington, is their attention to their older and historical bridges; Washington, it seems, tends to think in terms of replacement only. Many of the historical HWY 101 bridges in Oregon have received painstaking stabilization efforts to ensure continued use. Those bridges that were not so fortunate were replaced with designs that look pretty darn good! Even the smaller, insignificant, highway structures receive attention, such as on portions of old HWY 99, the drivable sections of the old Gorge highway, and many lesser highways.
13 | Posted by TheGulag | Aug 9, 05:55 PM
Why not save the bridge for pedestrian traffic only? See, for example,
Friends of the High Line in NYC
Would this not be an incredible and also innovative reuse and preservation?
14 | Posted by UPSPatrick | Aug 9, 07:54 PM
I cant believe people are even debating it. Without Tacoma’s historic structures, we might as well all move to Bellevue, or a suburb. How many of you who dont want the bridge are actually from around here? Its easy to write something off when it isnt connected to your community.
16 | Posted by Tacoma (A)roma | Aug 9, 10:59 PM
I took a Tacoma history class from Murray Morgan at Tacoma Community College back in the days when the bridge was just called the 11th Street Bridge.
Murray was a Tacoma native who graduated from Stadium High School; that castle up the hill from the bridge.
I guess that’s something to have a bridge renamed in your honor, especially in one’s hometown.
When I hear the words Murray Morgan Bridge, I think about Murray, Tacoma history and also those current attributes which make Tacoma unique.
As for a personal favorite view of the bridge, I like looking down 11th street from Broadway on up. It’s one of the few structures in that vantage point that looks the same now as when I was a kid. But hey, don’t keep the bridge around for my sake…
WWMD:
What would Murray do?
17 | Posted by Mofo from the Hood | Aug 10, 12:45 AM
Wow, Mofo…cool that you got to take a class from Murray. I’m sure I speak for many when I express my jealousy.
18 | Posted by jamie from thriceallamerican | Aug 10, 09:15 AM
If anyone publicly tries to turn it into a pedestrian bridge, you know that the Port will come along and try to nix that idea. If they lead a campaign to prevent residential development on the east side of the Foss, what’s to say that human beings won’t soon be next. Human beings are a negative impact to industry? The absurdity of the Port’s ideas and motives and the spinelessness of City officials when dealing with them astounds me.
Commenting is closed for this article.
