Please note: Due to a major revision in The News Tribune's publishing system, article commenting switched from community.thenewstribune.com to the Pluck platform on Wednesday, January 14, 2009. Contact the Community Manager for more information.

Should public funds be used to light both Narrows bridges year-round?

Yes
59% (88 votes)
No
41% (62 votes)
Total votes: 150
Submitted by lshanes on January 9, 2006 - 7:11am.

they have trouble keeping their city STREETS lighted! Why put them through THIS expense?


Submitted by lead on December 29, 2005 - 12:03pm.

If the City of Tacoma is considering building a symbolic tower in Tacoma then they would do well to drop that idea and begin planning to light the bridge. The Narrows bridge is already a well-known landmark. In my view as beautiful a structure as the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. The story of the collapse of the first Narrows bridge has been telecast to the world countless times. The rest of the world knows about the Narrows bridge and want to see it. A lighted bridge would serve as a magnet for people to see when they are in the area. If I were in charge of the project I would use solar power or wind power to light it up. Alternative energy as a source of power for the lights would then make a statement about the local populations concern for the environment. If enough energy was generated by alternative sources it could be sold back to the grid and help reduce the cost of the lighting equipment. It might even help pay for the construction of the bridge itself. Steve Wilson, Tacoma


Submitted by stevekehrberg on December 29, 2005 - 4:42pm.

I fly for work almost every week. For the first time on my last trip as I looked out the window I saw the lighted bridge. It is the most amazing beautiful site from the air. It’s a welcome home beacon we all can be proud of. I am for lighting the bridge and showing everyone coming into our region that we are proud of this great NW symbol. With my work I could live anywhere in the country but I love it here and this is where I have lived all my life. The Narrows Bridge is like Mount Rainer when you have been away from it for a long time its a joy to see again.


Submitted by chevyman on December 29, 2005 - 9:39am.

This is just another hairbrained idea, like the spire at the Convention Center, and the Bridge of Glass. Sure, these things are all nice. But the reality is that outside of our own city, no one cares. No one will pay attention if the bridge is lit up. This city needs to get past all these crazy "revitalization" ideas and face the reality. Tacoma's future is as a bedroom community to Seattle. We should focus on two things; large office space in downtown (to attract white collar employers), and neighborhood beautification (especially in the south end). Those are the only two things that will actually improve our city in the long run. I agree lighting the bridges would look nice, but is it really worth that expense? Figure out what it would cost, and put it in terms people can understand. What's the cost to me per year? And what about the people who live near the bridge. Sure, it looks nice for guests, but do they really want a gigantic lighted christmas tree in their back yard all year?


Submitted by Peninsula22 on December 29, 2005 - 9:35am.

Fair is Fair. We on the Peninsula will be paying tolls to go to work or medical appts., to shop at your stores, etc. If Tacomans want their image improved and their view enhanced with lights they should be willing to pay a tax for it and not stick it to toll payers, as Paula Lizberg and others suggest.


Submitted by jnels on December 29, 2005 - 5:13am.

We have been on the East Coast this past week and have seen beautiful lighted bridges in New York and other cities. Lighting both of the Narrows Bridges would be an exciting Tacoma attraction and unique landmark. We're all for it.


Submitted by Damon41 on December 28, 2005 - 9:03pm.

How about having it lit up for a few hours a night. A majority of the populus is sleeping after 11PM. I don't think we need to pay extra for this, it's ultimately going to be the resposibilty of the taxpayers, let us decide and if we say "no" don't force the issue


Submitted by wildcelticrose on December 28, 2005 - 4:02pm.

I don't see any need to make an already expensive project more expensive by wasting energy and creating more light pollution.

It's charming at the holiday's, it's wasteful as an ongoing production.


Submitted by goodheartedjoyce on December 28, 2005 - 11:19am.

Let's make Tacoma a showplace. We have a great start to a "New Tacoma" with the re-vitalization of the Downtown, the new Convention Center, Museums, UW Tacoma Campus and the various new restaurants. The lighting of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge will add the class that Tacoma needs. Let's make Tacoma a place we are all proud to be from! Let's show off the beauty that surrounds us. The lighting of the bridge will help bring that sparkle that we need. It would be grand if we could some how power the lights with the energy from the currents in the Narrows. Let's just do it - Light the Bridge!!


Submitted by Pandora12158 on December 28, 2005 - 11:00am.

Sure, why not. I have lots of extra money to pay for "pretty lights" on the narrows bridge that we didn't want in the first place. Get real!


Submitted by ovurtym on December 29, 2005 - 3:38am.

Quti whinning...The Bridge IS necessary...If you dont want progress move to North Dakota!


Submitted by dlewis33 on December 28, 2005 - 10:21am.

Not only light it year round, but colorfully at Christmas Time (or holiday time as some call it) and with a large flag on the 4th of July. Don't let the Grinches stop this.

....since I'll be paying for this in tolls I think should decide not those who don't pay tolls.


Submitted by bluedolphin4me on December 28, 2005 - 4:14pm.

I didnt want the bridge, but got it. I didnt want the added $1.5 million more in "area beautification" but recently got it. I voted NO on a 5 cent gas tax but Locke said "got it!" as a parting gift to us. By adding to the cost of this bridge we will never stop paying a toll beyond the estimated 30 years. We are a State full of conservationists....PEOPLE WAKE UP!!! Whats wrong with SOLAR POWERED LIGHTS?????????????????????????????? S~O~L~A~R. Look it up if you dont know what it means.


Submitted by wildcelticrose on December 28, 2005 - 6:48pm.

Solar is a good idea but...

I wonder how much of the expense would be in paying "prevailing wage" to replace lightbulbs, clean infastructure and maintain wiring. Those union workers and equipment don't come cheap.


Submitted by bluedolphin4me on December 28, 2005 - 9:29pm.

FOr me, being BORN and RAISED in this "nanny state" I am more willing to see Solar Powered lighting up than WASTED tax dollars on someone elses "bright idea" (excuse the pun) of having us foot the bill.Figure out a way to light the damned bridge with out burdening the taxpayer anymore. Transplants to this state came here because they liked what we have or had to offer. Seems to me that over the past 15 years they have sure tried to change everything. Its sad really, I have loved my state, now its me that is thinking about selling the house and leaving. YES, I vote, Yes I drive the bridge and NO I didnt vote for it. Voting gives me the right to complain about something that is not right, my son and my husband are both active duty military so they ensure me the right to vote and speak my mind.


Submitted by charlieonefin on January 8, 2006 - 7:51pm.

I don't think that there should be lights on the bridges. Why? Mainly because I can remember a time when travelling over the Narrows Bridge was pretty just by observingthe trees and other natural scenery that surrounded the area. Now people travel back east and observe other bridges lit up all nice and pretty and marvel at how beautiful they are. If you want the Brooklyn Bridge... move there.. deal with that urban concrete jungle and leave our state alone. Many would call this as a cause against "progress", I just think that it is an incredible waste of taxpayers money, and an open invitation to expand population to the point that none of the natural scenery that makes Tacoma special will actually be around.

Furthermore, efficient solar powered lighting on the bridge.....for what.. just the summer??? How efficient are these solar collectors in the first place???? Sounds like a pipe dream to me.


Submitted by scribad on December 28, 2005 - 10:29am.

R U Kidding?! My own electric bill is high enough.


Submitted by JustKev on December 28, 2005 - 8:29am.

Tacoma could use some positive national press. People here in St. Louis recall snipers and mall shooters when I tell them where I'm from. It would be nice to hear, "isn't that where that really cool bridge is?".


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.