Seattle's voters may be confronted with two utterly ridiculous alternatives to the rebuilding of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The voters should reject both.

The viaduct is absolutely vital for the transportation of people from West Seattle, Ballard, and Magnolia into and out of downtown Seattle. Only SR 99 and I-5 give West Seattle significant north-south access. Already, West Seattleites experience traffic snarls during rush hour in the morning and the evening in getting on Interstate 5. Without a viaduct those traffic snarls will turn into logjams of an unbelievable dimension.

One alternative to the viaduct has been advanced by Mayor Greg Nickels. )His argument) for a tunnel alternative is nonsense. Current estimates for the tunnel alternative are somewhere between $3.7 and $4.5 billion. The city has, with the generosity of the state Legislature, something less than $2.5 billion to spend. I am entirely skeptical about the cost estimates for the tunnel alternative. The comparable project, the "Big Dig" in Boston, has experienced enormous cost overruns as well as tremendous engineering problems. A "Big Dig West" is a lousy prospect for Seattle's transportation system.

Some of us actually remember that one of the alternatives to the building of the high-level West Seattle Bridge was a tunnel alternative. In 1979, after examining that tunnel alternative, it was rejected because of cost and feasibility issues. Tunneling in the soils of the Duwamish estuary and the waterfront is not easy. The present tunnel alternative suffers from the same fiscal and engineering problems.

Additionally, Mayor Nickels has been silent about where the additional money to build the tunnel alternative will come from. I can only surmise that he has in mind a tax increase or a toll to be paid by those people using the viaduct. Neither of those fiscal alternatives is acceptable for the people of West Seattle, Ballard, and Magnolia. Additionally, for those people who are interested in seeing improvements to SR 520, any massive commitment of resources to the viaduct will likely mean the resources to improve SR 520 will not be available.

Another alternative to the rebuilding of the viaduct has been discussed. Some argue for an alternative in which neither a tunnel or a rebuild of the viaduct takes place and a surface street alternative is constructed. This alternative is also nonsense. The present viaduct holds at least six lanes of traffic. A surface street alternative is not likely to accommodate the same traffic volume as the Viaduct. The surface street alternative would likely have traffic signals slowing down traffic. This alternative does not make any sense for the people of West Seattle, Ballard, and Magnolia. It is a costly option that does little to address the transportation needs the rebuilding of the viaduct solves.

To the proponents of the surface street alternative who suggest public transit can also fill the need, those of us in West Seattle remind them that the recently departed Monorail might have helped us. It is highly unlikely Metro or Sound Transit can substitute for the volume of cars using the viaduct.

The Viaduct is almost symbolic of the present problems of Seattle politics. Instead of focusing on an alternative that solves the traffic problem and does so within reasonable financial limits, in a reasonable time period, Seattle decision-makers, including the Mayor, develop pie-in-the-sky alternatives that are neither fiscally responsible nor solve the transportation problem.

A goofy tunnel alternative competes with an equally goofy surface street alternative when Seattle has the money to rebuild the Viaduct. Where has common sense gone in Seattle politics? Seattle's citizens should tell the Mayor and the City Council they want the Viaduct rebuilt.

If the Mayor and Council don't get it, maybe it's time to find people who do.

Philip A. Talmadge

West Seattle