Now that we have had some time to consider the decision of the governor, the county executive, and the mayor to dig a deep bore tunnel to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct, it becomes even clearer that this tunnel option makes as little sense as the surface street alternative some people proposed to replace the Viaduct.

First, a tunnel was roundly rejected by 70 percent of Seattle's voters. A deep bore tunnel is still a tunnel. The voters did not want a tunnel and clearly expressed their views on that point.

Second, the proposed tunnel will handle 85,000 of the current 110,000 daily trips on SR 99. Thus, by the proponents' own admission, a tunnel is inadequate to handle the existing daily trips on SR 99, let alone the daily trips on SR 99 when the tunnel is finally completed.

Once the tunnel is used, there is also no potential for its future expansion. This hardly makes any sense. The proponents apparently believe that 25,000 daily vehicle and truck trips through the SR 99 corridor will magically disappear. Wishful thinking does not replace true planning. The three executives are making an unstated policy choice - they want to make auto traffic as congested as possible in Seattle, hoping to force people into public transportation.

Third, a tunnel will cost at least $4.25 billion. This too is likely wishful thinking as construction costs very seldom resemble the actual costs of a project. The State has committed $2.4 billion to the Viaduct replacement. This means local taxpayers will have to make up the difference, paying tolls, property taxes, motor vehicle excise taxes, and any other taxes within the imagination of the Mayor and City Council to make up the difference.

Finally, there are safety and environmental issues associated with a tunnel. Tunneling creates significant air pollution. Safety is also a question associated with a tunnel. If a single truck jack knifes in the tunnel, all traffic will back up and cannot be re-routed. One need only look at the problems encountered with the Big Dig in Boston to understand how tunnels are problematic. A deep bore tunnel will be severely tested by seismic issues in our region. Personally, I would feel uncomfortable driving through a tunnel in a seismic event.

The tunnel option seems to be born of political expedience, a non-solution to SR 99 traffic, crafted by three executives who have been embarrassed by their inability to resolve the SR 99-Alaskan Way Viaduct question. There are better alternatives. This proposal does not answer the problems and creates so many of its own that the citizens of Seattle and our region should reject it.

Philip A. Talmadge
Tukwila