The letter signed by State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles and King County Councilman Larry Phillips (News-Tribune, Nov. 22) regarding their preference for a tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct was full of nonsense and misinformation.

They wrote, "We are committed to approaching every transportation infrastructure decision with the objective of reducing green house gas emissions." What does this have to do with a tunnel? There would be just as many green house gas emissions from vehicles in a tunnel as from vehicles on a viaduct. They say it's essential to fund alternatives to driving, such as transit facilities. Wasting $2 billion on a one-mile-long tunnel will leave us $2 billion less to spend on alternatives to cars.

Philips and Kohl-Welles claim a new viaduct would be higher, uglier and noisier than the current viaduct. It would be about three feet higher, which nobody would even notice. Most people would likely find a new viaduct to be more attractive than the current one. And where did they get the idea that a new viaduct would be "noisier" than the old one? A Washington State Department of Transportation engineer told me that the reason the current viaduct is so noisy is that the noise from the lower deck bounces off the underside of the upper deck and is deflected to the ground. This engineer said that a new viaduct could have quiet asphalt to reduce noise, and baffles under the upper deck to prevent the noise from the lower deck from bouncing back to the ground. Therefore, a new viaduct would likely be much quieter than the old one.

Kohl-Welles and Phillips imply that the funding for a tunnel is in place. This is patently untrue. Around $800 million they are counting on for the tunnel would come from the Regional Transportation Investment District tax increase which would have to be approved by public vote. This is $800 million that would be available for the 520 bridge, or other projects, if it is not wasted on a tunnel.

Finally, they reference some "economic impact study" (a study will find any result you pay its author to find), which claims a tunnel would result in "$160 million to $325 million in new annual tourism spending." Who believes that? There are people who are avoiding visiting Seattle because of the viaduct? There are groups who would like to have a convention in Seattle, except they just can't stand the viaduct, so they go to some other city? What nonsense.

Greg Buck

Queen Anne