The aging viaduct is in need of replacement. There have been many options proposed and is narrowed down to two. My first preference would have been a retrofit. With today's technology, a retrofit would have been just as sound a structure as a tunnel or elevated structure at half the expense. Seeing the retrofit has been ruled out and upon lots of research I prefer the elevated project over a tunnel. Reasons are safety and cost which will be passed on to the taxpayers.

Governor Gregoire wanted the voters to have their input on an advisory vote, however our city leaders, seven of them, said no, a tunnel was their choice, however our governor sent the advisory vote back to the people. Seattle voters will vote on two options March 13. There will be two proposals on the ballot.

Proposition 1. Vote yes or no for the tunnel.

Proposition 2. Vote yes or no for the elevated viaduct.

This election leaves a lot of confusion to the voters. They could vote for neither, leaving us back to a retrofit being paid for by the taxpayers. A single vote should have been as follows:

The viaduct needs to be replaced. The Department of Transportation allocated $2.8 billion for the project. Our civic leaders decided they prefer a more expensive six-lane tunnel, which is scaled down to four lanes costing $3.4 billion. If voters approve the more expensive option, shall the taxpayers be responsible for the additional construction cost and cost overrides? It would be a yes or no vote. Our city leaders have made a previous blunder, known as the Seattle Monorail debacle. This tunnel option is a replay that will cost taxpayers upward to approximately $8 billion. Estimate includes the additional tunnel cost and cost overrides plus another debt service on our taxpayers. The allocated $2.8 billion would be used for other high projects (the 520 Bridge).

Common sense tells me I would rather be on an open elevated roadway than locked into a tunnel (dungeon) in case of any kind of disaster. Our inept leaders should consult with other cities that are stuck with tunnels, which cause extreme traffic hazards.

This letter is being submitted by Guy Gallipeau, an activist of 40 years. He has encountered many city issues by recent and previous City Councils.

This tunnel option is not in the best interest of our city. A scaled-down, six-lane tunnel to four lanes at that cost does not look forward to our transportation needs of the future. The reason the city would not allow an advisory vote was due to the polls showing only 25 percent of the people favored a tunnel. Thanks to our governor enforcing the issue to allow the public an advisory vote.

Guy Gallipeau

Seattle