The governor may have stopped short of making a final decision on the Alaskan Way Viaduct situation, but she did give the voters of the city a chance to end once in for all the folly of a tunnel along the waterfront. We get to vote on whether it will be a replacement viaduct or a tunnel and the city will be required to specify how to pay for each option.

So far, the mayor strongly supports a tunnel and says, "We already have the basis of a solid financing plan." But it is built on hope, anticipation and little more.

Few will dispute the fact a tunnel would be a good idea for the city waterfront. It would provide wide, uncluttered views of the bay and sound for dwellers of expensive condos, and summer visitors to the attractions of the area.

The cost, however, would be twice or more the cost of a viaduct replacement, upwards of $4.6 billion - with financing and cost overruns that are a sure thing with such a project, the cost could be over $16 billion).

Still to be adequately thought out is the cost to business and even to working class citizens as they try to negotiate downtown when the viaduct is gone and construction is underway. Many businesses in and dependent upon waterfront transportation fear they cannot survive the five years it will take to build a tunnel.

With the absolute need for a new 520 floating bridge which is so far woefully under financed, we say enough. Let's provide a new and beautifully modern viaduct and forget dreams. We have to pay for whatever is built and we cannot keep raising taxes (already the highest in the metropolitan area) to pay for impossible dreams.

- Jack Mayne