I have been a dedicated supporter of the viaduct ever since it opened some 50 years ago. An "unseen hand" placed $20 in my pocket as the viaduct saved me 30 minutes on that trip (with my truck earning $40 an hour in 1954 dollars). At the same time, I was treated to one of the world's most beautiful panoramic views of a natural deep-water seaport. It was a happy experience that I have aways remembered and commend to all the citizens of Seattle. Now the continued existence of this attraction to our city is threatened by the advocates of a tunnel.

The tunnel option, currently being advocated by the mayor of Seattle, if implemented, would impede our efforts to maintain a healthy economy in our state during the new term. The following is intended to bring your attention to some fairly subtle issues that could affect your opinion of the tunnel option.

The tunnel option makes no provision to replace the lost traffic-carrying capacity that will be shut off by the closure of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This loss of capacity would cause serious delays in our traffic movements, with consequent costs to be borne principally by users. This loss of disposable time lessens our quality of life as well as our economic productivity. Quantifying lost time at $15 per hour for car and driver's time slowed in traffic can add over $2 billion to costs over the course of the project.

This is a substantial but hidden cost that is not kept track of by the Department of Transportation because they do not pay for it. It is not kept track of by the legislators because they do not appropriate funds for it. This hardship is borne primarily by the users of the viaduct in the form of lost time. They receive no reinbursement. Most users do not realize the extent of their loss because it is not reported to them nor measured in cash. Nevertheless the cost is real and it slows and depresses our economy and our lives in general.

The tunnel option abandons the 40-plus years of useful life, not depreciated, remaining on the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct. This has a replacement cost of some $2.5 billion. Our city and state cannot afford to waste such a large amount of wealth without it affecting our general prosperity.

The tunnel option crosses the only right of way remaining near the central waterfront. Cutting off this right of way would require the displaced right of way to excavate down an additional 100 feet in elevation, which I believe would be impractical. Such a right of way is valued at as much as $2 billion.

The removal of a portion of the viaduct, which is planned by the tunnel option, would waste a panoramic view of downtown Seattle as seen from the southwest. Views such as this affect the quality of life of those who live here and they add to the favorable memories of visitors. It is a signature of our city, much like our Space Needle. I will not attempt to quantify this into dollars, but its value is real and it is significant.

If the existing development north of the Pike Place Market (six solid blocks of condominiums) is an example of the unspecified development we could expect if we left it in the planners' hands without direction other than to "make it pencil out," we would be receiving no benefits from that source.

The proponents' description of the operating costs and benefits of the tunnel option is misleading. The cost of the circuitous routing of the tunnel option was described by its advocates, with no further qualification, as "just one added minute for each trip." But upon adding all of the trips planned over the lifetime of the rebuilt viaduct, the total cost came to $700 million, which was quite a bit more than I had naively expected.

Because of its lack of prospective benefits and the certainty of literally billions of dollars of wasted wealth, I advocate dismissal of the tunnel option from further consideration.

John M. McFarland Sr.

Fauntleroy