Pick a reason for the tunnel option.

Safety? Whoops, with nowhere to go in case of a fire, or an energy black-out - an enclosed tunnel can kill hundreds quickly by making them choke on deadly carbon monoxide fumes.

Cost-effective? Whoops, if /when there are cost- overruns, like with the bus tunnel years ago, only the Seattle taxpayers can pay the money back.

Time-savings? Whoops, currently many West Seattleites and Burien commuters delay their commute until 9 a.m. because of the traffic that chokes freeways and highways designed for 4 lanes at 50 mph throughput. Can you imagine traffic volume through a 35 mph in a tunnel? The resulting back-up from Admiral Way and Fauntleroy will extend morning rush hour to 11a.m. at least.

Traffic-wise? Whoops, A tunnel two lanes plus two emergency lanes. One lane with a wreck and Boom, emergency aid and tow-trucks will stall the other lane. That leaves 2 lanes, maybe, to move traffic snarled at 5 mph.

Space savings for a walking beach? Whoops, our illustrious leader wants a beachfront boulevard lined with high-end condos and sand. Great idea for the "rich and famous" touristy-types, but who wants to walk on the beach at 55 degrees, the average temp of the Puget Sound. Have you seen Alki in the winter?

Gee, it all sounded too neat or was it just a "pipe-dream." Too many WHOOPs or WPPS for me. Someone on the City Council has his head on straight.

I say vote against the tunnel vision. We need a viaduct and a highway that works for us and moves commuting traffic. Vote yes on the viaduct.

Arne Vicklund

Charlestown