Gov. Chris Gregoire recently announced that she prefers the tunnel option to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This tunnel, as it is currently being planned, does not have an exit to Western Avenue, thereby cutting off a key access point to and from Ballard.

The tunnel idea, which was specifically voted down in 2007, and was not one of the options that was going to originally be discussed by the Viaduct stakeholder group, is now the plan going forward for replacing the earthquake-damamged roadway.

For the second time in three months, a major transportation initiative that is going to affect Seattle in the 21st Century is going to bypass Ballard, or in this case, remove a transportation option to Ballard. While I have a lot of concerns with this tunnel, at least a decision has been made, and that is the important thing.

There's not a whole lot to like about this tunnel idea. It seems ridiculous to have only two lanes each way. If it is only two lanes, can you imagine what the traffic will look like when the Mariners or Seahawks are playing?

If it is tolled, are they going to put in a tollbooth? Because I don't want to have a toll transponder in my car. Not only that, where is the rest of the money going to come from? I'm already paying for Sound Transit, Pike Place and the parks levy, and I don't know about you, but I haven't gotten a raise lately.

As someone who uses the viaduct regularly, one of the things I use it for is to get quickly to I-90. None of the pictures I have seen of the plans lead me to believe there will be an exit to I-90.

Let's not forget, of course, the tunnel omits an exit to Western Avenue, thereby cutting off my preferred driving route back to Ballard. Why are Ballard, Interbay, Magnolia Fremont and Fisherman’s Terminal being cut out of Seattle's transportation grid of the future?

So what is there to like about this tunnel? If it works out the way everyone wants, the viaduct will be dismantled and the waterfront will be opened up and that would certainly be nice (even though I will miss the awesome one-of-a-kind view of Seattle and the Sound you get driving north).

The only other thing that I like about this decision at this point is that a decision has been made. The viaduct, as we have been repeatedly warned, was severely damaged in the 2001 Nisqually earthquake and another one could topple it. In 2007, Seattle voted down both options presented to them (a new and improved viaduct or a tunnel) despite the demonstrated need for immediate action. This vote delayed yesterday's decision by almost two years.

While I have lots of reservations about the tunnel idea, the important thing to realize is that a decision has been made. Something has to be done, and done soon before an unspeakable tragedy occurs.

There are many things I would like to change about the tunnel proposal as it currently stands and I hope that some of my concerns will be addressed.

Regardless of my personal feelings about the tunnel, I am glad that Gregoire showed some leadership by letting everyone have their say and then decided on a course of action. There are so many special interest groups to please and the bickering could go on forever. We could all literally help to play the fiddle while the viaduct falls.

I hope that everyone, regardless of what they want to see happen, realizes that must not be allowed to happen.

It seems to me that Ballard has been cut out of the loop here for the interests of the businesses and landowners on both ends of the proposed tunnel. This disregard of the transportation needs of the people who live in Ballard as well as the businesses in our area is disturbing to say the least.

The only thing that could be more disturbing would be to see fighting over the viaduct to continue until something terrible happens. I hope that everyone sees the big picture here and that we can work together and create a project that really brings Seattle into the 21st Century.

Questions, comments, column idea? Please contact Brian Le Blanc at brianleblanc76@yahoo.com or comment below.