This is in response to your Sept. 6 editorial, “In Our View — Building Bridges, Again.”
Your editorial mentions only bridges, replacing the old one, building a new one, doing both, and never considers the possibility of a tunnel. Surely if we can tunnel under the English Channel and under the Hudson River we ought to be able to tunnel under the Columbia.
With modern tunneling machines, a tunnel might well cost less than a bridge. It would have no adverse effect on shipping, riverside businesses, or riverside residents, and might be safer in an earthquake than a bridge. Seattle has chosen to replace a vulnerable elevated highway with a tunnel. A tunnel deserves to be considered for the next Columbia River Crossing.
