I agree with Sam Churchill (“Bridge proposal is disastrous,” Our Readers’ Views, Oct. 5). I truly do not understand why bridge administrators are moving forward identifying properties to be destroyed for a new bridge if that bridge is not going to exist? So far, and with good reason, the Coast Guard seems reluctant to give the go-ahead on anything but another drawbridge
I agree with Mr. Churchill that we need an underground tunnel. A tunnel will eliminate the navigation block, plus it will eliminate the height requirement that river navigation needs but that also interferes with Pearson Field.
Let me just add I lived in the Bay Area while San Francisco’s underground BART system was being built. The city was a mess for years, what with torn streets, cars being forced to detour, and businesses suffering. That may very well be what Vancouver is heading toward with the bridge concept as it stands. But I will say this: After the Loma Prieta earthquake when people could no longer use the Bay Bridge (between Oakland and San Francisco), BART saved the day. It was a lifeline for commuters and survived the quake like a charm. Perhaps we need new administrators who can think outside the box.
