Letters by Sam Churchill (Oct. 5), Jack Androvich (Oct. 11) and Julia Rosenstein (Oct. 12) show they have not read the documentation in the Interstate Bridge Replacement management’s plan or previous statements in The Columbian.
For example, they all support a tunnel option and cite tunnels in other cities. The IBR plan explains why a tunnel is not a viable option for Interstate 5. A tunnel would have to exit miles north of the river, thereby eliminating easy access to downtown and to state Highway 14. And a tunnel cannot provide access to Hayden Island. Greg Johnson has explained why a tunnel is not a viable option a number of times in The Columbian and in other online media. A tunnel will not replace the current bridge because it is not a viable option.
One letter supports the current Coast Guard position demanding a lift bridge like the current one. Commander Harris admits that there is currently no ship that will require a lift bridge. Instead, he said that in the future, there might be a ship that would want to go upriver but would not fit under the 116-foot clearance of the currently planned bridge.
