Of tunnel and politics

To the Journal editor:

Sometimes, an issue gets blown out of whack by an inadvertent suggestion posed during the development of the initial aim of well-meaning participants to the issue! It just occurred, again!

The suggestion of a tunnel as the protecting facility of the petroleum conduit system in its involvement with all pertinent agencies concerned has brought to bear a concept believed by some to be alien to the suggested modes of remedy proposed to date!

Instead of constructing a tunnel to simply shield the petroleum facility provision only, why not go “whole hog” and build a full-service tunnel, replete with road and rail service, thereby to solve multiple future problems seen possible in the maintenance of any tunnel of lesser capability, such as has got the eye of some presently!

A point of discussion was inclusive of the agedness of the Mackinac Bridge, and the likelihood of it suffering serious harm from any agent capable of effectuating such damage as to put it out of commission for an extended period of time! The alternative for remedying that fallacy is des- perately inadequate and very cripling to commerce for a good bit of the Central and Eastern United States!

I applaud the governor in raising the question of building an alternate crossing mechanism! That ought to have been championed long ago, when the Michigan economy was three or four times more voluminous than it is, given N.A.F.T.A., G.A.T.T. and the bursting effect of the tools enabling electronic toolery!

A tunnel large enough to sport road and rail trafficking, such as those seen on I-80 and others, if properly ventilated, lighted, and provisioned to accommodate seismic shock, could easily provide enough cross section to allow the placement of utility lines, such as Line Five, at an attitude proficient to maintenance phases!

A big plus would be the fact that an alternative to a troubled bridge would allow for the continued operation of !-75! Federal funds are likely to want to be expended at national level!