Name a New Rail Tunnel After Trump?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/opinion/letters/trump-tunnel.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “Build the Donald J. Trump Tunnel” (editorial, Sept. 15):

Naming the proposed new rail tunnel under the Hudson River after a president of the United States is a win-win situation. Those who adore him can brag that he is worthy of the huge expense. Those who despise him can relish that the so-named tunnel will make the news, negatively, only when there is a commuter delay. The project gets done.

Howie WeinickWoodmere, N.Y.

To the Editor:

In your editorial calling for President Trump to move ahead with the proposed rail tunnel under the Hudson River, you left out the real culprit in this continuing saga.

Chris Christie, former New Jersey governor, halted work on the tunnel back in 2010. If he had not diverted some $3 billion to other projects we would be nine years into construction of a new tunnel. This was the real scandal of the Christie administration, not Bridgegate.

Marshall De BruhlAsheville, N.C.

To the Editor:

Let’s just dump the idea of naming the proposed rail tunnel under the Hudson River after any politician. Nobody calls the Triboro Bridge the R.F.K.; nobody calls the Queensboro/59th Street Bridge the Ed Koch; and nobody calls the Tappan Zee Bridge the Mario Cuomo.

Doug GarrNew York

To the Editor

New York and New Jersey should take a look at the concept used by Britain and France to build the Channel Tunnel in 1986. These two countries relied heavily on the private sector in a process known as Build-Operate-Transfer.

In 1986 a consortium from Britain and France proposed to build, operate and maintain the Channel Tunnel and collect tolls for a period of 50 years, after which it would revert to the public sector. The Chunnel got off to a shaky start, but was operating rather well after it opened in 1994.

Sidney M. LevyCockeysville, Md.The writer is the author of “Build-Operate-Transfer.”

To the Editor:

Re “Top Adviser Who ‘Looks the Part,’ but Has Spent Little Time Playing It” (news article, Sept. 19):

The most troubling aspect of the high turnover rate of key administration officials in the Trump White House is how it prevents this president from developing over time the all-important rapport and trust with his closest advisers. Given the ongoing national security and global challenges facing the president, the fact that there has been no continuity within his leadership inner circle means that he is addressing these issues and making decisions without comprehensive information and well-reasoned insight.

While the president often claims he knows more than anyone else about matters large and small, this is obviously not the case. Let’s hope that, as long as he proves competent, the new national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien, sticks around longer than the last one.

Mark GodesChelsea, Mass.

To the Editor:

Re “Trump to Scrap California’s Role on Car Emissions” (front page, Sept. 18):

I pledge that in the future, I will purchase or lease an automobile only from one of the companies that agree to abide by California’s emission standards (for now, that means Ford, Honda, BMW and Volkswagen). President Trump’s aversion to everything that is good environmentally cannot be allowed to stand.

Miriam MittenthalTowson, Md.