Not so fast on a Key tunnel — or a new name | READER COMMENTARY

The author of the recent letter to the editor advocating for a tunnel to replace the Francis Scott Key Bridge (“If only Maryland had built a Key tunnel instead of a bridge,” April 3), demonstrates a lack of knowledge on road and highway rules.

As a major connection to two ends of a major roadway, building a tunnel would restrict some types of traffic, mainly any vehicle carrying hazardous materials. This will include not only trailers hauling gasoline, but also recreational vehicles, camper trailers, horse trailers or any other vehicle carrying propane tanks and similar hazardous materials. This would be a serious restriction that road planners understand. So not only the greater costs of a tunnel would be part of a tunnel versus bridge decision, but also the expected traffic and limitations thereof.

Another reader advocates for renaming the bridge (“Bridge collapse: Time to reconsider Key and his anthem,” April 3) erasing the contribution of Francis Scott Key because he was a slave owner.

Does this reader not realize that George Washington and many of the founding fathers were slave owners? Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin — the list is extensive. Do we rename the Washington Monument? Washington, D.C.? Many things were different 250 years ago, and we cannot go back and erase all that despite the efforts of some.

— Bob Rassa, Fallston

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.