MIC DINSMORE, who will step down next year from his post as CEO of the Port of Seattle after 14 years on the job, has guided the port through an aggressive plan of terminal development, making it the leader among Northwest ports in container volume. He also pushed through the development of a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in the face of vocal opposition, and has served as chair of the Seattle branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. We picked his brain on the port and other issues.

On the Viaduct:

When I looked at it and thought about what's good for the region, both aesthetically and in terms of creating new value and economic vibrancy, it didn't take long to realize that we're better off without the viaduct. Even with the cut and cover, we're not planning for the future, we're not increasing capacity. We're going to spend upwards of more than $4 billion on infrastructure that has the same capacity as what we have outside the door

today. I quite strongly believe we should build something that can increase capacity 2-to-1 and allow this region to grow. That idea never got much energy because the cost is so high, and people were afraid. So of all the options that were out there, cut and cover was the one that appealed to us the most.

On Port Security:

A few days after 9/11 we decided to play a proactive role in security. I was in D.C. testifying on The Hill, telling them that we wanted to help find a solution. Six weeks later I was with Colin Powell in China getting the Chinese in alignment with what we wanted to do. Now fast-forward. At the national level our airports are very safe and secure, but we also overreacted. We're spending billions every year making sure airports are safer. But some things don't make sense. The $9 billion in federal money could be streamlined better. We are spending too much money under the fear factor. (Frequent flyers) should be able to get a card that says those eyes match that screen and that passport, and your home free. It's technology that would allow us to move people at a flow that is exponentially faster.

On Container Inspections:

Once containers hit seashores, it's too late. We had that bomb scare a few weeks ago. If that had been a bomb, what would we have done about it? If it detonated, we would have been in deep trouble. It should have been caught off shore. I don't think every single container should be checked and inspected. If cargo is being loaded in the hinterlands of China by a shipper that has not been tested and background-checked, when it gets to Hong Kong, that's when you open the doors and bring out the dogs. Minimally, Hong Kong is running containers through gamma rays, then through radiation at ports offshore. That reduces risks. The GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act will require these types of inspections for cargo headed for our ports. It's an important piece of legislation.

On Tax Support for the Port:

There is not a port in the world that isn't subsidized. We rely more on state and local subsidies and it's a reasonable tax. All that money gets invested back into infrastructure, which creates enough value, jobs and tax base. We could get off the tax levy, but we would shrink a whole lot of things that add tremendous value to a whole lot of people. If we were to privatize the port, don't you think investors would only buy those pieces of the port that make money? The rest (such as the parks) that's for the public good would be forgotten. On the Future of Our Economy: Every indicator such as unemployment and job creation says we are doing well. But finding skilled workers puts pressure on wages. My gut tells me that the economy is going to slow down. And if there's another terrorist attack, all bets are off.