Julie Enevoldsen clutched a stack of handouts, folded maps of the eight scenarios proposed for replacing the viaduct.

"I definitely like this process better," she said. "It's vastly improved from before, where we had to vote between A and B with no information about either."

Enevoldsen was among more than a hundred people who attended the scoping open house for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, at the Fauntleroy Church in West Seattle last week, Sept. 16.

The room was noisy and crowded.

Engineers, managers and directors from the Washington State Department of Transportation stood at displays, answering people's questions about reconnecting surface streets, increasing transit, restriping I-5, and replacing the viaduct itself - the different combinations of building blocks that make up each of the scenarios.

"That's what I really like about it this way," Enevoldsen said. "We can identify the pieces that work, and pick the best from each to make a new solution."

"Scoping," as defined on a display board, "is the public process for determining the environmental issues that should be addressed."

An environmental impact statement must include the state's plans to address, both during and after construction, impacts to water, soil and air quality, fish and wildlife habitats, historical and cultural sites, along with affects to transportation, business, communities and neighborhoods, utilities and businesses.

The public may comment on the current scenarios - through e-mail or regular mail - through Sept. 30.

At the open house though, most people were still comparing the merits of the different tunnels, surface-transit alternatives, or elevated roadways.

Enevoldsen was an advocate for the monorail, once standing on the pedestrian overpass northeast of 35th Avenue and Fauntleroy with her friend, Vlad Oustimovitch, draping a banner over the rail and waving at traffic. Her husband, Stan, works as a chemist in Ballard, and commutes on the viaduct twice a day.

"It still makes me sick," she said. "To think the monorail would already be in place when all this mess happens."

In March 2007, Enevoldsen voted against a tunnel and a new elevated roadway, preferring improved surface roads and increased transit. She was afraid a tunnel would only encourage more driving.

"Surface-transit is still a valid option, but I'm finding more information," she said, clutching her maps. "I want whatever solution encourages more use of transit."

Oustimovitch, a member of the viaduct's advisory committee, told her a deep-bore tunnel can be built without having to close the viaduct during years of construction.

"I can see the logic behind Vlad's arguments," she said. "To keep the traffic moving except for a few months to connect the ends."

She remained thoughtful.

"I am curious to see what the executives decide," she said. "To see if they're still stuck on their own ideas, or if they have really changed their minds."

Comments can be e-mailed to viaduct@wsdot.wa.gov, or mailed to the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program, 999 Third Ave., Suite 2424, Seattle 98104.

Matthew G. Miller is a freelance writer living in the Admiral District. He may be reached through wseditor@robinsonnews.com.