Opinions were strong, and manners weren't polite, at an open house for the Alaskan Way Viaduct at Adams Elementary School last Thursday.

Placards stood on easels around the cafeteria, describing building blocks toward replacing the viaduct. Agency staff answered questions.

On flip charts titled "What do you think?" people wrote comments.

"No elevated roadway. Less funding on 99 and I-5 and more on transit."

"The surface option has condos to the edge. How does the average citizen benefit from that?"

"I strongly favor an elevated roadway."

"Tear down the ugly viaduct and don't rebuild."

"The surface level option is absurd."

"Give us a true vote! Retrofit, rebuild, surface, tunnel."

Ron Paananen, project manager with the Washington State Department of Transportation, opened the presentation:

"In 2001, we started by looking only at the SR-99 corridor and saw replacement. This time we're also considering improvements to transit, I-5, surface streets. Is there a mix that allows us to replace the viaduct with something we didn't consider before?"

Bob Powers, deputy director with the Seattle Department of Transportation, called the names of who signed up to speak. Mary Peterson, a special project manager with the King County Department of Transportation, also listened to comments.

Louis W. Graber came to the microphone first. He complained it's 25 minutes from his home in Magnolia on the viaduct to the airport, but the same amount of time just to get to the freeway.

"If the Italians can straighten the Tower of Pisa," he said, "we can certainly retrofit the viaduct."

Mark Dublin of Ballard had looked at the drawings and models of an Elliott Bay bridge.

"I could live with that if it was for electric rail," he said. "The days are over when we need a car to go anywhere fast."

Gene Hoglund - a member of the Alaskan Way Viaduct Stakeholders Advisory Committee - held up a chart showing the pattern of votes against a new viaduct and a tunnel.

"They say voters were against an elevated roadway," he said. "Really not. They were against a bigger, higher viaduct."

Mahlon Clements and Mary Hurley, also from the advisory committee, were there too, listening.

The state told Bud Shasteen the viaduct is "creaky, weak, and it's gonna fall down," he said. "But I've walked on it. The viaduct is as sound as a brick concrete bomb shelter.

"The Mayor calls it the Big Ugly," Shasteen said. "But it's our Big Ugly and we want it."

Writer Bruce Taylor supports a lowered, partially lidded, roadway. He's traveled in Europe, where cities tore down viaducts to open up waterfronts.

"I have yet to see a pretty elevated structure," he said.

Pal Hansen favors a retrofit because it doesn't make sense to rebuild the same capacity.

"If we're going to spend the money instead of three lanes, why not five?" he said. "And one, dedicated to West Seattle, that's reversible?"

Elyette Weinstein said the viaduct should be replaced by mass transit, despite the loss of scenery while driving on top.

"The view is like eating cake that stays on your hips," she said. "It's only instant gratification. We need to take a long-term view."

People applauded speakers favoring a retrofit.

But they argued with Rusty Rasmussen, a graduate student at the University of Washington, when he suggested views from the viaduct weren't important or a retrofit could mean closures.

When Jon Morgan called some of their arguments "specious," citing Portland and Milwaukee as cities that removed waterfront freeways without congestion, some people hissed.

And they were upset when Paananen closed the evening without answering questions.

"Will there be no vote on this?" accused Shasteen from his chair in the audience. "Are you only considering a replacement?"

"All the options are on the table," Paananen repeated. Any scenario would be evaluated against the guiding principles.

"It doesn't sound like you are considering a retrofit," Shasteen said. "Even the name is the Alaskan Way Viaduct - Replacement - Program."

Paananen promised another set of open houses this summer, once the advisory committee decided on three or four scenarios.

Matthew G. Miller is a freelance writer who may be reached via bnteditor@robinsonnews.com.