Conscious of costs, the directors of the city, county and state departments of transportation recommended an elevated highway or a surface couplet to replace the viaduct. But on the same day, their advisory committee advocated for a bored tunnel.

The directors for the three departments of transportation briefed their executive oversight committee Thursday afternoon, Dec. 11 at City Hall, speaking to Mayor Greg Nickels, County Executive Ron Sims and Governor Chris Gregoire.

Also present were Seattle Councilmember Jan Drago, King County Councilmember Dow Constantine, State Representative Judy Clibborn, and State Senator Chris Marr.

The directors of transportation recommended two packages of improvements to replace the waterfront section of the viaduct, with parallel improvements to surface streets, parking, I-5 and transit.

"It is our recommendation that these scenarios warrant further study," Harold Taniguchi, director of the King County Department of Transportation, told the executives.

"The goal is still a decision by the end of the year," Gregoire told them and blinked. "By the end of the month."

Simultaneously, the Alaskan Way Viaduct Stakeholders Advisory Committee was introduced to the two hybrid scenarios built from pieces of the eight scenarios studied since July.

An elevated replacement to the viaduct would be two separate structures, each 38 feet wide carrying two lanes of traffic. The southbound structure could be built beside the viaduct while it's still in use, and take some traffic during its demolition.

Single stanchions would support the lanes, together about the same height but twice as wide as the existing viaduct. The southbound lanes could be lower and tucked slightly beneath the northbound lanes.

"We are still working on the aesthetics," said David Dye, deputy director of the Washington State Department of Transportation. "But a bridge is a bridge, and it's a bridge."

"I've been down to see the Cypress freeway when I was in San Francisco," added Grace Crunican, director of the Seattle Department of Transportation. "It's still just a big old thing overhead. It's not that appealing."

The directors also recommended the "I-5/surface/transit scenario." Western Avenue would become one-way northbound, Alaskan Way southbound. Traffic no longer able to bypass downtown would use major improvements made to I-5 and surface streets.

"The surface-transit option is clearly better for the urban environment, for pedestrians and bicycles," Dye said. "It's a better 'people plan,' if you will."

Except three lanes of highway traffic on Western may bisect Pike Place Market from Victor Steinbrueck Park.

Both scenarios will be studied further to solve other problems: handling stadium traffic on games days, routing traffic from cruise ships at Piers 90 and 91, and making up for lost parking on the waterfront.

"We're still examining how to move freight," Dye also told the executives. Both scenarios show longer times for trucks to drive through Seattle, especially trips between Ballard and the Sodo neighborhood in a surface scenario.

The directors don't even agree which is the better recommendation.

"I'm not convinced that (a surface scenario) provides the transportation support in today's economy," Dye said.

"I'm very comfortable with (the surface scenario)," Taniguchi said, "but this is a joint effort."

An elevated highway would cost $3.5 billion. The surface-transit project, with improvements to I-5, would cost $3.3 billion. Both figures include $1.1 billion of improvements already done, or committed to building the new southern half of the viaduct from Holgate to King streets.

"Who's going to pay?" asked Gregoire. "I started at two point eight (billion dollars). That's all I got. I ain't got no more."

The directors said they will present a closer examination of potential funding sources Thursday, Dec. 18.

Meanwhile, downstairs at City Hall, the stakeholders advisory committee advocated for a third option. A bored tunnel addition to the waterfront couplet was first proposed by Tayloe Washburn, chair of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, at the committee meeting on Dec. 4.

Twin bored tunnels would run between King and Roy streets, providing a bypass through the city and a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly waterfront promenade.

The project could be completed in phases. The surface could be built first, and the tunnel later after traffic shows it's necessary and funding is secured. If the tunnel is built first however, the viaduct could remain in use during years of construction. When switched over traffic would be interrupted only for weeks.

A coalition has formed behind the idea. Vlad Oustimovitch, the representative from West Seattle, counted 21 of 22 committee members, plus three more not at the meeting, who said the idea deserved further study.

The problem is money.

Dye told the executives that a bored tunnel project - replacing the seawall, building a modest boulevard on the waterfront, including necessary improvements to streets, parking, freeway and transit - would total over $5.5 billion.

The directors of transportation are considering it, but only reluctantly.

"We're not comfortable elevating it to a full third option," Taniguchi told the executives. "Think of it as a second-and-a-half option."

"It's cost prohibitive," Crunican said. "It is not a full option unless the costs come down."

Several tunnel boring companies claim a tunnel could be built for less, and will have presented their estimates to a special meeting of the advisory committee, Tuesday evening, Dec. 16.

"Some experts say we've missed it," Dye said. "We want some closure to that conversation, much like we did with the retrofit."

Nickels and Sims have long endorsed a surface-transit solution. After the votes against a cut-and-cover tunnel and against an elevated highway replacement in 2007, the Seattle Department of Transportation began to study how city streets could accommodate traffic when the viaduct was removed. Its Urban Mobility Project was folded into the replacement of the viaduct to avoid redundancy.

The state on the other hand prefers another viaduct. The $2.8 billion was intended for an elevated replacement, not surface streets for a state highway. The money comes from 2003 and 2005 gas taxes, which by law may not fund long-term transit improvements, although it may pay for transit as mitigation during construction.

The advisory committee has its last meeting this year, Thursday, Dec. 18.

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