Extra funding beyond the $2.8 billion committed to replacing the viaduct, which will be necessary to pay for a bored tunnel to go with a surface-transit scenario, should come from local taxes or tolling.

Committee members, who fought snow and ice to attend the last meeting of the Alaskan Way Viaduct Stakeholders Advisory Committee Thursday, Dec. 18, were almost unanimous in their recommendation.

Almost all the members present reiterated their support of the surface-transit hybrid proposed by the state last week, provided it included a bored tunnel as proposed by Tayloe Washburn and a coalition of committee members two weeks ago.

Only one committee member advocated for the elevated scenario, and one other asked that a retrofit continue to be studied.

Most of the committee asked the city, county and state departments of transportation to include a bored tunnel as part of the environmental impact study of a surface-transit scenario as a way of maintaining capacity while renovating the waterfront.

The environmental study for a viaduct replacement will be paid for out of money already committed by the state.

"We're not asking the state to spend one more cent," said Washburn, chair of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. "But we're asking to add (the tunnel as a) component to the EIS."

A twin-bored tunnel as part of a surface scenario - replacing the seawall, improving streets, transit, and the interstate, replacing downtown parking, and building the new south end of the viaduct - is estimated to cost $4.6 billion, the committee members learned in a briefing Tuesday, Dec. 16.

"The EIS would vet out the final design," said Rob Sexton, the representative from the Downtown Seattle Association. "We'll find out if a tunnel is a $2 billion add-on, or $1 billion, or only $500 million. I'd hate to see that stopped now."

The balance, they proposed, should be paid from local sources: a regional tax, a local improvement district, tolling as part of a regional system, and increased sales tax revenue from businesses on the waterfront.

"Those who benefit should help pay for it," Washburn said, citing the increase in property values along the waterfront. "Those who use the investment should help pay for it," for example, tolling on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

"The long term return on investment is self-evident," Washburn said. "It's better than going for the least-cost solution because we happen to be in bad economic times.

"This is a hundred-year investment. We've got to get it right."

Some problems have been addressed.

Carol Binder from the Pike Place Market now supports the surface scenario couplet. Three lanes of northbound Western Avenue would be directed through a short cut-and-cover tunnel behind the market. Pedestrians could cross to Victor Steinbrueck Park over its lid.

Other problems have not.

John Odland, representing the Manufacturing Industrial Council, reported the MIC executive committee supports further study of the bored tunnel, provided a scenario "can support Ballard, Interbay and North Seattle. We need to maintain the existing capacity and minimize the disruption of construction."

Odland said a third of the viaduct traffic, 35,000 cars, come from Ballard.

"We think both hybrids are fatally flawed. The two options presented don't seem to show we've been listened to."

Commuters from West Seattle still show increased travels times to parts of downtown. Off ramps at Seneca and Columbia streets are demolished, replaced with exits south of Pioneer Square from the newly constructed south end of the viaduct.

"For people in West Seattle, capacity is essential," said Vlad Oustimovich, the representative from West Seattle, who favors a bored tunnel. "Sure they'll lose their views (driving on the viaduct) but it will keep capacity and their ability to get to their destinations. And have a beautiful waterfront pedestrian environment.

"It's a huge trade off. (A surface scenario with a bored tunnel) strikes the right balance."

Though a bored tunnel frees up the waterfront, it doesn't serve Ballard or the maritime industries, said Gene Hoglund, representing Working Families for an Elevated Solution. He reminded the committee that 70 percent of voters were skeptical of cost overruns, voting against a tunnel in 2007.

"We need to not just be picking the pockets of the same tax payers," Hoglund said. "If (a tunnel) is important to downtown or the chamber of commerce (or the waterfront property owners), then they should find the funding."

"A retrofit is the only option," said Peter Philips, president of the Seattle Maritime Business Coalition, in an e-mail read to the committee. He said it is the only way to maintain connections between the city's two industrial centers, Interbay and Ballard, with South Seattle and the Duwamish.

If another scenario is built, he said it should include short-term retrofitting of the existing viaduct.

This was the last meeting of the Alaskan Way Viaduct Stakeholders Advisory Committee, though one more meeting was tentatively scheduled for Jan. 15.

"Your work may not be done," Tim Ceis, the deputy mayor, told committee members. "After the decision by the executives, we may need you again for environmental work."

"We are not planning on reconvening the stakeholders committee," countered Grace Crunican, director of the Seattle Department of Transportation.

"If you are asked to meet again, it's a separate process."

The directors of the Seattle, King County and Washington State Departments of Transportation will recommend a single scenario to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct by the end of the year.

The Mayor, County Executive and the Governor will take this recommendation, and present their decisions to their councils or legislature after the new year.

Matthew G. Miller is a freelance writer living in West Seattle. He can be contacted through bnteditor@robinsonnews.com.