At the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement hearing on Wednesday opinions among attendees differed but they were there for a common purpose: to get informed.

In an educational setting, attendees moved from station to station, asked questions and submitted their comments.

“We do these stations a lot because it lets people go around and find what they’re interested in whether that is the construction process, the tolling, the environmental process or the building settlement,” said Travis Phelps from WSDOT Communications.

“These are complex ideas but here they’re written and explained for the average person not engineers.”

Ballard resident Anthony Boscolo attended the hearing to get informed.

“The average person can’t follow up on the many stages of the process. I’m just here to figure out what stage they’re on,” he said.

Boscolo commutes around town on his bicycle but said he still relies on the viaduct for trips to the airport or to get out of town.

“As long as bicycle travel isn’t impacted, I’m for below ground,” he said.

“I think it will have a positive impact on the city as a whole. It will make it more livable and attract more tourists.”

Environmentalist Richard Pauli came prepared to share his opposing opinion with a written conclusion and statement for the court reporter and comment box.

“I am shocked and dismayed to see crucial considerations missing from the EIS statement for the bored tunnel,” he stated.

“The EIS statement is not properly derived from any baseline definition of our dynamically changing environment.”

In his 300-word letter Pauli referred to Galloping Gerty, the famous bridge in Tacoma which collapsed the same year it opened, as an example of what could happen if the environment is not properly taken into account.

“The entire bored tunnel project is at risk of being terribly embarrassed by missing science,” he said and mentioned the latest climate change research including projected sea level rises.

Pauli said he's a proponent of “patching up what we already have".

"It's not a bad idea but not in this economy and not without studying the environment," he said.

Pauli wasn’t the only local who expressed a wish to improve the existing structure.

Gill Cerise attended the hearing with his two young kids and said he thinks the tunnel is a waste of taxpayer money.

“I see the need but I think it would be less costly to work on the existing structure,” he said.

“It’s a big tax burden and it’s something even my kids won’t be able to pay off.”

WSDOT's Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program Administrator, Ron Paananen said they have looked at retrofitting but concluded it wasn’t a cost effective solution.

“We never said it was impossible, just not cost effective,” he said.

“Most people don’t know how comprehensive and disruptive a retrofit would be. We would have to close traffic and structural deficiencies are so many, it just doesn’t make sense.”

Ballard resident Beka Teklu supports the tunnel.

“We do need a good North-South roadway that supports the flow of traffic,” he said. “This plan shows minimal impact on traffic during the transition and I like the aesthetics.”

“We’re not going to move forward if we continue to debate this and this is a good solution,” he said.

Ballard resident James Bristow would prefer to wait for a better solution and expressed concerns about the boring machinery and the likelihood of cost overruns.

“I don’t want another Boston Big Dig where the costs jumped from 4.5 billion to 14.5 billion,” Bristow said.

“I have talked with engineers at WSDOT, as well as outside engineering firms, who have confirmed that attempting to drill a tunnel under Seattle would be, at best, extremely difficult and costly, if not impossible.”

His main concern is being “used as guinea pigs with the tunnel” and a potential rise in property tax to pay for the cost overruns.

“But if I’m going to complain, I should have a better solutions,” he said and he does have a solution.

Together with a friend, Bristow has introduced a viaduct replacement option that he said, would be clean, quiet and self sustaining.

Modeled after the Beijing Zoo Viaduct, Bristow envisions a covered viaduct built using the existing infrastructure. The clear cover allows for natural light to enter the tunnel and a strip of solar panels facing southwest would generate enough energy to sustain itself.

“Is this a viable option? I don’t know,” he said. “But we can’t stop this project without a better idea.”

For more information on the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement program, please visit www.alaskanwayviaduct.org/.