The ethical tradeoffs involved in replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct were discussed at a business forum where they presented this dilemma: Would it better to monkey-wrench comparatively few businesses for a shorter construction period or just inconvenience a lot more people for a longer time?

Such moral questions, with an emphasis on how they might affect businesses that depend on the waterfront corridor, arose frequently at a forum held in the Diamond Club at Safeco Field. The event was sponsored by the Ballard Interbay Northend Manufacturing and Industrial Center, West Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Sodo Business Association, Duwamish Transportation Management Association, the Manufacturing Industrial Council, International Longshoremen and Warehouseworkers Union-Local 19 and the Seattle Mariners.

The Washington State Department of Transportation is evaluating the options for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct according to their affects on "travel delay." said Ron Paananen, manager of the viaduct project.

The fastest way to build a tunnel or viaduct would be to close the existing viaduct and not reopen until the new tunnel or viaduct is completed. It would take about two years to build a new viaduct, and three and a half years to build a tunnel, Paananen said. But that would have devastating economic impact on waterfront businesses and other businesses that rely on the waterfront roadway to ship and receive goods.

It is possible to keep the existing viaduct partially open during construction, but the entire project would take two or three years longer to build, Paananen said. Engineers might recommend opening just two lanes inbound during the morning rush hour and two lanes outbound during the evening commute. Otherwise the viaduct would be closed to traffic while construction continued.

Another factor is cost. Keeping the existing viaduct partially open during construction and thereby adding to the length of construction would add approximately $500 million to the total cost of the project.

"Time is money in a big way on this project," Paananen said.

Many of the business representatives in attendance at the forum told state transportation planners replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct will have profound and perhaps disastrous effects on business.

A woman from the Providence Mount St. Vincent Retirement Center, the largest employer in West Seattle, asked transportation planners how ambulances would be able to take residents to and from hospitals for medical tests and treatment. With 400 residents, that happens many times each day. How will they get to First Hill hospitals with traffic a mess for years to come, she asked.

Byron Cole from the Ballard Terminal Railroad said his office takes phone calls every week from people interested in opening new businesses in Ballard. But the callers withdraw their enthusiasm when they learn they won't be able to ship their products during the coming years of waterfront construction.

"People are telling me, if we set up in Ballard, we're dead," Cole said.

Mark Hewitt, president of Tillicum Village, urged that the existing viaduct be allowed to remain open during construction because a complete closure would devastate businesses on the downtown waterfront.

"Most waterfront businesses don't know they'll last through the project," he said.

A representative of the Manufacturing Industrial Council said studies done about the project have not included enough analysis of its effects on business.

"With construction expected to take three to six years, it's a cataclysmic event," he said, urging more study of the economic effects on commerce.

It was suggested the Puget Sound Regional Council study the economic effects of the construction period.

Another attendee said he wanted to hear less about engineering and more about how the government will compensate businesses and "mitigate" the economic impacts they will face as a result of the lengthy construction project.

If the viaduct is closed down and its 110,000 vehicles per day negotiated their way on existing streets and highways, what would be the impact on Interstate 5, someone else asked?

Upward of 30,000 more vehicles would be on I-5 every day, Paananen said. "Really it would be like peak hours all day long," he said.

Some people at the forum suggested new ideas beyond a tunnel or new viaduct be studied. But Dick Ford, chairman of the Washington State Transportation Commission and a 40-year West Seattle resident, said researching more methods for replacing the viaduct would require adding five or six more years to the project to allow time for engineering to be developed.

Ford acknowledged there will be pain and inconvenience for thousands of people who will be affected by construction. People on both sides of Lake Washington will be hassled by the planned replacement of the 520 Bridge.

"This can't be accomplished without pain," Ford said.

King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson agreed the project holds "huge impacts."

"That's why these decisions haven't been made yet," she said.

Decision making about how to build a replacement for the viaduct boils down to risk assessment, Ford said. The longer the delay, the greater the possibility an earthquake will destroy the viaduct.

"Are you willing to take the risk to go back to square one and determine a better way to do this?" he asked.

Tim St. Clair can be contacted at 932-0300 or tstclair@robinsonnews.com