Rebuild or replace the viaduct?

The debate over whether to rebuild the Alaskan Way Viaduct for $2.5 billion or replace it with an even more expensive tunnel sidesteps a basic question: Can the state simply fix the old structure for a fraction of that amount?

Yes, say some folks who support Initiative 912 to repeal the new gas tax. Part of the tax would help pay for rebuilding or replacing the viaduct.

Engineers who've studied the structure for the state, however, conclude the viaduct is simply too old and fragile to be worth fixing.

Money from the new gas tax, combined with other state and federal funds already approved, would provide the roughly $2.5 billion the state would need to build a new viaduct, but not the more-expensive waterfront tunnel the city wants. A tunnel could cost at least $4 billion.

Victor Gray, a retired structural engineer who lives in Port Townsend, says the state could save a lot of money by fixing the structure rather than replacing it. The cost of those repairs, he says, could be as little as $200 million to $300 million.

"The problem we have is that the state has already made its mind up and won't think of anything else," Gray said. "I can't see the city and state spending 4 billion taxpayer dollars when the solution is $200 [million] to $300 million. We're not about to go away."

On their own, Gray and his associate, engineer Neil Twelker, prepared a report on how they think the viaduct could be repaired to extend its life for an additional 30 years. They've given their proposals to the Seattle City Council, the state Department of Transportation and legislators.

Gray said that of the 64 sections that compose the viaduct south of the Battery Street Tunnel, only one was damaged in the 2001 Nisqually earthquake.

"We think the rest is simply OK," he said, proposing that the viaduct be braced and dampers installed to cushion the shocks that might occur in an earthquake.

State officials say the structure might collapse in another earthquake.

Brett Bader, who is running the I-912 campaign, said he hasn't seen the report by Gray and Twelker, nor has he spoken to them.

"But I've heard there's a report out there that it could be retrofitted for several hundred million dollars," Bader said. "I have no idea if the report is accurate, but our concern is, have they [state officials] considered all options?"

Gray said he hasn't spoken to I-912 supporters and hasn't decided how he'll vote on the initiative.

David Dye, a project manager for the viaduct with the Washington Department of Transportation, said the state began studying the viaduct after the 1989 Bay Area earthquake that pancaked a similar elevated freeway in Oakland, Calif. The studies were accelerated in 1995 after a devastating earthquake in Kobe, Japan.

In 1999, two years before the Nisqually earthquake, the state began a feasibility study about what to do with the viaduct and, at first, considered whether it could be stabilized and strengthened.

Ultimately, the state decided that repairing the viaduct would cost at least 80 percent of the rebuilding cost. And when finished, the structure would be so stiff with all the bracing that an earthquake could cause various sections to crash into each other.

"A lot of people are drawn to the notion of a cheap fix," Dye said. "There is no cheap fix for the viaduct."

He said a retrofit would give the structure an additional 35 to 50 years of useful life, compared with 75 to 100 years for a new one.

The state hired engineers in T.Y. Lin International's Olympia office in 2001, shortly after the Nisqually quake, to look at viaduct-replacement options. David Goodyear, an engineer with the firm, said the review determined it wasn't wise or cost-effective to try to retrofit the aging structure.

"If you had a 20-year-old car with rust on the side, the floorboard coming out and the tires bald, is that the time to go out and spend $400 on new tires for a car that's worth $150?" Goodyear asked.

"The viaduct, under normal service loads, is losing concrete and has large cracks," he said. "If you want to do a minimalist repair to postpone the inevitable you can do it for much less, but it's not a comprehensive solution."

In 2002 the state hired another team of engineers, through the American Society of Civil Engineers, to consider retrofitting the viaduct. The engineers found that a "comprehensive seismic retrofit might achieve a level of safety comparable to a new structure ... " their report said.

But the engineers went on to say that "the eventual deterioration of the current structure due to aging would exact a greater sum of financial resources for maintenance and be less reliable than a new structure built to current seismic design standards."

The team looked at the Gray and Twelker report and found that some of the ideas had merit but concluded that the retrofit proposed by the two engineers would not work.

"It may be effective in keeping certain sections of the viaduct intact, but it will not serve the purpose of making the structure safe overall," the engineers said. "Even if one section fails, it means the end of the structure's usefulness."

Ted Bell, who chaired the civil-engineering group, said he agreed that a retrofit would cost almost as much as a new viaduct. "From the foundation up to the columns to the beams to the decking, everything was in very poor condition," he said.

When the viaduct was built a half-century ago, the standards weren't as stringent, Bell said. The steel used was not adequate and welds had come undone.

"If you're going to redo it, it should be redone with something that serves traffic today," he said.

Further, Bell said, any work on the viaduct would have to include a large part of the seawall because if the wall collapsed, that could take out the viaduct.

Gray said the seawall work should be separated from the viaduct and have its own funding source. "We believe that [the Department of Transportation] does not want to have any new ideas as they continue the hard sell for the tunnel in spite of the lack of funding," he said.

Gray said another advantage to his idea is that the viaduct wouldn't have to be shut down while it's retrofitted.

State Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald called talk of a retrofit an "urban myth."

His department has already braced and shored up some of the most vulnerable parts of the structure, he said. "But an indefinite future for the length of the viaduct based on $200 million of life support? We think it's a nonstarter," he said.

Still, Gray said he's not going to stop urging a retrofit. He hopes to hire an independent consultant to look at his plans.

And he said his ideas will be even more timely if I-912 passes and the state loses the viaduct funding.

Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or sgilmore@seattletimes.com