One more look at fixing viaduct

The state Department of Transportation has said for months it wants to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, not repair it.

Yet it has just agreed to spend $17,000 to study fixing the aging structure — even though it has no intention of doing that. In all, the state has spent $1.2 million in 12 separate studies on a retrofit of the viaduct since the 2001 Nisqually earthquake.

Those urging a retrofit say this latest study may be a waste of time.

"We're going the extra mile on this one," said viaduct project manager Ron Paananen. "We don't expect this will change the outcome at all."

The state will hire California structural engineer Kit Miyamoto, the same engineer who reviewed a plan by Port Townsend engineer Victor Gray, who for years has been urging the state to repair, rather than replace, the viaduct.

Miyamoto, who has reviewed Gray's plan and concluded that retrofitting might be feasible, has identified a half-dozen areas that would need further study, according to Paananen.

Paananen says those areas were covered in separate state-funded studies, including a $180,000 study by T.Y. Lin International that rejected a retrofit plan.

In analyzing a retrofit, Miyamoto looked at the above-ground portion of the viaduct, not the below-ground section that Paananen said is also problematic.

The state will pay for 40 hours of work for Miyamoto, plus an additional 20 hours for his seismologist to review all the work the state has done relating to a possible retrofit.

Paananen said the state is not asking Miyamoto to do any design work on repairing the viaduct.

Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond said the state agreed to hire Miyamoto as a concession to Gray and others who want to retrofit the viaduct. "We said let's go back to Miyamoto to give a final, yep, this is right. We believe this is the conclusion he will come to," Hammond said. She said the state agreed to hire Miyamoto out of respect to those who still want a retrofit. "They've stuck with this," she said. "We want to make sure it's done right."

Gray said he is pleased the state is hiring Miyamoto but unhappy with the short amount of time dedicated to reviewing the retrofit plan.

"I'm glad the state's going to hire him, but it all depends on the scope of his work," said Gray, adding that 60 hours are not enough time. "It doesn't make sense if you don't do a thorough job. We'd love to see an adequate, thorough study of the viaduct. To do this in [60] hours is not adequate."

Gray said his organization, the Viaduct Preservation Group, will itself pay Miyamoto to study a retrofit of the viaduct and hopes to raise at least $60,000 to do it.

Peter Philips, president of Philips Publishing Group who is a member of a committee studying viaduct replacement, had asked at a recent meeting that the state hire Miyamoto. He, too, worries that the amount of time allotted for the study is not enough.

"I am delighted that the Washington state DOT has consented to engage Miyamoto — assuming that their contract would include a complete and full analysis of retrofit options including ground-soil issues, superstructure, and technical-feasibility and financial-cost analysis," said Philips.

"Any less than a full analysis of a range of retrofit options by Miyamoto would not satisfy the mission of the Viaduct Advisory Committee to fully vet all alternatives to solving the viaduct issue. I don't believe a valid evaluation can be completed with 40 hours of work" by Miyamoto.

He said an estimate given to him by Miyamoto for a full analysis of retrofit options is between $250,000 and $450,000.

"Kit told me in a conference call last week that anything less than a full analysis would be a waste of money," Philips said.

"We're not going to authorize $400,000 worth of work when we had a number of panels look at the very issues he identified at the end of his study," said Paananen. "We've invested a lot into these issues. This is not work that needs to be redone from scratch."

Paananen said the state is confident in the work its consultants did in ruling out a retrofit but decided to hire Miyamoto because it had agreed to sit down with the consultant and Gray and talk about why a retrofit was taken off the table.

That meeting didn't happen, so Paananen said the state decided to hire Miyamoto "to make good on our commitment to Victor."

"What we've said all along is that it is technically feasible to do some level of a retrofit," said Paananen, adding that the state believes a retrofit would cost 80 percent of a new structure and the state would be left with a narrow viaduct with no shoulders.

"This brought us back full circle to where we've always been on the retrofit; it's probably possible to do it, but at very high costs."

Retrofit advocates say repairing, rather than replacing, the viaduct would cause less disruption during construction, but Paananen disagrees.

"The notion that retrofit is painless, we disagree with," he said. "We don't expect this will change the outcome at all."

Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054

or sgilmore@seattletimes.com