Viaduct repair is ruled out

As reported here, [r]epairing Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct would cost $2.3 billion and extend the structure's life about 25 years -- maybe -- according to new estimates released Tuesday by the state.

And though some disagree, state officials say it just isn't worth it.

Sanity prevailing? One would hope so, but we are talking about the State, after all, so you'll forgive me when I say that this won't be the last word on this.

The repair cost estimate, the state maintains, is more than 80 percent of the estimated cost of building a new viaduct, though repairs would not have the same longevity. Cost inflation and risks account for more than 43 percent of the retrofit cost.

"Retrofitting" the 53-year-old viaduct "is possible," but the new study shows the work, while cheaper, might have one-fourth the longevity of a new structure, said the state's viaduct project manager, Ron Paananen. A replacement elevated structure or a tunnel would last 75 to 100 years.

"What this shows is we've appropriately screened (the repair option) out and are narrowing down the alternatives, and basically, we're down to a new elevated structure or a tunnel," Paananen said.

Also Tuesday, the state Department of Transportation released another report from an 11-member panel of engineers that concluded the "relatively narrow difference in costs between ... retrofit and rebuilding weighs heavily in favor of rebuilding."

The new studies continue escalating arguments about the viaduct, which carries about 100,000 vehicles a day on state Route 99 along downtown's west shore. The viaduct sustained minor damage during the 2001 Nisqually Quake, and state engineers maintain it could collapse in another major earthquake.

But retrofit advocates said Tuesday that they'll demand more answers about the latest conclusions. They questioned the earthquake standards that drive up part of the costs and argue that repairs won't require long shutdowns of the highway like a replacement would. They also said the new cost doesn't account for up to $3.4 billion in estimated annual losses to nearby businesses caused by a viaduct shutdown.

So, let me get this straight. Retrofitting the viaduct will cost 80% of the cost of replacing it with either a new viaduct or tunnel, but will only last - maybe - 25 years, while either of the replacement options will last between 75 to 100 years, and the retrofit advocates are concerned about the economic impact to businesses while construction is happening? What about 25 years later, if the viaduct is retrofitted? What then? Do we do it again, at a higher cost than replacing it now? And what if the retrofit doesn't last as long as projected? What then? What if a really big earthquake hits the city, collapsing the viaduct, making your retrofit moot? What then?

We need to replace the viaduct, sooner rather than later, both from the cost and business economic concerns, and for the safety of the people who use the viaduct.

And let me make one thing perfectly clear here. Contrary to what a recent reader thought I was saying when I posted this, I am adamantly opposed to either a retrofit of the existing viaduct or a rebuild of the viaduct, and fully support the tunnel option as the best course of action that we can take.

Sorry, David S., but you obviously haven't been paying attention to what I have said repeatedly here.