Waterfront viaduct may be history — one way or another

E-mail this article Print this article

OLYMPIA — The state Department of Transportation is scrambling to explain why it recommended the Alaskan Way Viaduct be listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the same time it was studying ways to get rid of the earthquake-damaged structure.

The department spent $100,000 to do a historical review of 812 bridges, including the viaduct. It drafted its nomination for the viaduct in June, the same month a team of engineers hired by the state recommended that it be torn down after being damaged in the Feb. 28 Nisqually Earthquake. The viaduct, which cost $8 million to build, opened in 1953.

The agency was required by law to do a historical review because it's considering replacing the structure. But it didn't have to ask for a listing on the national register.

Department officials yesterday were at a loss to explain why they did such a thing.

"We messed up. We should have had more people look at this before it went out the door," said Linda Mullen, a spokeswoman for the agency. "We don't want the viaduct listed. We don't want to be saying we want to preserve it while we're doing a study to look at options to replace it."

The agency is trying to find out if it can kill the recommendation.

The answer is no, said Allyson Brooks, the state historic-preservation officer.

"There's no getting the bowling ball back," she said.

Government agencies are prohibited by law from objecting to listings on the national register, said Brooks, with the state Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.

Besides, Brooks said, it's no big deal. Being listed on the national register would not prevent the state from tearing down and replacing the viaduct.

"By listing it, they are not creating any extra hoops for themselves," she said. "It won't make any difference. It's an honor, a slap on the back, a handshake."

If the Department of Transportation (DOT) decided to tear down the elevated road after it was listed on the register, the only thing the department might have to do would be to create a historical record of the viaduct, including pictures and architectural drawings, she said.

"You just can't rip it down without doing any documentation on its history," Brooks said.

The DOT is studying several options for replacing the viaduct that include tunnels and elevated structures. It could also keep the viaduct, which carries about 110,000 vehicles a day along Seattle's downtown waterfront and is a major corridor for the region.

A preferred option is expected to be picked this summer, with a final decision by December 2003.

Brooks said the DOT should be applauded, not criticized, for wanting to recognize the viaduct — the state's first double-deck bridge — as a historic structure. The state nominated 30 bridges in all.

The viaduct's recommendation goes next to the state Advisory Council on Historic Preservation later this month. If the panel OKs the selection, it goes to the National Park Service for a final decision. The process usually takes a few months, Brooks said.

Even if the viaduct gets torn down, "they'll just do this (list it) and celebrate for a couple of years and move on," she said.

The DOT, however, is concerned about what the public might think of the agency if it identifies the viaduct as something of national significance and then decides to demolish it.

"If we can't take it (the recommendation) back, we can't take it back. But you bet we're going to be looking at it," Mullen said.

Andrew Garber can be reached at 360-943-9878 or agarber@seattletimes.com.