When ‘same size’ doesn’t mean ‘same size,’ and what else emerged from Fauntleroy ferry-dock replacement Community Advisory Group’s latest meeting
By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor
The latest meeting of the Fauntleroy ferry-dock replacement project‘s Community Advisory Group was as notable for what members didn’t get as for what they did get.
First, they were expecting to get long-awaited research information at Wednesday’s meeting on promised studies of how dock traffic might be affected by changes such as using the Good To Go! electronic payment system. That information, as Fauntleroy resident Frank Immel said, is what “we all have been waiting for.” Some have long contended that the more efficient fare-paying can be made, the less space the new dock will need. WSF promised at last month’s meeting (as we reported) that the information would be available at this meeting, but said Wednesday it wasn’t ready after all.
Second, some members complained that they didn’t get the time they needed to review a 64-page environmental-analysis report that Washington State Ferries had sent to them the day before the meeting. (See that report here.)
Otherwise, there was one major headline from the meeting:
A new WSF memo (read it here) clarified something that Immel had pointed out at the previous meeting – none of the alternatives currently under consideration for the new dock and terminal would have exactly the same footprint as the current one, despite descriptions WSF had used that could be interpreted as if some did. From the new memo:
…These alternatives include A, A-1, A-2, and A-3 that keep the dock size as small as possible, hold the same number of vehicles and support the same operational functions as the current terminal. These alternatives increase the size of the dock by about 30%. WSF regrets any confusion caused by earlier references to these alternatives as “same size.” WSF considered A, A-1, and A-2 as same-size options because they hold a similar number of vehicles and accommodate existing functions without a reduction in reliability, service, or operational efficiency.
Replacing the dock with a new dock that is the same square footage as the current dock does not meet the project’s purpose and need because it cannot provide operational efficiencies and support reliable service. Replacing the facility with the same square footage would significantly reduce vehicle holding capacity and available space for terminal operations …
The memo explains that’s largely because of design standards that require more room for certain things – like semi-trucks – than the current dock has: “For a same footprint alternative to meet the current design standards, WSF would need to reduce the capacity to two lanes for holding vehicles and two lanes for unloading vehicles. This configuration greatly reduces WSF’s ability to safely and efficiently sort, manage and load vehicles and bicycles for different sailings and destinations.” The memo also throws a little advance cold water on those hoping the Good To Go! study results will support a not-that-much-bigger dock: “While Good To Go! may provide operational efficiencies in fare processing for vehicles, WSF does not expect GTG! to overcome deficient operational constraints, like the space required to effectively sort and stage vehicles.” This page from the meeting slide deck shows the square footages of the alternatives under consideration:
Trying to downplay the prospect of a larger dock was disingenuous, CAG member Mardi Clements said when the memo came up for discussion late in the meeting: “In the beginning, this was called terminal replacement, not terminal expansion.” She also pointed out that dock space isn’t the ultimate limitation for WSF, “it’s vessels and crews.” (As widely reported, the system is short on both, and not expecting to remedy that for years.) However, WSF was unyielding on its contention that it’s imperative for the dock to be larger – that the question is only, how much larger?
Otherwise, the meeting focused on environmental considerations, as that’s the stage the project is in right now – the Planning and Environmental Linkages Study.
The briefing/discussion led by WSF’s Marsha Tolon went through a variety of environmental factors taken into consideration (see the full slide deck here). Among the several that were spotlighted: Effects on parks – this slide showed the alternatives that would most and least affect Cove Park to the dock’s north:
All the factors analyzed, and the results of the analysis, are in that aforementioned 64-page document, meant to be taken into account as screening of the potential options continues. No conclusions or recommendations were reached at the meeting – that’s later in the process.
WSF also said that it’ll be embarking on another round of wider community “engagement” this spring:
These events, tentatively planned for April and May, will be more briefings/reminders than feedback sessions, said WSF’s Hadley Rodero. So watch for word of those soon. Meantime, more meetings are ahead for the Community Advisory Group – anticipating the Good To Go! studies next time. As Fauntleroy’s Judy Pickens emphasized, “We have been waiting for this information for the longest time.” WSF convened the group almost three years ago, at which time construction was envisioned to start as early as 2025, but now the timeline runs a few years beyond that, with design and construction projected 2027-2029 (also, it should be noted, when construction is supposed to start for Sound Transit‘s West Seattle light-rail extension).
No comments