Citizen idea for closed, empty Terminal 5 on Tuesday’s West Seattle Transportation Coalition agenda, along with new SDOT director

My apologies to @westseattleblog for not including this shot earlier. (cc:@VisitSeattle). From yesterday's flight. pic.twitter.com/dSsu3QxFUs

— Peter West Carey (@pwcarey) September 5, 2014

This West Seattle view, tweeted today, shows a stark look at what so many continue to notice, especially driving westbound on the high bridge – the emptiness of the port’s Terminal 5, now in its second month of closure. It’s a discussion topic on next Tuesday night’s West Seattle Transportation Coalition agenda. But in case you’ve missed the backstory:

*In June, the Port Commission approved closure as the first step toward “modernization”
*The final ship, for now, called at T-5 in late July
*Commissioners voted last month to sell T-5’s cranes, too small for the ships they want to expand it to handle

The commission still has steps to take before its modernization plan would be fully in gear – not the least of which would be, deciding how to pay for its likely nine-digit price. So in the meantime, interested citizens have unofficially suggested alternative futures for the site. One is on the agenda for the West Seattle Transportation Coalition’s meeting next Tuesday, 6:30 pm at Neighborhood House’s High Point Center, 6400 Sylvan Way, everyone welcome. The agenda also includes Q/A with new SDOT director Scott Kubly, who spoke with the Southwest District Council earlier this week, as covered here.

Karen September 5, 2014 (10:44 pm)

Tilted Thunder (bankedtrack derby!) needed a new home. Maybe they could use one of the buildings!

WSB September 5, 2014 (10:52 pm)

One of the buildings closer to the entrance was used as an event venue for the first Vlogger Fair last year (this year, VF was held outside West Seattle). Seemed a creative deployment. https://westseattleblog.com/2013/06/everyones-on-camera-as-west-seattles-terminal-5-hosts-first-ever-vlogger-fair

trickycoolj September 5, 2014 (11:09 pm)

Park and ride for the water taxi seems logical. But that’s practical, Seattle can’t have practical right?

Ray September 6, 2014 (12:05 am)

Hell, make it park and ride for a lot of bus routes until Metro gets its crap together.

newnative September 6, 2014 (2:12 am)

Digressing but that is a very nice shot of West Seattle and the Sound. I have seen some shots of Seattle that focus on the negative aspects of urbanization. The question of how do we stay relevant as a port while maintaining our local ecosystem comes to mind.

Mtnpeak September 6, 2014 (5:55 am)

Is there a listing somewhere as to what the citizen idea for Terminal 5 actually is? The agenda for the WS Transportation Coalition lists it as simply “a proposed idea,” without specifics. I haven’t had caffeine yet so I might have missed something.

FreGirl September 6, 2014 (7:16 am)

Why not use it now while it is empty for so long for a homeless encampment? Such a HUGE waste just sitting there like that. Crowd fund for the costs of transport and Porto potties and post move out cleanup. I would contribute!

bertha September 6, 2014 (7:23 am)

Banked track derby!

Gotb September 6, 2014 (9:46 am)

So many people have so many ideas about what to do with land that does not belong to them, that the owners isn’t selling, and that the owner has plans for themselves. NO park and ride!! I have a brilliant alternate idea: let the Port develop it’s land for Port functions.

Rick September 6, 2014 (9:51 am)

Tens of thousands of affordable microhousing units

Gotb September 6, 2014 (9:52 am)

It’s also absurd the people keep cuing for a park and ride. The fact that the park and ride immediately adjacent to terminal five is always empty proves there is no need for a second park and ride in the immediate area. No more park and rides!

dawsonct September 6, 2014 (10:47 am)

Just wanting to point out the obvious to Gotb, the Port of Seattle belongs to the citizens of Seattle. We citizens ARE contributing ideas for land we own.

Wakeflood September 6, 2014 (12:43 pm)

Here’s the idea with some background. Please keep in mind that this plan is geared to addressing the INTER-peninsula transpo issues vs. intra. Although it may help reduce the volume of buses stacked at Westwood and other layover areas. TBD.

1. We have an ingress/egress issue on the peninsula and it’s only getting worse with the added density.
2. Metro is underfunded and likely to continue to underserve our community without some added emphasis and (mostly) dollars.
3. ST Light Rail is at best 15 yrs. out and will cost several billion dollars to connect WS to the system – either via surface/elevated/underground or combination. To be blunt, ST LLR is a very expensive and far distant way to only partially solve a problem that already exists in full form, today.

The Idea:
The Port of Seattle is in transition with a very large parcel (T5) right at the junction of WS and the connecting space to downtown. I’d like to use this fortuitous transition period to secure some portion(s) of that parcel to be used as a multi-modal transit hub for WS.

How it could work:
The biggest piece being the creation of a real BRT system that connects to the high bridge with dedicated east and west bound elevated ramp(s) that connect to the 6th avenue bus lanes into downtown. That area becomes the hub Metro station which is fed by smaller shuttle buses from up and down the peninsula.

Although I have not done any structural engineering, it is my assumption that if properly located and designed, the footprint of the station and the ramps would still allow full functioning of terminal in its reconfigured state. (Possibly elevating the station itself as well as the ramps?)

It would be optimal to use some of the area for a Park & Ride facility as well.

Additionally, those same shuttles would be dropping off riders at an expanded water shuttle dock area at the north tip of the Terminal. Over time the shuttle service could include more boats that connect to interbay and points north of the main downtown docking area.

If enough area on the west edge of the terminal could be secured, additional user amenities could be located. Things like food services, etc.

Here’s why I think it makes sense:

1. ST LLR is currently looking to configure the ST Phase 3 funding package and what projects that would be included. In exchange for dropping WS and its VERY heavy ask into Phase 4 – 2025? – the community leadership would gladly support other communities getting their funding in ST 3 if ST would publicly support this idea and any peripheral small projects that would facilitate connections to the rest of the current ST system at either end of this transit hub. Quid pro quo.

2. The Port needs to float several hundred million dollars in bonding for their planned expansion. They want to be good neighbors to the WS community who will be bearing the brunt of the impacts. Let’s not forget that the Port is being squeezed on the east side terminal facilities and transportation connections by stadiums and other non-industrial business growth in SODO. WS is asking for some consideration for those impacts (traffic, health, noise, etc.) in the form of space and support. Again, quid pro quo.

3. Metro would be the main entity in this plan. They would need to support the hub & spoke feeder system described above but would also be the recipient of significant funding to build this system out. It doesn’t require any new technology, just a change in function to fit a dramatically underserved area.

4. This plan solves substantially more of the issue at a fraction of the cost and could be accomplished within a few years vs. decades for Light Rail.

5. Nothing in this plan precludes adding Light Rail as a solution in the future, should funding be secured.

Les September 6, 2014 (12:52 pm)

Gotb I just did a Bing search for park and ride locations in Seattle and the results show a current Park and Ride location at 26th Ave. SW .The map shows it as located on Port land.
People don’t park under the West Seattle freeway because it is not safe.

Marti Casey September 6, 2014 (3:16 pm)

Let’s take the Terminal 5 land and turn it into mixed use with residential, business and world class marina. West Seattle residents on the East slope have dealt with noise and pollution that was unhealthy with the previous version of Terminal 5, let’s not sign up for more noise and more pollution that will harm our community

Wakeflood September 6, 2014 (3:30 pm)

Nice idea, MC, you got a few billion $ handy?

But seriously, I fail to see how that addresses any of our existing mobility issues. It would only make them worse.

Joe Szilagyi September 6, 2014 (3:53 pm)

If the port ever contracts (as is one suspicion I’ve heard in the past because of the looming SuperMax Panama thing) that Harbor Island land will be a prime, prime long term target for rehabilitation into a “new South Lake Union” type scenario. It would be basically a mathematical inevitability, but it would probably be underway if it all no earlier than those of us in our 30s being deep into grandparenting age.

heather September 6, 2014 (4:42 pm)

Interesting Wakeflood. You’ve got some really good ideas in that post.

Marti September 6, 2014 (7:01 pm)

The transportation hub you are proposing, Wakeflood, could be adjacent and part of this new “SLU” type area, making it even more attractive to residents and businesses. Transportation of residents would not be competing with the large trucks that currently make it dangerous for cyclists and drivers.

AmandaKH September 6, 2014 (7:44 pm)

Hey! If you Like wakefloods ideas, or you have one of your own, come to the meeting on Tuesday. The WSTC would Love to hear your ideas.

WS Slacker September 7, 2014 (6:59 pm)

Move the Fauntleroy Ferry Terminal there, relieving a good portion of rush hour traffic from WS plus shortening the drive for many of the ferry riders.

Non September 7, 2014 (7:27 pm)

This looks like something Dow Constantine would have thought of. The Port is in the way of his dream stadium in Sodo, so why not leverage up to get them to shift operations from 46 so that Hansen and his developer buddies can make a run at a vacant T46?

Paul September 7, 2014 (8:33 pm)

While you’re planning your pipe dream multimodal center, don’t forget that the Port does not own the rail yard next to the container facility. It is privately owned by BNSF Railway and NOT closed. It supports the steel mill and waterfront businesses along the west side of the Duwamish River.

====

The idea of a building a BRT system to serve a multimodal center there is an inadequate solution that would barely address the needs of West Seattle today, let alone 10-20 years out. We need to push hard to get the first phase (downtown to Alaska Jct) of a light rail line to West Seattle in ST 3. The last thing we need is to spend a lot of money on a short term solution that would not even work well.

====

Building ramps to/from an existing bridge hemmed into a tight area (like the West Seattle Bridge/Spokane Street Viaduct) would be very challenging (aka expensive).

Cari September 7, 2014 (8:40 pm)

Whatever the final use, there could be some strategic asphalt removal, with trees planted, natural drainage/rain gardens, etc and other measures to make the land more resilient to the possible effects on climate change. The land can still be productive and respond to evolving needs. Check out Depave.org for more info. Local groups are beginning a pilot project in the Duwamish.

wakeflood September 7, 2014 (8:43 pm)

Paul, when would you expect to have that first station on line? Just curious what your estimate would be? And would it be elevated or subterranean or at grade? And you do know that estimates for the preferred subterranean line go from a couple billion to 5 billion or more, right.

The most expensive few miles of track maybe ever? Throw in the other two dozen projects that ST has to add around the county to see if they can round up voter support and you might be looking at a $6 billion package. What are the odds of that ask passing?

wakeflood September 7, 2014 (9:09 pm)

The answer is that there’s no way ST will put all of it into the package. They’ll break it up into a couple packages which will double the ten year best case design and construction process. If you want to wait until 2035-40 or later, to take the first ride, that’s your prerogative.

wakeflood September 8, 2014 (10:47 am)

And on a related note to Paul, there’s something else to consider when pushing for Light Rail. Say you do get something into ST Phase 3 – say it’s enough to design the first phase with a station or two and maybe even start construction of the tunnel. OK, you’ve just blocked in all the transportation funding WS will see for the next 25 yrs. Unless of course, you think voters will throw another few hundred million at other needed solutions after dropping a few billion in our laps?

It’s called opportunity cost and WS will be sitting on its thumbs watching the density and traffic get worse every one of those 15yrs, minimum, waiting for a tunnel 200 ft. below Alaska Jnctn and under the tide flats to downtown to be built.

Additionally, I suggest that your assumption that a multi-modal station is LESS of a solution than Light Rail is indeed, incorrect. BRT has every bit the capacity of LR here in our corridor. There are reports to be found to this effect online. And it’s cheaper to build.

wakeflood September 8, 2014 (10:51 am)

And I don’t disagree that BNR is an issue. They are very protective of their right of way and tend to be less concerned with finding solutions that benefit all when it comes to their operations. (As one would suspect.)

Is that a deal-breaker? Maybe. Maybe not. But to make the assumption that no options would be available at this juncture sounds less than prudent to me.

chris cowman September 8, 2014 (4:14 pm)

I suggest that All ferrys be moved to that location…Including the Vashon ferry.

Paul September 9, 2014 (7:07 am)

The only study done by ST on this corridor:
– demonstrated that BRT would not be adequate to meet demand in the corridor
– did minimal engineering and system planning to determine how a LRT extension to West Seattle would work
– made the most conservative (expensive) cost assumptions (like attributing the full cost of a second downtown transit tunnel to the corridor)
– did not break the line up into construction phases and identify the minimal operable segment.

There isn’t enough information yet to really get a handle on how much it would cost to get light rail to West Seattle.

We are going to need the capacity of light rail sooner rather than later. It makes no sense to punt it off to 30 years (or more?) in the future just because it will take 15-20+ years (depending on the cash flow from ST3 and other sources) to get results if we start now.