FERRIES: Triangle Route Task Force members make their ‘should we stay or should we go’ decision

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

The big decision has been made: The Washington State Ferries citizen advisory committee known as the Triangle Route Improvement Task Force will continue.

Its mission will change.

The decisionmaking opened the task force’s every-month-or-so meeting Wednesday afternoon/evening at Fauntleroy Church, near the easternmost terminal of the Triangle Route (Fauntleroy-Vashon-Southworth). It was entirely up to the members, most of whom – three from each community on the route – expressed willingness to continue on for at least another year, though a few admitted they had “gone back and forth,” mostly because the task force’s first round of work had drawn more scrutiny and controversy than had been expected.

WSF executive John Vezina, whose main gig with WSF is as its government-relations director, opened with an acknowledgment of the group’s “crossroads” as well as words of thanks for the volunteer task-force members’ work, and a reiteration that three big things with which the group could help are ahead, all relatively long-range:

*Changing the Triangle route schedule in 2019, when it’ll have three Issaquah-class boats (the largest size that’s currently run on the route)
*WSF’s next long-range plan, to take it through 2040
*Outreach starting next month for bringing Fauntleroy dock “up to standards,” though the work itself isn’t planned until next decade

The task force was launched almost a year ago with the mission of advising WSF on changing procedures to alleviate backups at the Fauntleroy terminal. The resulting changes were not an overwhelming success but did move the needle a bit, both WSF and task-force members acknowledged. It could be observed that the task force’s creation itself was something of a success, since previously, advisory groups had largely been limited to each community’s standalone Ferry Advisory Committee (from which some of this task force’s membership was drawn).

The group helps provide communities “a voice,” as noted by one of the members who were present while they offered their observations and opinions in the around-the-table discussion. Another said he “think(s) there’s greater good in being inside this institution, having this perspective, better than me sitting griping at home or on Facebook … I’m in.”

The social-media mention was not an isolated incident. Part of the continuation discussion touched on the knowledge that WSF and the task force have some very vocal critics on social media, particularly among Vashon residents. The Vashon contingent on the task force had had some turnover. One member voiced concern about working together as a group with no “subversive activities.”

In the ensuing discussion, Vezina urged group members to bring concerns to the group rather than hashing them out “elsewhere” (such as online), and not to misrepresent the group’s work. And he warned, “The pressure, when we start talking about the schedule, (will be) intense – (some) people are not going to want to see the schedule change.” Even though the task force’s role will be to offer advice, not to make final decisions, the pressure and controversy still could be significant.

After that, there was some talk about how or whether task-force members could or should speak to journalists, apparently sparked in part by one task force member talking with a Vashon reporter about a draft FAQ document before it was ready to go public. “I was under the impression these were public meetings,” she explained. Vezina’s counter to that was, “it’s a meeting that is open to the public.” While no one was told not to talk with reporters, they were strongly urged to consider how whatever they say could affect the process of what they’re working on.

Speaking of the public – should there be public comment at future meetings? Some had said to WSF’s facilitator Hadley Rodero that they were uncomfortable with it. One member’s comment: The task force’s process should be priority. Another said that verbal comment at the start might “derail” the meeting. Another said that comments at the end might be more “informed.” One said that public verbal comments at the previous meeting were “uncomfortable” especially given how close to the task-force members the public attendees were seated. WSF said that’s why they changed the configuration – the gallery (in which, during yesterday’s meeting, there were two people plus your editor) was a little further away. No final consensus but it also was noted that the topics the task force will tackle from here on out will all have distinct, separate public processes, Rodero pointed out. She will be sending task-force members a document related to the discussion, so they can refine it before the next meeting.

(Added Thursday evening – here’s the slide deck used for the meeting sections below.)

After a break, the group got primers on its forthcoming focus items (as mentioned earlier in the story). For changing the schedule, the issues were broken down into morning and afternoon considerations – including how people who connect to the King County Water Taxi from Vashon will be affected, how students who attend Vashon schools but commute from off-island will be affected, etc. Should some sailings that now stop at Vashon be direct from Fauntleroy to Southworth? How can they be sure vessels will be fully loadable – a sore subject last summer at Fauntleroy?

Looming over most of the discussion, the stats presented earlier in the year to the task force – showing that Southworth ridership is growing in a big way, while Vashon is not. And there are future questions such as, can a tie-up slip be added at Southworth? And what about Kitsap Transit’s future foot ferry – how will it use the terminal?

Could the ferries go faster? one task-force member asked. Maybe, but speed isn’t a standalone consideration, he was told – fuel economy is another.

Next, a “high-level” update on the long-range planning process that will start next month and last a year, until the plan must be delivered to the Legislature by January 1st, 2019.

WSF planner Ray Deardorf ticked off some of the accomplishments from previous such plans, including a vehicle-reservation system, “improved web experience for trip planning,” getting the Mukilteo and Colman Dock construction projects going, and building new vessels – more Olympic-class vessels than first planned, in fact. (The next one will be christened at Vigor on Harbor Island on January 4th, by the way, the task force was told before adjournment.)

The 2040 plan will have to incorporate legislative directives, the biennial transportation budget, ongoing goals from the previous long-range plan, and more. It will include assessments of everything from markets and demographics to terminal conditions. A draft plan will be ready for review by late summer/early fall.

And then there’s the Fauntleroy terminal “trestle and transfer span replacement” project, not even due for completion for another 10 years, but with preliminary engineering and environmental review starting next year. “Robust stakeholder engagement” is promised.

With all that ahead, the task force members will next gather January 18th, also 4:30 pm-7 pm at Fauntleroy Church (9140 California SW).

1 Reply to "FERRIES: Triangle Route Task Force members make their 'should we stay or should we go' decision"

  • Sheila December 15, 2017 (10:40 am)

    There seems to be more space on Elliott Bay than there is on the streets of West Seattle. Why doesn’t the long-range solution for this ferry route include the option of redirecting the Southworth-Vashon ferry to the downtown ferry dock? This might require an additional ferry dock — and a LOT of money — but it would sure help alleviate the traffic congestion in West Seattle.

    (My assumption is based on the premise that most of the passengers want to continue on to downtown Seattle, but if that’s not true then ferries could alternate between Fauntleroy and the Coleman terminal.)

Sorry, comment time is over.