Modernization of West Seattle’s Terminal 5 ‘one step closer’ with budget/capital plan vote today

(Terminal 5 photo from portseattle.org)

Though a tenant has yet to be announced, the modernization plan for Terminal 5 in West Seattle is moving forward. The Northwest Seaport Alliance – the partnership of the Seattle and Tacoma ports – approved a 2019 budget today, and T-5 plans factor heavily into the announcement, which mentions “final negotiations with a potential tenant”:

At today’s special dual meeting, the Managing Members of The Northwest Seaport Alliance adopted a budget for 2019 as well as a five-year capital investment plan. The budget and investment plan allow for terminal modernization to accommodate larger vessels and retain a competitive position in the global marketplace. The budget also includes environmental and business development investments.

“With the adoption of this budget, we are sending a clear message to the industry and our communities that The Northwest Seaport Alliance is working,” said Courtney Gregoire, Port of Seattle commission president and co-chair of the NWSA. “It allows us to make transformative investments in our harbors so we are competitive in the global marketplace, attracting jobs and retaining the economic vitality of the Pacific Northwest.”

“Now in its third year, The Northwest Seaport Alliance remains strong,” said Clare Petrich, Port of Tacoma commission vice president and co-chair of the NWSA. “Our partnership with the Port of Seattle is good not only for our local communities but for manufacturers and farmers across the nation. This budget ensures the alliance will continue to benefit our region well into the future.”

Planned capital improvements take the NWSA one step closer to transforming Seattle’s Terminal 5 into a premier international container facility on the West Coast. The Managing Members passed a motion authorizing CEO John Wolfe to prepare a lease, bidding documents and a request for construction funds for the necessary upgrades. Final negotiations with a potential tenant are currently underway.

Improvements to T-5 will include dock and power upgrades and berth deepening to handle the world’s largest cargo ships. Currently, T-5 can handle vessels with a capacity of up to 6,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), but shipping lines are now investing in vessels with 18,000 TEU capacity or greater. ~~Once complete, T-5 will have a capacity of a 3 million TEUs annually.~~

Modernizations at T-5 bring environmental benefits as well, allowing creosote-treated wooden piles to be replaced with a panelized fender system and increasing the electrical capacity of the terminal for quieter, cleaner operations.

A negotiated lease and a request to initiate construction are expected to come to the Managing Members for approval in the first quarter of 2019.

Port reps had previously said that news of a T-5 tenant was likely before this year was out (most recently, when Seattle Port Commissioner Ryan Calkins spoke to the WS Chamber of Commerce two months ago). More than four years have passed since the last cargo-line tenant left T-5. Meantime, you can see the draft 2019 budget by going here. (We’re still reading through it for the financing specifics.)

UPDATED WEDNESDAY, 10:03 AM: NWSA says its estimate of T-5 volume was an error and so we have added a strikethrough above – they’ve removed it from their release, which you can see in its entirety here.

Dale Swanson November 13, 2018 (4:36 pm)

When these ships were first designed there were no ports in the US that could handle them. They have a 48 foot draft and cannot fit through the Panama Canal. They were designed for ASIA to Europe via the Suez Canal, which is 60 feet deep. There may be 50 ships of the 18,000 TEU capacity out there currently. I’m all for updating the port etc but I’m not sure all this pencils out for a few ships now and then.

Mike November 13, 2018 (4:42 pm)

The implications of this for traffic are major. If you don’t like the truck backups on the Spokane St Viaduct now, just wait.

upchuck November 13, 2018 (5:57 pm)

Terminal 5 moves something like 70-80% of their cargo on and off the dock via rail because of previous forward thinking investments. Getting pier 5 up and running will be a net win for truck traffic in the surrounding communities.
- Jim November 13, 2018 (7:38 pm)
  
  Upchuck, where do you come up with a “net win” for truck traffic?? Terminal 5 is going from silent ( 0 trucks) to many trucks. Terminal 18 is not closing. When a mega ship comes in there will be a significant number of additional trucks in and out and on the WS Viaduct. (on-dock rail notwithstanding)
  - upchuck November 15, 2018 (7:24 pm)
    
    Because I’m making the rational assumption that the cargo volumes going to rail at T5 would otherwise be going to a truck at another local terminal… Or get trucked in even further from a not so local terminal.
lisa November 13, 2018 (6:06 pm)

this is a working port, mike. if you don’t like truck traffic on spokane st., perhaps you should alternatives, like the west seattle bridge, 1st. ave s bridge. i only hope that with the viaduct being demolished that spokane st will become a freight only corridor.
ET November 13, 2018 (6:16 pm)

Not necessarily major. Remember, this was an active terminal for years, and though it did play a role in traffic at times, larger ships doesn’t mean traffic will be worse than it was with the vessels it accommodated in the past. Even though we see larger vessels calling to our ports, it’s not like terminals in California where a ship might discharge every container aboard. The ships that stop here do not discharge all the containers the ship has on board…they stop here for partial discharge and load back. So, the need to accommodate larger vessels does not mean that we will be overwhelmed with 18,000+ TEU…we just need to be able to get cargo off of ships that size.

Question Authority November 13, 2018 (6:29 pm)

If the majority of consumer goods hadn’t been outsourced to China we wouldn’t need a Port as large as they have planned.

PLS November 13, 2018 (6:43 pm)

At 3m TEUs annually, that’s more than 150 ships in and out of there in a year. Absurd. Less than two days on average to unload and load and turn them out.? And according to wikipedia there are 91 ships with this capacity, so if even half of these might come here that’s 3 times a year for each ship? These people are full of malarkey and will waste so much money creating such an environmental disaster on the only river in Seattle, massively impacting traffic on our primary roads on and off the peninsula, for little to no return. If it meets their expectations we’ll have much more congestion and pollution, and if it doesn’t we’ll have wasted massive money and still damaged the bay and adjacent properties.

Graciano November 13, 2018 (7:10 pm)

They should turn it into a Motor Sport’s park..

jim November 13, 2018 (8:13 pm)

Please provide working link for Terminal 5 FEIS. Thanks.

WSB November 13, 2018 (8:41 pm)

Are you addressing us? I didn’t link to the FEIS in this story and all the links I did include, to other things, are working. Interestingly, the links to it on the port’s own website seem to be 404ing. Still looking. **added** Finally found a link that works. I wish government websites would quit doing redesigns without redirects …

https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/T5_FEIS_pt_01_volume_I.pdf

Brad Herman November 13, 2018 (8:26 pm)

Terminal 5 brings in far more revenue than any view or traffic inconvenience. It was here long before almost every person that comes up with any complaint or stated inconvenience. Which means that those said people knew of its existence and purpose. There are 6 strings of track for rail cars, which in fact make it the premier rail facility of all the piers in the entire northwest. It will once again be a major boon for the local economy and the economy of washington state. If people don’t like what living near industrial areas require of them there’s always the suburbs. This is bigger than any of us.Have a great day!

Jim November 14, 2018 (6:43 am)

Seattle has evolved. It’s air quality has deteriorated. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss whether to have a major polluter in the heart of the city. Or at the very, very least how to operate it cleanly.The “who came first” approach only works if you are recommending giving Terminal 5 back to the Duwamish Tribe.
- KM November 14, 2018 (7:55 am)
  
  Well said, Jim. Thanks.
- Fritz November 14, 2018 (8:28 am)
  
  JimI am sure all our houses are on tribal lands at one point as well. The terminal is here and needs to be utilized. T5 has the best rail system and will reduce truck traffic and lead to cleaner air. Better to centralize growth than to expand to other locations that are not polluted. Think globally and act locally.
  - j November 14, 2018 (8:55 am)
    
    Well said FritzThis city exists because of the port and trade. Our deep water port is a geographical gold mine most states only wish they had. T5 is an asset to the state. Even if the city wanted to turn it into something as stupid as a homeless encampment the state would overrule. You can build condos and racetracks almost anywhere but there’s only several locations up and down the west coast that can unload ships.Imagine if other cities could bid for this work like Amazon HQ2. Maybe then you’d realize what you have. Jim…where did you move from?
    - Jim November 14, 2018 (2:43 pm)
      
      You guys missed the point. Discuss the plusses and minuses, but lose that lame argument of who was there first.
    - j November 14, 2018 (6:20 pm)
      
      Jim, You want to “discuss whether to have a major polluter in the core of our city”. Should we move our polluters to the suburbs? I don’t get your logic. Buddy, we all want and strive for better air quality. We fight for it constantly. Believe me. But you do realize what comes with living in a city don’t you? I’d rather be far away from here where the air is clean and the water is clear but guess what…my job isn’t there. It’s here. Jim I believe you missed the point. And you’re dodging the question. Was T5 here before you decided to move to west seattle (assumptions made)? Yes or no? If yes, why did you move here? Why did you move to a location that has major component that you don’t like? That’s what is being asked. I would understand if you were born here, like some of us, and they wanted to turn Lincoln Park into a terminal. We would make sure it never happened. But that’s not the case here. T5 predates most of us. Maritime and trade is the history of our city. The core of our city. Generations of families born and raised here in this city all based in maritime and trade. My family worked the steel mill and the docks and Boeing. Should we move them out of the town??? You can move anywhere you want. Why here? I’m guessing your job. Since you are new in town I can suggest many other small waterfront towns in our area that didn’t develop at the rate of seattle since they are not a major historical shipping hub. But just a little advice…when you do move there…don’t move next to the lumber mill then ask them to relocate
    - Jim November 14, 2018 (10:35 pm)
      
      Every terminal supporter goes to a maximum defensive position and claims a right of eminent domain to operate a terminal however they want because it’s been there a long time. Pollute away because all of these thousands of residents should have known Terminal 5 would go through two major expansions in their lifetime and spew tons of Diesel Particulate Matter for miles into their homes. How about operating the terminal so it’s not a major polluter in the core of the city? That’s the point. It doesn’t have to be closed to do that. It’s better for the workers, the communities, and the planet if less diesel is burned there. Maximum use of Shore Power is the low hanging fruit to move in that direction. Electric or hybrid yard equipment is the other option being discussed. It’s not an “all or nothing game.” (BTW – Shore Power is a family wage job creator)
    - j November 15, 2018 (11:16 am)
      
      Telling the history of our city to a newbie like you is not maximum defense. Come on man. It’s not imminent domain….we’re not kicking people off their land. What are you taking about???Still not answering the questions. So my assumptions were dead on. Now you’re changing your tone a little. You had said “It is perfectly reasonable to discuss whether to have a major polluter in the heart of the city”. That’s where we get majorly defensive when someone wants to eliminate our work.Like I said….We all want clean air. WE fight for clean air and better working conditions constantly. No one is arguing against that. We’ve been fighting for those things since before you decided to move here. We are a major driving force on why shore power was even discussed. Believe that. So drop this bs attitude that we all just want to pollute away. We are fighting the fight. This is our community.This major upgrade does not mean more pollution as you have so declared. It could definitely be less pollution from when terminal was last operating.Still the question remains…Why live here Jim? Wave a magic wand and zero emissions comes from T5. What about all the other pollution engulfing you? You are still in a city surrounded by pollution.Do you know how much smoke is headed this way right at this moment due to hundreds of giant slag piles being burnt on the peninsula??? No of course you don’t. You attribute that bad air to the polluters that you choose.
Blinkyjoe November 14, 2018 (7:41 am)

Brad, those six strings of track neck down to one single track crossing the Duwamish at Jim Clark Marina and one single track (With lots of existing traffic…) southbound along Marginal. It doesn’t look like cans can go direct from ship to rail, and truck traffic will still be needed for cans destined to local shippers. I’m all for using T-5…its a great resource for the city, I just wish we had better truck access direct to I-5 and I-90. Like Port of Tacoma. I can’t wait for 150-car unit trains to start crossing that poor old swing bridge….

#otherthings November 13, 2018 (8:39 pm)

T-5 would make a great rv campgound for serving the homeless.

Peter November 14, 2018 (7:31 am)

I love how people in Seattle give so much lip service to the need for increasing industrial and manufacturing jobs, but then lose their s*** about it when it actually happens.

Michael Taylor-Judd November 14, 2018 (9:11 am)

Folks are welcome to argue the positives and negatives of freight movement and industrial jobs… But I want to make sure everyone is clear that this will be a substantial increase in traffic volumes from the last few years – precisely because it has been close to zero. During that time, other traffic has increased as or population has boomed. That isn’t speculation; that is directly from the Port’s public information. That said, the Port has also maintained that they plan to increase rail off-loading, and that they believe traffic volumes could be within the maximum numbers previously approved for Terminal 5.

Wakeflood November 14, 2018 (10:18 am)

I’m hoping for two things: First, that we can make shore power a GIVEN when at dockside. And also, that we make the rail use of biodiesel when they’re powered up. We already HAVE a cluster of cancer-causing particulates in West Seattle- without improvments this will get much worse. Semis belching (can many of these even be meeting emission standards???) Trains belching. Mega ships belching. It all adds up to nasty, drawn out deaths. Modernize or watch your family, friends and neighbors suffer.

Jim November 14, 2018 (2:46 pm)

Excellent points. The Port/NWSA refuses to make shore power a GIVEN. They will only commit to 30% usage for the first 10 YEARS.

1994 November 14, 2018 (8:19 pm)

WA State Ferries should become a tenant! Get rid of the Fauntleroy ferry dock!

DW November 15, 2018 (3:39 am)

First off, I’ll start this by saying that I am a truck driver. An operator of those semi’s belching pollutants that a lot of you seem to be hung up on. I’d like to point out and this is completely a side note, that everything you use has been on a truck at one point or another. With that being said, I’d like to weigh in on the T-5 debate.I, on a regular basis, visit T-18, T-30, T-46 along with the ports in Tacoma. I was driving when T-5 was still operating and yes it had it’s good days and bad, just like all the ports but overall it was a good port to pull cans into and out of. Since it’s closure, the other ports have had to pick up the slack and have only gotten worse to drive in and out of. In my mind, it’s not a question of who was here first but rather how can T-5 help balance the import/export load that the other ports have had to shoulder with it being closed. Explore every option to reduce pollution, made absolutely absurd rules and regulations but keep in mind that at the end of the day, if the cargo doesn’t move from point A to point B no one gets paid who is involved in international trade. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

Big Jake November 15, 2018 (2:28 pm)

Volume of containers will not change through WA, just bigger ships and less calls. If you stop the flow in Seattle then you shift it to Tacoma, until congestion forces ship traffic back through Seattle again. If you are hoping this volume goes to LA instead then think again, since they have actual problems. The benefit of re-opening means you have an on-dock rail cutting the trucking emissions moving the containers to the rail yards. T5 has existed for years and actually moved traffic more effectively. The win is less traffic and less pollution. NWSA has a full staff dedicated to reducing pollution, truckers will be forced to buy newer trucks, and water run off into the Duwamish has super high standards and huge fines. I hear a lot of speculation that are not based on real facts. If you want to close ports in Seattle where do you want the volume to go? It just does not make sense close our most modern port and continue to run the least effective ones that pollute more and cause traffic being closer to Seattle.

BG November 16, 2018 (7:07 pm)

I’m all for the improvements to T5. To those that are opposed I would remind them that the maritime industry was here first, and still provides work for us Non-Amazon folks.

Paul Luczak November 18, 2018 (8:46 am)

I can’t see benefits to me as a West Seattle resident. I attended the hearings and pressed the Port people on MANDATORY SHORE POWER, as they require in the port in Long Beach. They would not answer because it isn’t mandatory. Imagine the poison of bunker oil emissions blowing up the Duwamish Valley in fair weather winds from the north. Add to that the truck and rail traffic and you have an environmental nightmare. All from your port who tried to push this through without an EIS, until the good folks of West Seattle made them. I’m worried.

Sorry, comment time is over.