Fauntleroy Terminal – Trestle & Transfer Span Replacement – Results of Level 3 screening

This section provides more information about how we evaluated the alternatives during Level 3 screening. For more details about this process, review the Level 3 Screening Report (PDF 1MB).

Some screening factors scored the same for all alternatives. WSF focused on the two screening criteria categories that differ most between alternatives and are most critical to meeting the purpose and need – developing a new terminal that meets operational needs while minimizing impacts to the surrounding environment and community as much as possible. WSF also heard from advisory groups and partners about the importance of these key factors.

The following table shows the screening results across these two key categories. Screening criteria are general indicators of whether alternatives meet the project’s purpose and need. Performance factors are specific indicators of how well alternatives meet each criterion.

The dark green boxes represent the highest performance rating, while the lighter green indicates medium performance and white shows low performance.

Graphic listing results of WSF’s Level 3 screening process — Results of WSF’s Level 3 screening process

Based on the Level 3 screening results, WSF recommends advancing a footprint based on the B Alternatives, holding between 124 and 155 vehicles on the dock. WSF will continue to refine the footprint during environmental review.

Diagram showing dock footprint based on the B Alternatives, with space to hold 124-155 vehicles on the dock and an opportunity to restore eelgrass. — WSF recommends a dock footprint based on the B Alternatives.

Here is a summary of the screening results:

WSF recommends moving forward with a terminal footprint based on the B Alternatives, the longer dock options. This footprint improves operational efficiency and minimizes environmental impacts, including impacts to Cove Park. Moving the ferry slip to deeper water also reduces propellor wash in sensitive nearshore areas, allowing greater potential for restoring eelgrass and macroalgae around the dock.
Alternatives A, A-1, A-2 and A-3, the similar sized dock options, offer minimal benefit to operational efficiency, even with GTG! and Wave2Go. The A alternatives also have greater impacts to the surrounding environment because they do not improve the scour hole at the end of the dock.
Alternative C, the largest dock option, brings the greatest increase in overwater coverage and impacts to eelgrass and macroalgae, requiring the most complex permitting and mitigation. While a bigger dock may seem better, we found that space to hold more than 124-155 vehicles does not improve operations. A dock that is large enough to hold a full ferry worth of vehicles saves the most time in loading and unloading. Anything extra becomes difficult to manage. WSF will refine the alternative to confirm the dock size and holding capacity during the NEPA/SEPA review process.

Photo of Fauntleroy ferry terminal showing heavy traffic with vehicles backed up before the tollbooths — The terminal often experiences heavy traffic with vehicles backed up before the tollbooths
and along Fauntleroy Way SW.

The number and length of lanes is important for staging and handling the mix of arriving vehicles bound for multiple destinations. Long holding lanes can result in vehicles bound for different destinations sandwiched in the lanes, making it difficult to preserve the first in, first on loading priority and fill the boat efficiently. Short lanes provide some flexibility but also complicate staging and may be difficult for accommodating all vehicles.