Skip to main content

Fauntleroy Terminal – Online Open House – Terminal alternatives and Level 1 screening

Alternatives and Level 1 screening

We have completed an initial screening of many different options to replace the terminal based on suggestions community members shared with WSF over the past several years. We developed 15 alternatives, including two alternatives in Elliott Bay, two alternatives in the Burien/Des Moines areas and 11 alternatives in the Fauntleroy area.

A map showing the locations WSF evaluated for the Fauntleroy terminal replacement: Southwest Elliott Bay, Fauntleroy, Burien, and Des Moines.
WSF evaluated the highlighted locations for Fauntleroy terminal replacement.

Known as Level 1 screening, the goal was to narrow the range of alternatives to a reasonable set of alternatives that could be studied in more detail. WSF evaluated how well each alternative met the project’s purpose and need and other key considerations.

To determine which of the 15 alternatives would move forward in the screening process, WSF applied the following criteria:

  • Ability to meet requirements for structural reliability.
  • Ability to accommodate projected sea level rise.
  • Ability to improve operational efficiency (i.e., minimize dwell time, process vehicles more efficiently, maintain on time performance).
  • Ability to reduce the number of conflict points between traffic modes (safety for people driving, walking and biking).
  • Ability to meet operational requirements (186 vehicles on the dock or in upland holding, access and maneuverability for an Issaquah class ferry, connection to a minor arterial).
  • Ability to keep current sailing schedule (number of peak departures and crossing times).
  • Ability to enhance multimodal connections, connect to transit and/or allow for growth in walk-ons, bicycles and vanpools.
  • Ability to avoid changes to parks and recreational areas (Sections 4(f) and 6(f) of the U.S. Dept of Transportation Act regulations and projects funded by the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)).
  • Ability to avoid changes to traffic circulation on local streets near ferry terminal.
  • Project cost (design, planning, right of way, risk, construction).
  • Alignment with current project schedule.
  • Project feasibility—amount of additional right of way needed beyond existing terminal footprint (for expanded footprint, utilities, or construction).
  • Permitting and coordination (level of coordination with Tribes and other partners, permitting complexity).
  • Changes to existing policies and regulations that risk project delay.

Results of alternative screening

The table displays a matrix of Level 1 screening results. The project alternatives are listed along the top of the table and the criteria are listed along the left side of the table. There are a mix of green, yellow, and red boxes.
*Click to enlarge

This table is a summary of Level 1 screening results. The green boxes indicate a high likelihood that the alternative could meet the criteria, the yellow boxes indicate a moderate likelihood that the alternative could meet the criteria, and the orange boxes indicate little to no likelihood that the alternative could meet a given criteria.

Alternatives with more than three red boxes will not advance to Level 2. Alternatives A through C are advancing to Level 2 for further analysis and refinement.

Alternatives advancing to Level 2 screening

Please click through below to view the alternatives WSF is considering.

The map shows alternative A-1, which would replace the dock at the same size and location. A shoulder holding lane extends to the north end of Lincoln Park’s parking lot.
Alternative A-1: Replace dock at same size and location
This alternative meets many core elements of the purpose and need but may not improve operational efficiency of the terminal on its own without additional operational elements.
The map shows alternative A-2, which would replace the dock at the same size and location and add Good To Go! A shoulder holding lane extends to the north end of Lincoln Park’s parking lot.
Alternative A-2: Replace dock at same size and location and add Good To Go!
WSF would need to evaluate the potential benefits of Good To Go! and request authorization to implement this system—a policy change that could delay the project schedule.
The map shows alternative A-3, which would replace the dock at the same size and location and add advance ticketing. A shoulder holding lane extends to the north end of Lincoln Park’s parking lot.
Alternative A-3: Replace dock at same size and location and add advance ticketing
WSF would need to evaluate the potential benefits of an advanced ticketing system and request authorization to change fare collection processes—a policy change that could delay the project schedule.
The map shows alternative A-4, which would replace the dock at the same size and location and add two-lane holding on Fauntleroy Way. A two-lane shoulder holding lane extends just to the south edge of Lincoln Park. This alternative converts a section of Fauntleroy Way to one-way northbound only.
Alternative A-4: Effects on traffic circulation require more coordination with Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT).
Changes to terminal access would impact transit routing and connections and access to private properties. This alternative may improve operational efficiency by separating vehicles headed to Southworth and Vashon Island.
The map shows alternative A-5, which would replace the dock at the same size and location and add a direction approach for holding; Fauntleroy Way holding vehicles going to Vashon Island and SW Wildwood Place holding vehicles going to Southworth.
Alternative A-5: Replace dock at same size and location and add two direction approach for holding​
Effects on traffic circulation require more coordination with SDOT.
The map shows alternative A-6, which would replace the dock at the same size and location and add a remote holding lot at 47th Avenue SW and Fauntleroy Way. The lot could hold approximately 106 vehicles.
Alternative A-6: Replace dock at same size and location and add remote holding at 47th and Fauntleroy Way​
Effects on traffic circulation require more coordination with SDOT, require purchasing more right of way and changing policy to hold vehicles in a new location.
The map shows alternative A-7, which would replace the dock at the same size and location and add a remote holding lot at Lincoln Park. The lot could hold approximately 106 vehicles.
A-7: Replace dock at same size and location and add remote holding at Lincoln Park​
Effects on traffic circulation require more coordination with SDOT, require purchasing more right of way and changing policy to hold vehicles in a new location. In addition, this alternative requires more coordination with permitting agencies and impacts Lincoln Park.
The map shows alternative B, which would replace the dock at the same location and expand the dock to hold 124 vehicles. The shoulder holding lane extends to the north end of Lincoln Park’s parking lot.
B: Expand existing dock – 124-vehicle capacity​
Expanding the dock requires coordination with partner agencies for permitting.
The map shows alternative C, which would replace the dock at the same location and expand the dock to hold 186 vehicles. There is no shoulder holding lane necessary for this alternative.
C: Expand existing dock – 186-vehicle capacity​
Expanding the dock to accommodate 186 vehicles require more permitting and impacts Cove Park.

Alternatives not advancing to Level 2 screening

Based on the results of Level 1 screening, the following alternatives do not meet several core elements of the project purpose and need and WSF will not be advancing them for further study.

  • Moving the Fauntleroy ferry terminal outside of West Seattle drastically increases sailing times and decreases frequency of sailings reducing the amount of ferry service to Vashon Island and Southworth.
  • Moving the terminal to South Lincoln Park or Lowman Beach requires purchasing more right of way, reconfiguring local streets to create ferry access and provides fewer connections to transit. Both options would have impacts to parks which require more extensive permitting.
  • Bringing an additional 3 million riders per year to Colman Dock slows ferry service for all riders and would require extensive coordination.
  • Factors at Southwest Elliott Bay, Burien, and Des Moines locations would increase overall project cost, affect schedule, and require extensive permitting and coordination with multiple partner agencies.

WSF does not plan to advance the following alternatives to Level 2 screening:

A map showing alternative D, which would replace the dock at south Lincoln Park.
A map showing alternative E, which would replace the dock at south Lowman beach.
A map showing alternative locations at Colman Dock and Southwest Elliott Bay with approximate travel times between terminals.
Alternative F: Move terminal to Colman Dock, and Alternative G: Move terminal to Southwest Elliott Bay (Jack Block Park, Seacrest Park, T5 area)
A map showing alternative locations at Burien and Des Moines with approximate travel times between terminals.
Alternative H: Move terminal to Burien, and Alternative I: Move terminal to Des Moines

To see full screening results and analysis, view the Level 1 Screening Report (PDF 2MB).