|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 22, 2009 16:19:49 GMT -8
As part of a larger project I'm working on, I'm scanning in all my postcards. As I do so, I'll post some of the rarer/more interesting photos. Like this one: M/V Bainbridge at Mukilteo in the 1940's. Dig that waterfront. Things have changed just a little over the years...  |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 22, 2009 16:23:44 GMT -8
Another great EGfleet contribution of Mukilteo Another shot of a much different Mukilteo, with the Chetzemoka at the dock.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 22, 2009 16:24:50 GMT -8
And kind of a contrast shot some 20 + years later...what appeared to be acres of sand is now under a parking lot. Chetzemoka at the dock again.  |
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 28, 2010 14:26:08 GMT -8
Will this become the latest "tempest in a teacup" for WSF? It sort of looks like the Mayors of both Everett and Edmonds do not want the route in their communities. Wouldn't such a change add both time and distance to the current route? www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2010/10/Mukilteo_100610.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 28, 2010 14:55:45 GMT -8
Will this become the latest "tempest in a teacup" for WSF? It sort of looks like the Mayors of both Everett and Edmonds do not want the route in their communities. Wouldn't such a change add both time and distance to the current route? www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2010/10/Mukilteo_100610.htmCan you elaborate on your question a bit? The link you posted just talks about the community meeting planned for the Mukilteo terminal. What does Edmonds or Everett have to do with it? Why would this become a tempest in a teacup? I guess I am not following your train of thought here. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Oct 28, 2010 15:03:25 GMT -8
Will this become the latest "tempest in a teacup" for WSF? It sort of looks like the Mayors of both Everett and Edmonds do not want the route in their communities. Wouldn't such a change add both time and distance to the current route? www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2010/10/Mukilteo_100610.htmCan you elaborate on your question a bit? The link you posted just talks about the community meeting planned for the Mukilteo terminal. What does Edmonds or Everett have to do with it? Why would this become a tempest in a teacup? I guess I am not following your train of thought here. Thanks! Here's what he's talking about...
Mukilteo could lose state ferry terminal to Everett, EdmondsFerry officials have 9 options they want the public to mull By Debra Smith and Oscar Halpert, Herald Writers The Mukilteo Ferry Terminal might be relocated to one of several sites, including in Everett or Edmonds. Or it may just stay right where it is. Washington State Ferries is once again trying to come up with a solution to its problem child of a terminal. The antiquated traffic layout at Mukilteo has contributed to accidents and clogged streets for decades. State officials have drawn up nine alternatives and want to hear from the public. The options include moving the terminal to Point Edwards in Edmonds, or rerouting the Clinton ferry to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal, which serves Kingston. The state also is considering spots near the former Air Force tank farm east of the current dock and even the Port of Everett’s South Terminal. The Everett option would mean thousands of people would have to pass through downtown every day on their way to and from Whidbey Island. As history has shown, officials could also choose to do nothing. With the exception of the no-build choice, nearly all of the design concepts under consideration show one ferry slip, multiple transit bays, a pickup and drop-off area, and holding lanes with dedicated areas for bicycles and carpools. That’s a scaled-down version of what officials were thinking a few years ago. An open house is set for 5 p.m. Thursday on the eighth floor of the Wall Street Building, 2930 Wetmore Ave. in Everett. The response from area leaders so far has been chilly. “I do not support having a ferry terminal in Everett,” Mayor Ray Stephanson said. “The only economic advantages I can see are lattes, ice cream and chowder.” Stephanson also is worried about traffic, security issues with Naval Station Everett next door and the impact on operations at the Port of Everett. Meanwhile, Edmonds Mayor Mike Cooper said he’s asked the state to forget about having the Whidbey ferries share the Edmonds terminal on Main Street. “That adds about 17 boats a day,” he said. He doesn’t have a problem with a ferry terminal at Point Edwards. The state says the crossing to Whidbey Island from Point Edwards would take 50 minutes. Mukilteo Mayor Joe Marine said he likes the tank farm option that pushes a potential terminal the farthest east. However, he’d like to see a parking garage “so we don’t have a sea of sprawled parking” and so the project could tie into a Sound Transit rail station. The Mukilteo terminal is one of the state’s busiest, yet it’s perched on the same wood pilings planted into the beach front in 1952. “We have a lot of room to improve safety,” said Nicole McIntosh, an engineering manager for the state ferry system. The state wanted to explore every possible site along the waterfront in the area, she said. Experts have performed analyses of the options and rated each on factors such as traffic, commute times and connectivity to transit. The site with the fewest drawbacks is the former tank farm right on the border of Mukilteo and Everett, but one obstacle could be serious. American Indian artifacts have been found there. Since 1972, the state has recognized that the terminal needs a major upgrade but has failed to follow through. The state planned to build a new terminal on the former tank farm site a few years ago. The project was set aside in 2007 by the Legislature when costs were projected to be as high as $300 million. Officials also determined that soil on the proposed site wasn’t suited for building. The state did give Washington State Ferries money to continue studying the tank farm area, and the study turned up some suitable spots. Last year, lawmakers also kicked in $63.3 million for planning a terminal and beginning work. Officials are waiting for the options to be narrowed down before trying to estimate the cost. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Oct 28, 2010 15:06:03 GMT -8
And this one...
Stop studying Edmonds for Clinton ferry run, Cooper asks officials
(Myedmondsnews.com--no author listed)
Washington State Ferries staff left Edmonds Wednesday night secure in the knowledge that city officials aren’t interested in absorbing the additional ferry traffic from Clinton ferry run.
Mayor Mike Cooper and Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton both delivered that message loud and clear during a public meeting the ferry system held in the Edmonds City Council Chambers Wednesday to receive feedback on the idea of relocating the Clinton ferry run from Mukilteo to Edmonds.
Cooper said that while he is a long-time friend of Mukilteo Mayor Joe Marine, “the City of Edmonds is not interested in taking his two-and-a-half-million cars into our city,” a reference to the annual vehicle traffic generated by the Clinton-Mukilteo run, which is the second-largest in the ferry system.
Washington State Ferries announced a few weeks ago it was looking at options for upgrading or replacing the Mukilteo ferry terminal with one that provides better access to train and bus connections, and that one possibility is moving the terminal from Mukilteo to either Everett or Edmonds. Public meetings were held last week on Whidbey Island and in Mukilteo, but due to intense citizen interest, ferry officials scheduled two more meetings for this week, in Edmonds and Everett.
Ferry staff started the meeting Wednesday by asking the audience of about 30 for a show of hands of those who were opposed to the idea of moving the Clinton ferry traffic to Edmonds, and nearly all of those in attendance lifted their arms.
Washington State Ferries is considering nine concepts for replacing the aging Mukilteo ferry terminal, which includes seismic safety improvements to the dock and roadway improvements for better access through the downtown area to the ferry, officials said. Six of those concepts are in Mukilteo, two are in Edmonds and one is in Everett. The ferry system is also including a “no-build option” in Mukilteo that would provide a new ferry slip, passenger building and toll booths, but no other road improvements.
The reason for looking outside of Mukilteo? The current location is a “significant cultural site” for Native American tribes and the ferry system needed to “broaden the concept to ensure we have a reasonable range of alternatives,” said meeting facilitator Jamie Strausz-Clark.
Complete maps and descriptions of all nine proposals are available on the Washington State Ferries website, but here’s a brief description of the three Edmonds concepts:
“Edmonds Existing Concept” — involves relocating Mukilteo ferry service to the existing Edmonds ferry terminal with no terminal improvements.
“Edmonds -Existing Site Improvements Concept” — replaces, widens and extends ferry trestle; adds two new transfer spans and overhead passenger loading via pedestrian bridges; expands number of toll booths from three to five; adds a vehicle holding area for a total of 519 vehicles and provides for future expansion of bus bays. Installing the huge concrete strip in the current antique mall space location would remove a large piece of revenue-generating property from the city tax rolls, and raises other aesthetic and economic concerns, the Mayor said, adding: “We are simply just not interested in a parking lot on our waterfront. This proposal would also result in the closing of Main Street west of Sunset Avenue to local traffic, a move which further isolates the waterfront from the downtown core and poses a significant problem for emergency vehicles attempting to access the Underwater Dive Park during rescues or other emergencies, Cooper noted.
“Edmonds Point Edwards Concept” — relocates the ferry terminal to Point Edwards, located two-thirds of a mile south of the existing Edmonds terminal. This concept is essentially a modified version of the Edmonds Crossing project, which was put on hold because of state budget challenges. It includes new overhead passenger loading and passenger and maintenance buildings, three transfer spans, a new signalized intersection and terminal access road, six toll booth, a holding area for 519 vehicles and eight bus bays.
In their comments, both Cooper and Clifton included a long list of potential impacts from the increased ferry and vehicle traffic that the 17 new Edmonds-Clinton ferry runs per day would bring. Additional congestion on Highway 104, air and water pollution, view interruptions and environmental lighting were just a few of the items mentioned.
“We respectfully ask that the ferry system discontinue any further study” of the Clinton run relocation to Edmonds, Cooper said.
Also offering public comment during the meeting was State Rep. Marko Liias (D-21st District), himself an Edmonds resident, who said he was opposed to moving the Mukilteo ferry to Edmonds.
Ferry system representatives said that they will come back to the public with initial recommendations based on the following factors: safety and security, transportation operations and environmental effects, and will also incorporate public comment into their decision-making process. After additional comment, Washington State Ferries will prepare a draft Environmental Impact Statement in spring 2011, conduct draft EIS public hearings in fall 2011 and issue a final EIS in fall 2012, with a final decision expected the following winter.
The public has until Nov. 19 to submit their comments online or via U.S. Mail. To do that, visit the Mukilteo Multimodal Project website here.
|
|
Jody
Chief Steward
Ferry Foamer
Posts: 152
|
Post by Jody on Oct 28, 2010 15:06:17 GMT -8
Can you elaborate on your question a bit? The link you posted just talks about the community meeting planned for the Mukilteo terminal. What does Edmonds or Everett have to do with it? Why would this become a tempest in a teacup? I guess I am not following your train of thought here. Thanks! From the fourth paragraph in the link provided: "WSF is considering possible locations for the new terminal, which include the existing Mukilteo terminal site and other locations in Mukilteo, Edmonds and Everett." Third paragraph also provides some clues as to the future of the route and why other cities might not be so excited to have the terminal located there: "The Mukilteo/Clinton route is WSF’s second busiest route for vehicle traffic and has the third largest annual ridership, serving over four million total riders in 2009. Future passenger usage is expected to increase by 73% by 2030." That's what I got out of it... Jody Edit - while I was typing up my reply really quickly, EGFleet posted not one but two separate links and stories. Wow. Way to totally beat me to the punch. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Oct 28, 2010 15:26:51 GMT -8
How come it seems that terminals are moved and relocated more in the WSF system than in the BCF system? Are there regulations in place preventing terminals from being moved in BC?
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 28, 2010 17:39:14 GMT -8
How come it seems that terminals are moved and relocated more in the WSF system than in the BCF system? Are there regulations in place preventing terminals from being moved in BC? Terminals moved or relocated? In WSF's history, I can think of three, not counting the termination of service to Indianola, Suquamish, Lofall, and South Point. Harper terminal was replaced in 1958 by Southworth, about a mile closer (and a much shorter run); Friday Harbor's terminal moved about 75 yards to the east sometime between 1957 and 1970, and Sidney moved about six blocks in 1960. Oh, four. Keystone moved about 150 feet. If you discount the moves within shouting distance, we're talking about one and a half. I don't think they're quite as portable as you imply. That having been said, BC Ferries built most of its infrastructure in the 1960s; WSF's infrastructure was--and is, frankly--an inherited hodgepodge dating back as far as the 1920's. |
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 28, 2010 18:14:14 GMT -8
Thanks Evergreen for providing the detailed articles! The Everett Herald provided a much better outline of the issues than the article I read in the Seattle Times. It seems like both time and distance would be major issues for the commuter traffic. The route likely handles a significant amount of Boeing plant workers every day.
Barnacle, didn't the State move the Anacortes terminal many years ago? Also Port Townsend was the most recent move.
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Oct 28, 2010 23:25:25 GMT -8
Wow. Way to go overactive newspapers. This project isn't even past the most preliminary environmental scoping stage. And Edmonds is and always was a non-starter from an environment impact perspective. It's interesting that much of the stuff from the taj mahal @ mukilteo project a few years back has been tabled, but the tank farm option has been kept I guess. Which makes sense cause it's the best option realistically. It's a shame to see WSF still making no viable plans for realistic overnight parking in Mukilteo. The lots up on the hill a bit just don't cut it on busy holidays.
Keep in mind by law when engaging in new public works projects agencies are required to consider all viable options including the no-build option. And are also required to hold hearings with the stakeholders. Just because it's viable doesn't mean it will actually happen. These hearings are a formality at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 29, 2010 5:49:41 GMT -8
Barnacle, didn't the State move the Anacortes terminal many years ago? Also Port Townsend was the most recent move. D'oh! I must've been tired. Score two for you, sir.  WSF Terminal relocations: Anacortes is actually the furthest relocation; 2.57 miles as the raven flies. Harper to Southworth, 1.2 miles. Sidney, 1/2 mile. Port Townsend, 1/3 mile. Friday Harbor, 100 yards. Keystone, 40 yards (approximate--couldn't find any visible evidence on Google Earth). And JFTR: Edmonds (proposed), 7/8 mile. Also, to clarify, these are statute miles, 5280 feet. Multiply by 1.61 for kilometres; divide by 1.15 to get nautical miles. Multiply by eight to get furlongs. ;D |
|
Quatchi
Voyager 
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Oct 31, 2010 23:10:59 GMT -8
How come it seems that terminals are moved and relocated more in the WSF system than in the BCF system? Are there regulations in place preventing terminals from being moved in BC? Why would they need to move a terminal, we have lots of land to expand most terminals, and nowhere else to build new ones. Where there isn't enough land, we densify. Generally its really expensive and stupid to rip apart an already efficiently operating infrastructure at a cost of millions and millions of dollars for no major benefit. We could save in fuel and time by moving the Horseshoe Bay Terminal onto Bowen Island and building a bridge over to Bowen, that would cut off 10 minutes from a route 2 round trip, that would be a wonderfully cost effective solution to those lengthy route 2 waits. If it ain't broke don't try and fix it, our terminals work quite well where they are, that is why we don't move them. Cheers, |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 1, 2010 9:02:41 GMT -8
Not related to the terminal change... But when was the last time neither the Kittitas or the Cathlamet was on this run? This morning it's the Kitsap and Chelan due to the vessel rotations.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,942
|
Post by FNS on Nov 1, 2010 9:31:43 GMT -8
Not related to the terminal change... But when was the last time neither the Kittitas or the Cathlamet was on this run? This morning it's the Kitsap and Chelan due to the vessel rotations. Must be before 1982. Just before that time, this run had the ILLAHEE and NISQUALLY. The CATHY and KITTY made their mostly permanent homes on this run after they ran the Edmonds to Clinton detour in the spring of 1982 (the HYAK paid a visit to the detour one weekend during that time). The Mukilteo dock had to be reworked for the deeper drafts of the I-Class ferries.  This must be the rarest of any occasions in seeing both primary Mukilteo ferries in Eagle Harbor as seen at Siitech.com. |
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 14, 2010 12:02:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 14, 2010 12:13:01 GMT -8
Don't fall victim to media frenzy. They portray everything with all the transparent emotion of a silent film. It may be a minor issue; we don't know yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 20, 2010 15:40:00 GMT -8
See? The boat was back up and running a few hours later. Media hype triumphs again!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 18, 2010 14:06:19 GMT -8
Some WSF terminal photos, from October 26 & 27, 2010: Clinton: - the berth #2? bridge & structure. I think this is the main berth.  - a view of the terminal from the departing Cathlamet.   |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jan 29, 2012 10:46:11 GMT -8
The draft EIS for the new terminal has been posted: www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Ferries/mukilteoterminal/multimodal/DraftEIS.htmI found Appendix G interesting as it contains a lot of CGI renderings of the two new options as well as the expansion of the existing dock that would take out Ivars. My preference remains option 2 as it returns more land to the city for eventual use at the east end of the tank farm and also features shorter walking distances to the Sounder Station. Also even thought it's a big turn I don't like the idea of flipping a semi with a 53' trailer 180 degrees as would be required in option 1's layout. That whole idea just screams fender benders to me... |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on May 22, 2012 11:52:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 22, 2012 14:55:50 GMT -8
The only thing I worry about is that there is not room for expansion for longer holding lanes. Sure they can add a 2nd slip but that is about it. While it will hold 1.5 boat loads, there are numerous weekends where 2 boatloads are needed to be held. Out of the three remaining options, this was definitely the best option.
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on May 23, 2012 8:39:34 GMT -8
Yeah there'll still be some big big lines up the hill. With 3 tollbooths though they can barely process cars through fast enough to fully utilize the existing expanded storage area. Since this new design has 4 tollbooths, that'll reduce the "line" a little bit, in the sense of cars waiting to pay but not necessarily waiting for a boat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 24, 2012 5:18:55 GMT -8
So does the state actually own the tank farm dirt yet?
|
|
