Proponents of the idea, including the Seattle building trades, Pioneer Square neighborhood advocates, and stadium authority representatives, say that allowing housing above light industrial uses — creating a so-called Maker’s District — will increase the vibrancy of the area and help greater downtown thrive. They argue that the impact of additional residents in the area was already studied as part of a comprehensive environmental review three years ago and found to be insignificant. Nelson’s rezone would make room for about 1,000 homes, if built out to capacity.

But Port leaders paint that analysis as incomplete, alleging significant impacts to its operations that could come from new permanent residents on industrial land near busy freight terminals. Port of Seattle Commission President Toshiko Hasegawa, in a press conference ahead of Thursday’s vote, likened allowing housing in the stadium district to redlining, and warned of a slippery slope that could lead to the broader erosion of industrial areas. In recent days, the Port of Seattle has started to suggest they may take legal action to stop the move if it’s ultimately approved by the full council, expected as early as March 18.

The largest private landowner in the proposed SoDo housing district is California-based hedge fund manager Chris Hansen, who snatched up 14 acres near the stadiums nearly a decade ago in hopes of building an arena complex to one day host NHL hockey and NBA basketball games. However, Hansen’s plan relied on securing a street vacation from the City to host a multi-block development, which the Seattle City Council turned down in 2016 and instead advanced an alternate plan remodeling the publicly owned Seattle Center Arena. As a result, Hansen was left owning considerable SoDo land holdings and looking to build something other than an arena.

Critics have painted Nelson’s push as a giveaway to Hanson.

“This is more than an economic justice issue, this is about environmental and housing justice, and it’s a safety issue,” Hasegawa said. “It’s a carve-out for a specific property that would benefit a single out-of-state billionaire, undermining our collective goals for a healthy economy, environment, and quality of life for all of our residents. And it renegotiates a yearslong agreement between dozens of parties, for the benefit of a single party.”

In an op-ed last week in The Urbanist, Port Commissioner Ryan Calkins made the case for ensuring that industrial lands stay industrial, even as much of the stadium district remains dominated by non-industrial uses right now. “SoDo will be the place where greentech entrepreneurs can find industrial space well-suited to advanced manufacturing. Without industrial lands, those homegrown jobs will be lost to other markets,” Calkins wrote.

The area targeted by Nelson’s bill, officially called the Stadium Transition Area Overlay District (STAOD), is classified as Urban Industrial (UI) zone, a type of land use created in 2023 after a decade of debate over the future of Seattle’s industrial lands. Housing is allowed within UI zones in neighborhoods across the city like Georgetown, Interbay, and Ballard, but in the STAOD a prohibition on housing within 200 feet of a major truck street effectively keeps it banned, with First Avenue S, Royal Brougham Way, and Edgar Martinez Dr all highly used major truck streets that act as last-mile connections between port facilities on the waterfront and I-90.

Under city code, 50% of any housing allowed in the new UI zones must be made available to households making anywhere from 60% to 90% of King County’s area median income, or they must be completely live-work units or caretaker’s quarters. All residential units built in these zones have to have special windows built to handle additional air pollution and noise, and must be built with heavier-duty HVAC systems to improve air filtration.

Building owners also have to sign a special covenant that acknowledges future residents must “accept the industrial character of the neighborhood and agree that existing or permitted industrial uses do not constitute a nuisance or other inappropriate or unlawful use of land.”

Thursday’s committee vote saw Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth join with Bob Kettle, who has been clear from the outset that he opposes Nelson’s bill, in voting no. Hollingworth pointed to her family’s cannabis farm in Shelton, Washington, on the Olympic peninsula, as providing her direct experience with what it takes to get a product to market.

“The one thing that hit me is when I was talking to farmers from eastern Washington and they mentioned that, ‘Joy, getting through [Snoqualmie] pass is not hard for us, it’s navigating a Mariners game, or it’s navigating a Seahawks game’ and that potential impact of moving through SoDo and getting to the Port,” Hollingsworth said. “That’s what hit for me, the potential impact of adding more layers to that.”

Councilmember Dan Strauss has also voiced firm opposition to the proposal, which could make the full council vote razor-close.

Mark Solomon, who joined the council on January 27 to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of Tammy Morales, joined with Nelson and Maritza Rivera in voting to recommend the bill to the full council. Lamenting the divisiveness of this issue, Solomon suggested that there should be a way for the two opposing sides to come to an agreement, but didn’t offer any specifics on exactly how that would happen. For many freight and maritime advocates, the 2023 industrial lands legislation represents that agreement.

“We are looking at this as an either/or: either we build housing or we support the Port. I believe we can do both, I believe it’s a both/and,” Solomon said. “I’m still trying to wrap my brain around how doing a Maker’s District, doing housing in a small sliver [of SoDo] is going to have an impact on operations in and out of the Port. Because quite frankly, I think that the light rail expansion that’s going to happen in SoDo is probably going to have more of an adverse impact on freight mobility to and from the Port.”

Nelson, in response to the Port’s threat of legal action, suggested that the city would be spending additional time on legal analysis before putting the legislation to a final vote, but reiterated her support for moving forward with what she framed as a badly needed economic development tool.

“If I thought this was going to damage, irreparably, the Port or put it into a position, within a hundred years, where it would not be a strong viable entity I would not be doing this,” Nelson said. “If I thought it would significantly damage the industrial base south of city hall I wouldn’t be doing this.”

This article was made possible by the generous support of The Urbanist Fund. The Urbanist Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization that supports local, public-interest journalism. Visit theurbanistfund.org for more information or to make a tax-deductible gift.

The post Council Committee Greenlights SoDo Housing Proposal Despite Strong Port Opposition first appeared on The Urbanist.

While the Washington State Department of Transportation doesn’t track the origins of trucks driving through this corridor, Gnull has experienced it firsthand: “There’s no way to separate the port and industry here.”

“The area is very polluted,” said Gnull, who is a longtime resident and advocate with the Climate Alliance of the South Sound, an organization founded to improve living conditions for the working class.

“All of Tacoma is polluted, but South Tacoma [is] in particular. Because of the affordable housing available to the poor, who are disproportionately marginalized by race and nationality, this area has become viable for the underprivileged to live in,” Gnull said. 

South Tacoma and the South End neighborhoods endure nearly the same level of diesel emissions each year as the Port of Tacoma itself. This pollution has high cancer risks and contributes to the lowest life expectancy levels in the entire city, according to local and federal environmental justice indexes. 

But the port-related pollution — from vessels and trucks — may finally taper.  

In June, the ports of Seattle and Tacoma announced the Puget Sound Maritime Air Forum’s emissions inventory — a count of greenhouse gasses within port boundaries, conducted every five years. According to the inventory, diesel particulate emissions from the Port of Tacoma have decreased by at least 80% since 2005, while the amount of freight moved has increased. It mirrors a broader trend of emissions reductions across Puget Sound ports.

Port leaders credit the shift to their electrification projects and investments guided under the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy. However, their efforts are at risk, because the ports’ transition to clean energy is not regulated and relies almost entirely on government funding. 

Much of the strategy’s $160 million in state funding largely comes from the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) that’s now up for repeal in this year’s election, according to Port of Seattle Commission Vice President Toshiko Grace Hasegawa. The legislature recently allocated another $35 million from the CCA in coming years for expensive upgrades.

While federal funding also supports the ports’ transition, local funding like the CCA is a competitive key to getting those grants. It demonstrates strong local commitment and can provide matching funds, often required to secure federal support.

“Our push for decarbonization would not be possible if not for the CCA,” Hasegawa wrote in a statement to The Urbanist. “At the port, we are striving toward our zero-emission commitment and have been making steady progress. However, when it comes down to it, funding is our biggest obstacle.” 

The slow, costly transition to decarbonizing ports 

The Port of Tacoma and Seattle’s best hope for the clean energy transition lies in the zero-emission commitments from commissioners to decarbonize maritime-related greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades.

That’s because their pledge to achieve zero emissions by 2050 is voluntary, unlike other industrial changes driven by Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act. While that legislation set parameters for powering buildings and vehicles with fossil-fuel-free resources, and can indirectly support cleaner port operations, it does not specifically mandate rules for port infrastructure and freight activity. 

State regulations, like those in California, have effectively supported clean energy adoption in ports by providing both rules and financial incentives for compliance. Once fully implemented, the California Air Resource Board anticipates a 55% reduction in potential cancer risk for port-adjacent communities. 

In absence of specific regulation, the Washington state legislature is trying to help decarbonize ports through funding in the CCA. In the 2024 supplemental budget, the legislature funded $14 million for shore power — infrastructure that allows container ships to turn off their diesel engines and connect to the electrical grid. 

The Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA), a federal maritime commission that manages cargo terminals for the ports of Tacoma and Seattle, manages such projects. They estimate that a ship connected to shore power for 40 hours avoids burning 10 tonnes of diesel fuels. 

But the transition is slow, because of the high costs of underground wiring and plug points into the wharf.

“Ports aren’t a deep pocket,” said NWSA senior director Jason Jordan. “It’s really key to continue to be supported by state and federal grants if we’re serious about getting to zero emissions.” 

This year, Seattle’s Terminal 5 opened its second shore power plug-in, and renovations at Port of Tacoma’s Husky Terminal are reserving space for similar capabilities. But shore power does not address the emissions that happen on the way to and from port. Vessels out at sea are often too large and energy-intensive to be fully electrified. 

In hopes of eventually finding a solution to this problem, the state legislature funded a $250,000 sustainable marine fuels framework.

“There are major questions in sustainable marine fuel that still need to be answered. There is no consensus on which fuel to use,” said Kurt Ellision, Maritime Policy Manager for Climate Solutions. “How will it be made? How will we guarantee what are our definitions of a sustainable or green fuel? And those are really challenging questions that can be only answered to a limited extent locally.” 

Ellison, who started his career as a deckhand, believes the shipping industry is years behind its decarbonization efforts, but that ports could be the next frontier in reducing climate pollution. 

Electrification of trucks  

Ports have the potential to serve as hubs for implementing cleaner technologies, a vision strongly supported by significant federal funding. This year, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created grants for new electric trucking hubs, and NWSA received $12 million for their own station to charge thousands of heavy-duty trucks. 

“One of the interesting reasons [for] looking at ports and also focusing some of our investment dollars there is because ports are an intersection of all these different transportation types, whether that’s trucks, trains, vessels, cargo handling equipment,” Ellison said.  

Nearly 4,000 short-haul trucks serve the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, going to nearby distribution centers and warehouses, but none of them are fully electric, according to Climate Solutions. Drivers often don’t have upfront capital to invest in electric vehicles, but a new state program — also funded by the CCA — is trying to offset that with point-of sale vouchers.

Fledgling truck electrification efforts come at a time of industrial expansion in Tacoma, with frontline communities of color bearing the brunt of the resulting pollution and traffic violence. Asians, Latinos, and Blacks collectively compose the majority in many of these frontline neighborhoods. Carbon emissions from trucks at the Port of Tacoma have increased by nearly 400 tonnes over the last four years, according to the maritime inventory.

NWSA told The Urbanist that the increase in emissions was due to prolonged idling times caused by Covid-19 related supply chain issues, which has now been resolved. However, advocates worry about a congested future that brings multi-layered threats to public health. 

“Having electrical vehicles and moving to electric is a good thing,” said Gnull. “But we also need solutions that democratic and look at the needs of the people.” 

As part of the Climate Alliance of the South Sound, Gnull has been rallying against the Bridge Industrial Project, a new 2.5 million-square-foot warehouse development in South Tacoma. Dubbed the South Tacoma Mega Warehouse by opponents, the development would result in thousands more carbon and diesel-emitting trucks on the roads, according to Earth Justice. Inhaling exhaust can give people asthma and other respiratory illnesses, and children – with developing bodies and lungs – are especially vulnerable.

The City of Tacoma granted conditional approval for the project without requiring a full environmental review — a move that the Climate Alliance for South Sound has called environmental racism. This, in part, inspired state policymakers to propose the Cumulative Risk Burden (CURB) Pollution Act. Although it failed in this year’s session, CURB aimed to bolster the existing Healthy Environment for All (HEAL) Act with stronger enforcement mechanisms to deny permits for polluting facilities in overburdened communities. 

For Gnull, climate justice work is personal. 

As a member of the Osage Nation whose family fled from settler violence and eventually relocated to the Pacific Northwest, Gnull’s environmental activism is inspired by her Indigenous ancestry. She has protested in movements that successfully canceled plans for a methanol refinery, and strongly opposed the construction of a liquid natural gas plant in Tacoma. In 2019, her commitment deepened when her mother was hit and killed by a motorist in the South End. 

“It’s the overall effects of increased traffic that I think has the bigger impact on our community,” said Gnull. “I can’t imagine the people whose children die from asthma. My mom, that’s tough, but it’s something that most of us are prepared for eventually. Losing a child? That’s different. It just breaks my heart, and I don’t want to see more of this. I want to see it get better.” 

The post Climate Commitment Act Repeal Imperils Port’s Pollution Reduction Efforts first appeared on The Urbanist.

Seattle’s only majority people of color and immigrant neighborhoods are also the most vulnerable; with more families, lower incomes and higher asthma rates, all living and working by Seattle’s only river. As a near port community, black carbon (a super pollutant) and ultra-fine particulate matter are found in higher concentrations. King County International Airport continues to use leaded fuel for recreational aircraft which disperse dangerous airborne emissions. Toxic clouds of cadmium from Ardagh Glass and poisonous dust plumes from Seattle Iron and Metal, all occur regularly with little monitoring, oversight, or consequence for polluters (DVYC Moss Study).

On top of it all, raging wildfires send soot and ash raining down reliably in late-summer smoke season, delivering the worst AQI scores in the world to the Puget Sound for days at a time.

Washington State needs a new approach to air pollution that centers environmental justice, prioritizes human health, and addresses the cumulative impacts of air pollution in communities using disaggregated data from a robust, comprehensive regional air quality monitoring network for environmental justice communities. People of color are 3.6 times more likely than white people to live in counties that experience poor air quality, as reported by the American Lung Association. Given Seattle’s history of redlining and 13-year gap in life expectancy between South Park, Georgetown and Laurelhurst residents, this is a glaring reality.

Many of these impacts are exacerbated by the impacts of climate change, and relative mental health also takes a toll. Policymakers and regulatory bodies should create and enforce stringent reduction goals and aggressive state level standards for harmful air pollutants to close the gaps responsible for health disparities faced by communities living in the Duwamish Valley.

The differences in health outcomes are the result of historic and persistent environmental injustice and institutional racism that state and local legislators and policymakers have attempted to undo with optimistically titled initiatives like the King County Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan and the Healthy Environment For All Act. Regrettably, these policies and rhetorical statements of solidarity have not delivered on the promises of health equity and protection. Some examples include:

• County: King County Council declared racism a public health crisis yet recently approved a new 20-year lease in the valley for Ardagh Glass with almost no community engagement and over serious objections from affected community members in the single public comment hearing offered before the vote to approve. KCIA has begun the process of expansion while community-backed ordinance 2022-0011 opposing the airport’s master plan, including the fuel farm expansion, has languished in committee at King County Council for over a year without a vote.
• State: While the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) is the regional authority for air quality, created by the Washington State Clean Air Act, it remains unclear how the HEAL ACT applies to the PSCAA. The Climate Commitment Act regulates carbon using a market-based “cap and trade” tactic to address climate change specifically, and largely overlooks airborne toxics.

Federal: NAAQS policy is the latest update that is falling short of protective measures with no change for the 24-hour particulate matter (PM) standard for non-attainment and attainment areas. No level of PM 2.5 and toxics is healthy for children or adults.

Washington needs a stringent cumulative impacts policy and regulations that centers health and sets a new standard for emission reduction, both stationary and mobile, emission control technologies, indirect source rules, and a mandate authorizing environmental justice criteria in permitting.

Stronger regulations and actionable implementation is key for our civil rights. For example, the State of Oregon regulates air toxics by evaluating emissions based on the danger to human health they pose when considered with the total pollution present at a specific location by setting limits on the risk to nearby residents, or risk action levels. 

Environmental justice communities in Washington need a cumulative impact policy that includes air toxics that match the reality in which we are living like Oregon has implemented. It’s time that Washington State, King County and the City of Seattle live up to their own stated values and start walking all their environmental justice talk so people in the Duwamish Valley may finally take a breath of healthy air. 

The post Op-Ed: Washington State Needs a Cumulative Air Toxics Law first appeared on The Urbanist.

It’s impossible to ignore a cruise ship docked on Seattle’s waterfront. 

Recently, a behemoth Princess Cruise ship bound for Alaska – the Ruby Princess – towered over Terminal 66, reaching heights equivalent to a 15-story building. If the Columbia Tower, Seattle’s tallest building, was laid on its side, it wouldn’t measure up to the length of the Ruby Princess, which takes up 1,083 feet of the city’s seafront. 

It is not just their size that is imposing. Cruise ship visits create both positive and negative impacts that can’t be ignored. On the plus side, the 289 sailings that 13 ships will make out of Seattle in the 2023 season between April and October are estimated to bring in $900 million worth of tourist revenue and support 5,500 local jobs.

Even though the Port of Seattle aspires to be the greenest cruise port in North America, these ships also bring a host of negative impacts to the city: pollution and carbon emissions, crowding at popular tourist sites, and pressure to build Seattle’s transportation infrastructure focused on automobiles and freight rather than transit and pedestrians.

In addition, the Port is behind schedule on promised plans to expand shore power, which allows these diesel-burning ships to turn off their engines while docked.

As I reported in a detailed multimedia feature published earlier this year at Hakai Magazine, Alaska cruises based in Seattle leave many harmful impacts in their wake. These include carbon emissions, sewage and scrubber discharge, noise impacts to Orca and gray whales, and overcrowding as the massive ships disgorge thousands of tourists into tiny Alaskan towns.

Seattle isn’t tiny, but it too feels the impact of this industry. 

The Wide Stroad to Alaska 

As new wide arterials recently opened at Alaskan Way and the new “not a highway” known as Elliott Way, the Port of Seattle and the cruise industry it supports have contributed to Seattle falling behind on its sustainability goals.

Gordon Padelford, of Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, is disappointed that the Port of Seattle has been reluctant to support a continuous, protected bicycle and pedestrian path alongside the newly reconstructed Alaskan Way. “If the Port really wants to demonstrate its sustainability bonafides, it needs to fully support a continuous waterfront trail for Seattle,” noting that a completed waterfront trail connecting to the Elliott Bay Trail would rival the Burke-Gilman Trail as the city’s most popular trail. 

In an interview with The Urbanist, Stephanie Jones Stebbins, the Port’s managing director of maritime, said, “We are actually very supportive of a separated bike pathway as long as that can be dual use for operations when it’s not being used as a bike path.” 

“When there’s a cruise ship in town, it does not make sense to have a bike lane in front of the cruise terminal. It makes sense to have a bike lane on the side of the road where there’s already a bike path right now.”

That “bike path” is currently a raised sidewalk. Padelford says making cyclists and pedestrians cross busy Alaskan Way twice, which is still SDOT’s preferred solution, isn’t tenable. 

“Requiring people to go across the street on the east side sidewalk and then go back across the street again – which was the original proposal – is a non-starter,” he said. Padelford is optimistic, however, that a compromise solution involving flaggers temporarily directing bike traffic away from the cruise terminal during busy boarding hours can solve the problem.

Angela Brady, director of the City of Seattle’s Office of the Waterfront, defends the newly opened four-lane roads and says the second phase of the project will include much more landscaping and will be more pedestrian-friendly than it currently is. “This really allows us now to focus on construction of the new park, which is the long linear park on the water’s edge that will be more focused on pedestrians and bicycles,” she said.

Responding to viral online criticism of the newly opened project, Brady said, “The viaduct carried 110,000 vehicles a day. We’re now only carrying about 18,000. So, that’s a significant reduction in the volume of vehicles as compared to the Alaskan Way Viaduct. And you know, our speed limits are 25 miles an hour and not 50. It’s not a freeway.”

Brady acknowledged that the Port, along with the Washington Department of Transportation, were among the project stakeholders urging that Alaskan Way should move a significant number of vehicles. “Yes, the Port has been vocal in the support of the maritime industry and the cruise ship industry and the efficient transport of goods and services via freight,” she said.

In its 2016 Environmental Impact Statement on the rebuild of Alaskan Way, the Seattle Office of the Waterfront pointed to the Coleman Dock ferry terminal, freight traffic, and the needs of cruise ships at Terminal 66 as impetus for a multi-lane roadway. “As a result of these factors, traffic on Alaskan Way at Yesler Way is expected to increase substantially between 2010 and 2030,” the report concluded.

Seattle’s Climate Action Plan, first released in 2013 and updated in 2018, calls for the city to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 58% below 2008 levels by 2030 and reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Stumbles on the Path to Shore Power

One of the Port’s big talking points is its distinction of being one of the first ports in North America to introduce shore power, which allows ships to shut off their engines and plug into electric power while loading and unloading passengers, food, and supplies during the nine to 12 hours these huge boats spend in Seattle.

Unfortunately, the Port’s efforts to stop cruise ship emissions while they sit in Elliott Bay have fallen well short of their goals. Only Terminal 91 in Interbay currently offers the option of shore power. At Terminal 66, which is not equipped with shore power, a plan to have electricity available at the start of this season was scuttled, and has been delayed to midway or late in the 2024 season. The issue, Jones Stebbins said, is power cannot arrive through downtown.

“Where it’s located, we would have had to dig up an incredible amount of downtown streets to get power there,” she said. Instead, rather than disrupting all those cars, the Port’s engineers have been working on designing and installing a giant underwater cable to electrify Terminal 66. “We’re working on getting a mile-long underwater cable – but supply chain issues have come into effect,” she said, noting construction could continue well into 2024.

Last year, of the 295 cruise ship sailings that left Seattle, 141 were equipped to plug in to shore power. But only 69 of those ships actually plugged in and turned off their engines. 

Via email, Jones Stebbins said the reasons that fewer than half the ships that have capability actually plugged in were:

• “The ship attempted to connect several times and was unable to establish a connection due to a ship-side issue.”
• “The ship did not connect due to [an] issue with the shore power connection system.”
• “The electrical department that establishes the connection was in isolation due to COVID.”
• “There were several attempts to connect but the connection failed due to synchronization issues.”

In her interview with The Urbanist, Jones Stebbins said the main issue at Terminal 91 was similar to when someone pulls their car into a gas station and finds that their gas tank is on the side opposite the pump. “We’re seeing that the location on the vessel doesn’t necessarily line up with where our shore power is,” Stebbins said.

In order to fix this rather unfortunate oversight, Jones Stebbins said work is currently underway, funded by the Port’s capital plan, and will continue into the 2024 season. Jones Stebbins said the Port hopes that this year, even with all the glitches, 38% of ships (111 sailings) will successfully utilize shore power. 

On top of that, Jones Stebbins said cruise lines are introducing new ships that aren’t compatible with current facilities at Terminal 91. “There are some new vessels coming that will not fit with our systems,” she said. “So we’ll be upgrading.” She hopes this work will also be finished by 2024.

The Port’s stated goal is to require all ships to plug in by 2030.

The Port estimates its shore power program reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2,000 metric tons last year.

According to estimates I calculated in my feature for Hakai magazine, just one average-size cruise ship carrying 3,600 passengers generates 2,800 metric tons of CO2 during a single, seven-day sailing to Alaska and back.

“I mean, sure, shore power is great,” said Anne Marie Dooley, a physician and kidney specialist with Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, an organization that’s critical of Seattle’s cruise industry and the fine particulate pollution its ships produce. “But that’s like saying I drive my hybrid all week using gasoline and then I plug it in when I come home on the weekend.”

A 2021 paper published by a team of UW researchers found that in a long-term study of residents of the Puget Sound region increased exposure to fine particulate pollution of PM 2.5 or smaller – which is often produced by diesel engines – resulted in an increased risk of dementia.

“The Port is consistently talking about jobs and money going into the local economy, but they have to be honest about the costs,” Dooley said. “They tend to externalize the health costs on to the public from polluted air. There are 50,000 deaths a year in the United States from polluted air. The Port is a big contributor. It’s not just the cruise ships, it’s the entire amount of traffic that they generate: planes coming in, the tour buses.”

The Port’s Qualified Support for Transit

Despite a light rail system from the airport to downtown and beyond, Jones Stebbins said the majority of cruise passengers arrive at their ship via tour buses – even though Terminal 66 is relatively close to downtown. “The cruise lines hire tour buses,” Jones Stebbins said, “but we certainly have Ubers, Lyfts, and taxis as well.”

An ecologically-minded cruise tourist interested in taking transit from SeaTac International Airport to their ship at Terminal 91 needs to allow for an hour and 13 minutes of travel time using a combination of Link light rail and Metro’s route 24 bus to Magnolia. 

“It is difficult to get there on transit,” Jones Stebbins admitted. “Although I always see people with their suitcases walking through Centennial Park and Myrtle Edwards Park – people do it.” 

The cruise terminal at Pier 91 is poised to benefit from the planned Ballard Link light rail extension, with a proposed Smith Cove station potentially situated within reasonable walking distance to the cruise ships docked there. 

In comments submitted last April for Sound Transit’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed Smith Cove station, the Port wrote in support of easy access for passengers and employees: “Please work with us to consider how the Smith Cove station could better serve the fishing and industry employees at [Terminal] 91 and especially the hundreds of thousands of cruise passengers and employees at Smith Cove Cruise Terminal. This could also include an opportunity for a Transportation Hub in the Smith Cove area which could provide opportunities to connect passengers from Sounder train service and Link Light Rail.”

However, the Port in the same letter expressed concerns about freight mobility to Ballard and construction impacts to its cruise terminal in Interbay: “The Port of Seattle is also concerned about the Ballard Link Extension and potential impacts to Terminal 91 (T91) and Fishermen’s Terminal and/or access to these sites, along freight arterials and from the ship canal for marine vessel access. Even closures less than the one‐year threshold in the DEIS, which could impact a season of fishing or cruise activity, put at risk a whole year’s value.”

Tija Petrovich, with the Pioneer Square Residents Association, and a frequent critic of the Port of Seattle, thinks the Port could learn from Lumen Field and Climate Pledge Arena, both of which work hard to encourage their customers to use transit.

“We’re constantly working to have less cars in our area,” Petrovich said. “I would love it if the Port talked with the stadiums and asked them: how do you reach your people? How do you take surveys? How do you encourage them? Because [the stadiums] have some fantastic statistics on dropping the amount of cars that actually hit the streets for big events here.”

Mitigating Tourism Impacts

Petrovich, who’s lived in Pioneer Square for 30 years, is concerned not only with cruise ship emissions and the ships’ effects on marine ecosystems, but how the huge influx of tourists affects the character of local businesses.

“We’ve had a lot of businesses displaced,” she said. “I worry about what’s going to come in. Is it just gonna be another t-shirt shop? Pioneer Square is a very special area. . . and I don’t want to become a tourist trap, like elsewhere.”

Unlike tiny towns in Alaska like Skagway or Ketchikan, cruise ships don’t double the population of Seattle. Jones Stebbins notes that one cruise ship with 5,000 passengers has much less impact than a single Mariners game.

Still, the crowds in Pike Place market each summer are substantial – and cruises certainly feed them. When asked if he thought the Port should support making the Pike Place, which runs through the market, pedestrian-only, Padelford said, “Places folks love to take cruises to in Europe are really pedestrian-oriented or pedestrian-only in some instances. So I think the Port could play a role in saying this is the kind of downtown streetscape that we want to see and it would really support in revitalizing downtown. I think it’s an intriguing idea.”

A spokesperson for the Port said it had no plans to take a position on whether the city should limit cars on Pike Place.

For all its stated commitment to sustainability, the Port is still firmly committed to fossil-fuel powered transportation. Meeting its goal of zero emissions by 2050 is going to be difficult, and Jones Stebbins admitted that getting the cruise industry to transition to zero emissions by then (she firmly says that liquefied natural gas powered ships will not meet that goal) will be a “hard nut to crack.”

For his part, Padelford wishes the Port would do more to prove its commitment to sustainability through its actions as well as its words.

“I think there’s an opportunity for freight advocates to join up with safety and sustainability advocates,” he said, “and say: We can build freight lanes; we can build bus lanes to keep freight and transit moving – while not providing an excuse to maintain these giant roads that we know are killing people and we know are damaging our health and environment.”

The post Are Cruise Ships Crushing Seattle’s Climate Goals? first appeared on The Urbanist.

Most of the street ends featured here are adjacent to maritime and industrial uses and include views of shipping, dredging, and land-based industries such as cement manufacturing. Chances to engage the Duwamish River via restored shorelines and habitat are also possible.

For those new to this series, a little background on Seattle’s Street Ends. Resulting from Seattle being bounded and divided by numerous fresh and salt bodies of water, the city has what are colloquially known as Street Ends: those streets that end when they encounter a water body and are unable to continue. There are hundreds of such occurrences – almost as many as there are east-west and north-south streets. A number of them, 149, are part of a Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) program called Shoreline Street Ends. The program’s goals are:

• Help create great neighborhoods
• Improve public access to and enjoyment of Seattle’s shoreline
• Enhance shoreline habitat
• Encourage community stewardship of shoreline Street Ends
• Support maritime industry
• Responsibly manage private permits and deter non-permitted encroachments

A little over half of the Street Ends are defined by SDOT as “worth a visit,” while the remainder are either “not yet ready for visitors” or have “no public access.” Street Ends are most heavily concentrated along the Ship Canal and Lake Washington but occur along each waterfront environment. Working with the city and neighborhoods to secure funding, pass legislation, and organize work parties, the non-profit and all-volunteer Friends of Street Ends help ensure Seattle’s accessible Street Ends grow in number and those already serving visitors continue to thrive.

Street Ends vary in character from sandy beaches to docks wedged amongst shipyards and industrial uses. They are spacious and they are compact; some are easy to find, others require a bit of diligence. They support habitat for native species of flora and fauna as well as convenient places to launch a kayak, sailboat, or motorboat. Oftentimes, they are adjacent to waterfront parks, expanding upon those assets. They are as varied as Seattle’s topography, and you can visit them any time.

Harbor Avenue: Street Ends #8 and #9

Blended into West Seattle’s expansive public shoreline, Southwest Atlantic Place (#8) and Fairmont Avenue (#9) are barely discernible, yet the keen street end observer will take note of a modest bench at Atlantic Place and a robust seawall and rocky beach at Fairmont Avenue.

Spokane Street: Street Ends #13, #18, and #19

Solitude is on hand at Southwest Spokane Street/Freeway (#13). Tucked beneath the West Seattle Bridge, the street end offers some magnificent views of our working waterfront if one looks to the north.

Another pair of street ends, but of a different nature. This pair run parallel to the street and are not ends at all. Regardless, Southwest Spokane Street/Freeway (#18) and Southwest Spokane Street (#19) provide a popular fishing spot and unsurpassed views of Seattle’s main concentration of container terminals.

West Marginal Way: Street Ends #22 and #23

As it approaches Elliott Bay, the Duwamish River was straightened and dredged in order to accommodate the industrial uses that line its shore, and it becomes the Duwamish Waterway. Part of this legacy includes remediation of the decades-long dumping and leaching of toxic waste into the water; the dredges are an evocative reminder of past and current clean-up efforts.

Southwest Alaska Street (#22) and SW Edmunds Street (#23) are both nestled within a lush riparian corridor. The northernly of the pair, #22, leads to a network of pathways that trace the waters edge. Southwest Edmunds Street gives access to the he?apus [this is the correct spelling] Village Park & Shoreline Habitat, a Port of Seattle park, highlighting an important cultural site along the shore of one of the last remaining bends of the Duwamish River before it was channelized.

East Marginal Way: Street Ends #24 and #26, Street End #25 and Diagonal Avenue

Public access to the Duwamish is limited, and often has to squeeze itself between the dominant maritime and manufacturing uses. Although modest – a concrete slab and bench as well as controlling for invasive plants that limit access and views – South Oregon Street (#24) provides a significant break in the wall of its less accessible neighbors.

Unlike many of its fellows, South Fidalgo Street (#26) offers distant views both of the aquatic and terrestrial environments where landward views are frequently blocked by fences and thick plantings that discourage the curious visitor’s attentions.

When funding is available, street end shorelines like Diagonal Avenue South (#25) provide opportunities for intensive efforts in riparian restoration, including shoreline stabilization. The street end preserves access to the Diagonal Avenue South Public Shoreline Access. While not part of the SDOT program and not a street end, it is none-the-less a splendid park that is impeccably manicured and welcoming.

South Park: Street Ends #28, #34, #35, and #37

Furnishings, recreational access, shoreline and landscape improvements – all are priorities of Friends of Street Ends and all can be found at South Michigan Street/1st Avenue Bridge (#28). While not bucolic as the shorelines along Lake Washington or Puget Sound, the amenities provided at #28 more than address the challenges of its being situated below a busy bridge.

Seattle Street End #34, Riverside Drive, provides a small viewing area tucked among restored native plantings. Nearby, one of the more developed Duwamish shorelines is found at 8th Avenue S/S Portland Street (#35). This street end includes water access, terraced and bench seating, and art. It is also linked to Street End #34 via a gravel path. Which brings us to Seattle’s farthest south street end, #37 at 10th Avenue South/South Kenyon Street. It has open, unobstructed views, perfect for watching ships pass.

The post Seattle Street Ends: West Seattle to South Park first appeared on The Urbanist.

While these initial sales do not extend outside of California, they are precursors for the potential of wind energy off the Washington coast. Floating offshore platforms are a new technology that has found footing in Europe and Asia, but until now not the United States. Northwest seaports stand to benefit from growth in the technology as the region has expertise in the industry and port capacity to service the sector.

The Biden-Harris administration announced the sale as part of a goal to install 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy capacity by 2030. BOEM estimated the electricity produced by these sites could power a million and a half homes. Initial statements from the purchasing companies suggest the final installations could double that mark.

California’s position at the front of the line for West Coast wind farm development comes from the state’s attempt to aggressively wean itself from fossil fuels. The large population and recognized pollution issues have made California a leader in vehicle efficiency and solar energy development. In 2021, the state legislature ordered up a strategic plan for offshore wind by 2023, and looks to be setting some audacious goals.

The same pressure has not appeared in the Pacific Northwest due to the prevalence of hydroelectric power in Oregon (46% of the state’s energy production) and Washington (65%). But offshore wind will be coming north.

For Puget Sound ports, the California offshore wind leases “put into motion efforts to develop new clean energy sources that will help industries transition away from fossil fuels.” Northwest Seaport Alliance co-chairs Ryan Calkins and Don Meyer said when contacted via email. “As leaders in West Coast transmodal transportation and one of the world’s top hubs for maritime innovation and workforce, Puget Sound ports and local maritime industrial businesses would be natural partners to support California offshore wind with logistics, maintenance, and other services.”

Commissioner Calkins was bullish on the opportunities of offshore wind when he appeared on The Urbanist Podcast in November. In Washington, “we have a mature inland wind and inland solar industry,” he said. “I anticipate by the end of this decade we’ll have a handful of turbines off the Pacific coast of the United States. It will be cheaper than any form of fossil fuel before you know it.”

Puget Sound has an inherent ability to capitalize on this market, and Calkins points to the region’s specialty vessel designers, the large boat yards on a calm fjord, and the employee expertise in shipping and aerospace as attractions for the industry: “It would be my dream to point to a robust offshore wind industry in Seattle in ten years and say I was here at the outset.”

The post California Floating Wind Lease Bonanza is a Bellwether for West Coast Clean Energy first appeared on The Urbanist.

We want to know your thoughts, opinions, and budget wishlist. Reach out to us at podcast [at] theurbanist.org.  

As always, you can find The Urbanist podcast on iTunes, Spotify, and other major platforms. And if you are enjoying the podcast, be sure to offer a “like” or “thumbs up” on your favorite platform. It’s a great way to spread the word to new listeners.

The post The Urbanist Podcast: The Port of Seattle with Commissioner Ryan Calkins first appeared on The Urbanist.

If you live in Seattle, a city that prides itself on protecting workers’ rights and prioritizing the health of the environment, your first reaction may be to say no. Unfortunately, as one of over 20 U.S. cities home to a cruise terminal, the answer is yes.

Cruise companies use the loophole of sailing their ships under the flags of foreign nations whose safety, environmental, and labor standards are minimal in order to avoid paying U.S federal taxes or adhering to labor laws and safety regulations. The result is cruise ship workers holding down 12-hour shifts for six or seven days a week while earning monthly salaries of $550 to $2,000 per month, according to a 2020 investigation published by Business Insider.

A 2021 report by Marine Pollution Bulletin, based on 200 research articles, found cruise ships to be “a major source of environmental pollution and degradation, with air, water, soil, fragile habitats and areas and wildlife affected.” Human harm is not limited to labor exploitation; the report also found the transmission of infectious diseases, like Covid-19, and injuries sustained during on the job accidents to be widespread problems in the cruise industry as well.

Seattle may currently provide harbor for cruise ships, but activists Seattle Cruise Control are hopeful a recent decision by the Port of Seattle to cancel plans for construction of a third cruise terminal at Terminal 46, near Pioneer Square in Downtown Seattle, may signify a new direction forward.

“Having canceled this ill-advised project, the Port of Seattle is now uniquely poised to lead the way to a new green economy with broadly shared local prosperity,” said Jordan Van Voast of Seattle Cruise Control in an email.

Now that cruise terminal plans have been cancelled, the Port has shared plans to use Terminal 46 as a redeveloped cargo port; however, Seattle Cruise Control are urging the commissioners to consider other possibilities, for example, using the terminal as a staging area for offshore wind turbine development, as was mentioned by Port Commissioner Ryan Calkins in the past.

With the cancellation of a third cruise terminal achieved, the organization wants the Port to commit to phasing out cruise ships from its waters. But doing so will require weaning the Port from what has historically been an important source of revenue for the Evergreen State.

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Port reported that every time a cruise ship docked in Seattle more than $4 million went into the local economy and $14.5 million was collected in statewide taxes. All together those proceeds added up to a billion-dollar annual industry, according to those Port figures.

The impacts of phasing out cruise ships from Seattle would have larger impacts as well. Cruise ships represent an important source of income for Alaska, especially in the southeastern corner of the state where cities like Ketchikan, a city with a population of 8,500, pockets about $250 million annually from cruise visitors. In 2017, the state of Alaska took in about $2.8 billion in revenue from the cruise industry, and projections for 2020 were set to be even higher before the pandemic led to cancellation of the cruise season.

There is an argument to made, however, that even when taking into account all of that revenue, the social and environment cost inflicted by cruises remains too high, especially in the face of the climate crisis. Data shared by Seattle Cruise Control suggests that the cruise industry emits 1.9 million tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere during its six month season, about a third as much as is emitted by the entire city of Seattle in a whole year. To arrive at that number, the organization used data from the 2019 Alaskan cruise season and took in account both emissions from cruise and from the flights passengers took to arrive in Seattle.

The data showed that about 480,000 people flew into Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to depart for their Alaskan cruises. But while flights represented approximately 763 thousand tons of greenhouse gas emissions, the lion’s share came from the cruise ships themselves, which emitted 1.1 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2019.

In the face of criticism backed up by mounting evidence, the cruise industry is taking some steps to improve its environmental footprint. Major industry players like Carnival have set the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050, while smaller more boutique operations have set more aggressive targets. By purchasing wind and solar offsets and utilizing high tech equipment that allows for the creation of electricity from engine cooling water, Virgin Cruises claims to have achieved carbon neutrality for its fleet. But it remains to be seen if companies like Virgin will push the industry as a whole toward more sustainable practices, and it’s worth noting that Virgin continue to sail its ships under the flag of the Bahamas — a country known for lax labor rules. And some activists argue offsets are offsets don’t cut it.

In addition to phasing out cruises from the Port of Seattle, Seattle Cruise Control is calling for Port Commissioners to go a step further. The organization wants the Port of Seattle to assume a statewide leadership role and work with the legislature to redefine the mission of ports in Washington.

“The original [port] authorizing legislation — over a century old — was created in a time before we understood the importance of environmental justice, the vulnerability of Salish Sea ecosystems, and the existential threat of the global climate catastrophe,” Van Voast said. “Revising the authorizing legislation to include broader goals for economic and environmental justice, pollution reduction, and ecosystem protection, is long overdue.”

The Port Commission will be holding their next meeting on January 25th. Seattle Cruise Control believes years of public testimony against cruise ships contributed to the decision to cancel the third cruise ship terminal, and encourages people to continue to testify in favor of phasing out cruise ships and assume a leadership role in encouraging socially and environmentally sustainable practices. The organization also continues to recruit volunteers for its #CruiseFreeSalishSea campaign.

Corrections (1/23/2022): This article was corrected to reflect that an approximately 763 thousand, not million, tons of greenhouse gas emissions resulted from flights to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport from cruise ship passengers.

The post Third Cruise Terminal Cancelled, Activists Call on Port of Seattle to Phase Out Cruise Ships first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Urbanist Election Committee followed up on our questionnaires with Zoom interviews to fill in the gaps. We released our Primary Endorsements in late June and endorsed Calkins. Since just two candidates are vying for this Port seat, both automatically advance to the general election and the race isn’t on the primary ballot. Primary ballots should have arrived in your mailbox and must be postmarked August 3rd. No stamp needed; postage is included. For voter information or to register to vote, visit the State election website.

Below are Ryan Calkin’s questionnaire responses. 

The Port itself is set to meet its carbon reduction targets earlier than anticipated, but the region as a whole is stagnating. How can the Port do more to address stagnating emissions levels around the region? 

The impetus behind my initial campaign for the Port of Seattle Commission was to accelerate the Port’s actions to address climate change. With less than a decade left to avert the worst outcomes of the climate crisis, we need leaders who act boldly and urgently.

Just because we are on pace to meet our reduction targets does not mean we should let up on our efforts to continue lowering our impact as one of the region’s major drivers of emissions. We should set the example for ports by continuing to pursue ambitious reduction goals and investing in the innovative practices and bold technologies needed to make those targets a reality. My hope is that the public’s perception of the Port will be its leadership on the environment.

Coordinating with county and local government partners on shared efforts to tackle climate change is crucial to ensuring the entire region makes the changes needed to prevent the worst outcomes of climate change. We are already leading on items like conservation and restoration programs, land use discussions, and alignment around transit and transportation options. We must take these efforts further.

What strategies would you push at the Port of Seattle to develop more alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips for Port employees and visitors? 

We know that vehicle traffic on airport property and connected streets and highways is a massive source of pollution – rivaling airplane impact. I’ve spearheaded an effort to create a transportation management association that would include all 350 businesses operating at the airport to reduce commutes, incentivize transit, and limit congestion.

Further, for residents, visitors, and travelers, we need to make our airport and seaport as easily accessible by transit as possible, continuing to work with Sound Transit and Metro to increase coordination and frequency of service. Using transit to get to the airport from homes and workplaces should be convenient to the extent it is the preferred option.

On the Commission, I have been – and will continue to be – a strong supporter for local, regional, and state action on transportation emissions, working with fellow elected officials across levels of government on these goals.

The Port Commission backed a low carbon fuel standard at the state legislature this session. What statewide policy priorities will you focus on?

After my election, the Commission became a leading advocate for a statewide Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which we rightfully identified as a necessary precondition for many of the most essential transportation and energy Paris Climate Agreement goals. I was pleased to see the LCFS pass this year with additional urgent climate action at the forefront of the Legislature’s priorities.

There is still work to be done to ensure that the LCFS can be enacted, and I’ll make sure we are strong advocates on those efforts. In addition, I will push to make the Port a leading voice on addressing wealth inequality. There are structural barriers to socioeconomic mobility, which have shrunk the middle class and made the climb out of poverty even more difficult. As an economic development agency, the Port should be a key player in building an economy that works for all.

The development of a portion of Terminal 46 as a new cruise ship terminal has been put on hold by the current Commission. Do you support this project and are there any conditions that would cause you to change your answer?

Early in the pandemic, we made a strategic decision to push ahead with as much of our capital program as was safely possible. These projects collectively account for billions of dollars in investments in our region’s infrastructure and thousands of good paying union jobs. Shortly after, Congress approved the initial CARES Act, which included funds for airports and provided us with a financial lifeline as we endured the lowest passenger levels in more than thirty years. 

The impact of the pandemic on the cruise industry is still uncertain, but it has changed the outlook enough to merit caution. At the same time, the surging shipping and logistics demand to the West Coast has resulted in new opportunities for business that were unavailable just a year ago. The measure I use for determining how to use Port assets is what is most likely to create family wage jobs in an environmentally sustainable manner. At this time, we should be pursuing every option for maritime uses at T46.

What is your position on the issue of a second regional airport in the Puget Sound region?

Prior to my joining the Commission, the Port opposed State efforts to consider alternative locations for commercial aviation, based on a 2009 State study recommending that all efforts to maximize capacity at SEA should be exhausted before shifting focus to a second major airport. The reason I advocated for the Port to change its position from opposing to supporting is twofold. First, Based on the projected growth forecast by the FAA and other reputable sources, aviation demand will outstrip even the most aggressive of capacity outlooks for SEA. Second, the recommendations of a second site commission will inevitably elucidate the challenges of constructing (or expanding on an existing) commercial aviation facility, which will better inform public discussion on the merits on consequences of increasing passenger aviation.

People living in airport and industrial communities have some of the most negative health outcomes in the region. What role do you see the Port of Seattle playing in rectifying this?

Since my election to the Port Commission, I’ve worked to ensure we funded scientific studies of the impact of air and noise pollution on communities neighboring our air and seaports. As a result of our federal advocacy, the Port has new money and authority to redress failed insulation systems on homes under flight paths, among other critical priorities. 

Last year, the Commission passed the Duwamish Valley Community Benefits Agreement, drafted in tandem with the communities of South Park, Georgetown and surrounding neighborhoods. The agreement recognizes historical impacts and commits the Port to being a partner in a plan for shared prosperity for historically marginalized residents. We also passed the South King County Fund, providing $10 million for community initiated projects in County areas most impacted by Port operations.

From air, to traffic, to noise pollution, I have been an unyielding advocate for understanding the problem and then proposing solutions. Understanding how the impacts of our activities affect neighboring communities, especially communities of color, and how we can fix those issues is a primary focus for me. I’ll continue to lead by listening to the most impacted communities, and by embedding principles of climate justice across all of our work.

What do you see as the Port of Seattle’s role in reducing sprawl in the region?

The Port should be a strong partner and advocate for reducing sprawl by following growth management principles and encouraging county and local government to do the same. We need to work to reduce the negative impacts of sprawl on our climate, transportation systems, and lack of housing.

We have an interest in affordable workforce housing for the tens of thousands of people who work in maritime, aviation, and construction jobs related to the Port. Anti-density measures drive up the price of housing, forcing middle wage workers to commute further and further distances. Reforms to zoning laws, incentives to increase density, and social housing efforts by the city, county, and state are all necessary to ensure housing is available to everyone at costs in line with income.

These issues are strongly related – climate, economic development, housing affordability, and transportation. They’re why we must have leaders who understand the broad role of the Port – addressing disparities, creating opportunity, building equity, and ensuring future sustainability.

What do you think the City of Seattle’s industrial lands taskforce should focus on?

Since the last major revision of industrial lands policy in Seattle, the nature of industry has changed significantly. Boeing is no longer the largest employer, shipping and logistics have shifted from primarily intermodal to transshipment, and the value of land means developers are developing taller structures to replace aging warehouses. Industrial lands are more necessary now to serve our commercial and residential areas. The distribution centers stretching from SODO to the Kent Valley make up one of the largest clusters anywhere in North America and help to explain why Washington is one of the few states in the nation to have a trade surplus. In addition, the types of imports and exports in which we have a competitive advantage (such as refrigerated cargo) are some of the most lucrative. I support a conscientious reconsideration of current zoning to achieve a better match between zoning and actual uses and no net loss of industrial lands.

What role do you see for the Port of Seattle when discussing the future of Interbay’s armory?

The return of the armory to local control represents an opportunity to redevelop the land for higher and better uses–not simply in terms of tax revenue or economic activity, but also in terms of livability and job creation. The Port should take an active role in shaping that discussion, especially as it pertains to our own plans for staving off commercial gentrification that is threatening the maritime ecosystem in Ballard and Interbay. Our efforts to create new light industrial and commercial square footage at Fisherman’s Terminal and the uplands of Terminals 90 and 91 could dovetail with redevelopment plans for the Armory property. And our Tsubota property, which abuts the Armory, is currently a tiny home village. I’m optimistic that we can find ways to address the lack of affordability for businesses and residents, while also making use of an area of land that will eventually be within walking distance of light rail.

The post Ryan Calkins 2021 Questionnaire – Seattle Port Commission Pos. 1 first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Urbanist Election Committee followed up on our questionnaires with Zoom interviews to fill in the gaps. We released our Primary Endorsements in late June and endorsed Mohamed. Since just two candidates are vying for this Port seat, both automatically advance to the general election and the race isn’t on the primary ballot. Primary ballots should have arrived in your mailbox and must be postmarked August 3rd. No stamp needed as postage is included. For voter information or to register to vote, visit the State election website.

Below are Hamdi Mohamed’s questionnaire responses. 

The Port itself is set to meet its carbon reduction targets earlier than anticipated, but the region as a whole is stagnating. How can the Port do more to address stagnating emissions levels around the region? 

The Port of Seattle must be a leader in carbon reduction both regionally and nationally. I applaud the Port’s goal to become the greenest Port in America and I will use my position as Port Commissioner to make this goal a reality. However, the Port’s work toward a greener future cannot stop with its own activities if we are truly dedicated to meeting the scale of our environmental crisis. 

As Port Commissioner, I will utilize my strong connections with local, regional, state and federal leaders to push for climate action and carbon reduction measures. I will work in partnership with other governments to advance mutual climate goals and ensure that the areas we work in benefit from our actions, rather than face adverse environmental consequences. I am committed to expanding the South King County Fund Environmental Grants program to partner with local nonprofit organizations doing the direct work to reduce carbon. The work of a Port Commissioner does not stop at the Port; Commissioners must be advocates for our communities and stewards of our environment. As Commissioner, I will proudly partner with governments, nonprofits, and communities to meet and exceed carbon reduction targets. 

What strategies would you push at the Port of Seattle to develop more alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips for Port employees and visitors? 

As a major transportation hub, the Port has an obligation to maximize the accessibility of transportation and incentivize alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips. The Port must be a strong partner with Sound Transit to support the expansion of the Link light rail. There is still room for improvement to make the light rail connection to the terminal at SeaTac more accessible for people with disabilities. As Port Commissioner, I will promote partnership with Sound Transit to increase employee and traveler usage of the light rail while prioritizing investments in accessibility.  

SeaTac Airport has the potential to be a leader in bicycle-air travel. As Commissioner, I will promote and increase the accessibility of cycling. Making cycling to the airport convenient, particularly for Port employees, will help to offset the environmental impact of SeaTac. Investment in bike storage boxes rather than bike racks will help encourage cyclists to leave their bikes at the airport when they travel. The Port must partner with surrounding cities to increase bicycle mobility, particularly given how many Port employees live in neighboring cities. Investments in this infrastructure, incentivizing Port employees to ride to work, and celebrating cycling at the Port will help to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.

The Port Commission backed a low carbon fuel standard at the state legislature this session. What statewide policy priorities will you focus on?

As aforementioned, bolstering and supporting our regional, state and national response to the climate crisis would be one of my top priorities as Port Commissioner. I would focus my efforts on advancing climate and environmental justice and equity. I currently serve on the board of Got Green where I help advance initiatives that prioritize environmental justice in South Seattle. I intend to continue and expand upon this work as Port Commissioner. 

At the statewide level, I would support a Clean and Just Transportation Package to incentivize accessible alternatives to vehicle usage. The congestion at SeaTac Airport has economic, environmental, and health impacts on airport communities. A statewide effort to increase the accessibility of multimodal transportation will help to reduce the congestion and environmental degradation at SeaTac. As Port Commissioner, I will not shy away from taking hard stances to protect habitat and salmon populations to support and prioritize Tribal Treaty Rights. I will use my position to focus on the needs of our tribal communities. I am committed to collaborating with state legislators to develop solutions that mitigate the hazardous impacts of toxic pollution to ensure our waters are clean for our salmon and orca populations and people. 

The development of a portion of Terminal 46 as a new cruise ship terminal has been put on hold by the current Commission. Do you support this project and are there any conditions that would cause you to change your answer?

The Port of Seattle must bring Terminal 46 back online. As Port Commissioner, I will seek new gate operators or tenants for Terminal 46. In doing so, we can bring back container volume or bulk break. The Port of Seattle is uniquely positioned to lead regional economic recovery from COVID-19. The job creation that would arise from revitalizing Terminal 46 would be a critical first step toward that recovery. Making robust and immediate investments in projects that both support economic goals is an essential role for the Port to play in our recovery. I applaud the Port for continued investment in public works projects throughout the pandemic to keep people working. Still, it is integral that the Port build on these investments to prioritize economic justice, particularly through reopening Terminal 46. 

What is your position on the issue of a second regional airport in the Puget Sound region?

I am supportive of the construction of a long-overdue second airport in the Puget Sound region, but the effort must prioritize the health and safety of airport communities. I see immense potential in constructing the new airport in the Moses Lake area. The more rural nature of Moses Lake would result in reduced environmental and health impacts on airport communities. Given that so much of our cargo is from Eastern Washington, positioning a second airport in Moses Lake would reduce the emissions from transporting that cargo all the way to SeaTac. Increasing the commercial usage of the second airport could be accomplished by constructing high-speed rail from King County to Moses Lake. Expanding the rail to Spokane and creating a regional connection with the airport in the middle would help to boost statewide accessibility. 

People living in airport and industrial communities have some of the most negative health outcomes in the region. What role do you see the Port of Seattle playing in rectifying this?

When elected, I would be the only commissioner to live in the South King County community representing SeaTac. I experience firsthand the implications of changes in noise, flight paths, travel and commercial congestion, and air quality. The Port has an obligation to address the needs of impacted surrounding communities that have high concentrations of low-income and minority communities. 

Maintaining and promoting relationships from the Highline Forum members and the continued partnership within the SEA Stakeholder Advisory Round Table is integral to developing regional solutions with key stakeholders to equitably address airport impacts. The Port must also expand upon its work with communities in the Duwamish Valley that are disproportionately impacted by the Port’s operations and the current detours from the West Seattle Bridge. The Cumulative Health Impacts Analysis of 2013 found that a range of health exposures and impacts disproportionately affect people in the Duwamish Valley. The Port of Seattle must expand its investment in developing communities impacted by the Port’s operations like those in the Duwamish Valley, and protecting biodiversity. Through expansion of the Duwamish Valley Community Equity Program and the South King County Fund, the Port can invest in environmental justice efforts and recovery capital efforts.

What do you see as the Port of Seattle’s role in reducing sprawl in the region?

The Port of Seattle must do all it can to mitigate the negative effects of unfettered growth in our region. One key tool for the reduction of sprawl is the promotion and enactment of policies that promote environmental sustainability practices. I will also prioritize a partnership with the University of Washington to continue to study the health and environmental impacts of ultrafine particles on airport communities and work with airlines to promote cleaner alternatives that account for community impacts. Increased investment in the Airport Community Ecology (ACE) Fund and the South King County fund is another integral step to improving the environmental health of airport communities. 

As Port Commissioner, I will leverage my background as a congressional staffer and key connections with in and out of state congressional offices to advocate for changes that reduce the effects of high volume airport noise. As Port Commissioner, I will accelerate the implementation of the sound insulation program for airport communities and expansion of the radius of eligibility. I will advocate for federal investment in noise and emissions mitigation. I will also work toward other changes to reduce the impact, such as increasing flight altitude over neighborhoods and glide slope for landing. 

What do you think the City of Seattle’s industrial lands taskforce should focus on?

The City and the Port should focus on reducing congestion along the I-5 corridor and in downtown Seattle. The Port must play a role in this effort due to the congestion caused by both freight and airport traffic. The task force must prioritize the inclusion of marginalized communities and those most impacted by the congestion. The Port of Seattle must work with airport communities that face direct environmental health consequences from airport congestion to uplift constituents’ voices. Providing accessible transit options, expanding cycling infrastructure, and incentivizing ridership are integral steps to reducing congestion. The task force should also focus on expanding job opportunities in the industrial and maritime sectors through the preservation of industrial and manufacturing zones where those jobs would exist. 

What role do you see for the Port of Seattle when discussing the future of Interbay’s armory?

As Port Commissioner, I will work to expand the footprint of the tiny home village in the Interbay area. Every level of government must take action to keep people in their homes and to provide those living unsheltered with a path toward permanent housing. The tiny home model has proven to be an effective first step toward this goal–partnering with the City of Seattle to increase the number of tiny homes will support our unsheltered neighbors and communities. 

I am concerned about the development of Interbay for low-income housing given the environmental health implications of living right next to a rail yard. We have seen the impacts of noise and emissions on airport communities, disproportionately impacting low-income people and communities of color. I do not support the National Guard utilizing the Interbay space. The best use of this space is likely for commercial and warehousing operations.

The post Hamdi Mohamed 2021 Questionnaire – Seattle Port Commission Pos. 3 first appeared on The Urbanist.