Prop. 1 Precinct Maps

STB super-illustrator Oranviri has done it again.

Raw data here.

Some random comments:

  • Yes, the maps have the proposed Sound Move stations, not the actual Central Link or ST2.  Get over it.
  • You can compare this map with a 1999 median income map for kicks.
  • Given his constituency, Mayor Nickels was pretty smart to get out in front on ST2.
  • That huge blue block in the Southwest corner is Fort Lewis.  People that live on base pay no sales tax at the PX, and many have experience of other metro areas. (?)
  • We knew this already, but Aaron Reardon, Deanna Dawson, and Paul Roberts really delivered Snohomish County.

What do you learn from this?  Share in the comments.




Comments

  1. Jon K. says

    I love that big blue blob in the SW! Many soldiers, such as me, have been stationed in Europe of Asia and know what good transit looks like, and want it here.

    Fort Lewis doesn’t have good transit. It takes 45 minutes and a transfer just to get from the PX to Lakewood bus. Many families on post would love better bus service to Tacoma and Seattle, or better yet, a Sounder extension. Right now, we don’t even have a shuttle on post. Word on the street is there USED to be a shuttle but it got cut a few years ago. Maybe we’ll get it back soon now.

  2. alexjonlin says

    I learn once again that we shouldn’t be forcing the people in SE Pierce to be in our district.

  3. Oran says

    Some random comments:

    • That chunk of orange near UW is the Broadmoor gated community. Only 39.5% approved of Prop 1. The Montlake and Madison Park neighborhoods around it were much more favorable. The lowest in Seattle are scattered around the southern fringes of the Rainier Valley, Magnolia, and West Seattle in the 30s.
    • The precinct with the highest approval in King County is SEA 43-1849 with 85.66%, it is bounded by Belmont, Harrison, Broadway, and Thomas. Overall, Capitol Hill has the strongest support. Not surprising, given that it will get a streetcar and Link every 3.5 minutes during peak hours according to CHS Blog.
    • I learned that my precinct, Kingswood, hated it with only 41.5% saying yes (myself included). I’m living in the wrong neighborhood for transit. The surrounding precincts seemed to like it more.

    The ST district mostly follows the Urban Growth Boundary of each county as defined in 1996. Snohomish’s UGB is much tighter than Pierce’s. I think Pierce did an awful job in defining its UGB, making it practically useless in containing sprawl.

  4. Tony says

    What I see is further fuel for the suburban perception that Seattle is imposing its will on the burbs, especially in King County. It’s obvious that this proposition passed overwhelmingly in Seattle, but basically lost in the rest of King County. A similar pattern is visible in Pierce, though less pronounced.

    I come back to the same conclusion I’ve held for a long time: transit is an urban amenity. Seattle has the constituency to support a massive investment in transit. Can you imagine what Seattle would do if we drew the sound transit district at the city limits? While there are advantages of a big district, I continue to believe that ST should be modified to allow the North King subarea to levy a higher tax within the subarea to fund more transit there. That way, we could get the local transit we need, like the dreamed Ballard to West Seattle Light Rail without having to wait for the suburbs, and without having to impose our will on them.

    • Pete says

      That might make sense if people didn’t commute. But with Seattle being the major employment center of the region, people outside of the city come in in droves each morning. If we don’t approach the solution regionally, and offer those commuters an alternative to getting into the city, then Seattle would be clogged with cars no matter how good the transit system within the city boundary was.

      Unless of course you took the approach that London has, and charge a fee to bring your car into the city. But that works with the density of greater London. I think such an approach here would simply mean people ditching their cars in residential neighborhoods at the city border to hop on the city transit (so called “hide and ride”).

      • Matt the Engineer says

        I don’t think Tony’s suggesting we break up the ST region – the region is clearly fine with ST2 and wants light rail – but we should allow pieces of each region (read: Seattle) to tax themselves further.

        However, following your scenario further, I think more likely people would be stuck on crowded freeways – just like they are now. Seattle proper would be just fine in such a situation, especially if we have a good urban mass transit system. More people would choose to live in the city to avoid traffic, the city would become more dense, fewer cars would be driven, less gas would be used, houses would require less heating, and the sun would shine a little brighter.

        Now I did vote for ST2 because I believe we can fix our sprawl issues in other ways, but the easiest way to avoid sprawl is to avoid building easy access to the suburbs.

  5. Pete says

    Is the solid black line in the map the ST district boundary? If so, why were some precincts outside of it even voting on ST2? A few of those areas (east Redmond) are like islands – they aren’t even touching the district or other areas that voted.

    • Oran says

      Pete, the line is the ST district boundary. Some precincts overlap the boundary by a tiny portion so some might have got to vote on ST2.

      Those two islands east of Redmond are actually in the Redmond city limits, one’s a park and one’s a watershed. They are all part of Precinct RED 45-2659. If you follow the link and look at the map you’ll see that parts of it are in the ST district on Avondale Road.

  6. Cascadian says

    Hmm. Is it too late for Pierce to redraw their UGB closer in, stop urban development outside that area, and then redraw the ST district to end at the new UGB boundary? The same goes to a lesser extent for SE King. Future expansions would have a lot better luck without those areas dragging them down. Just kidding. I think.

    The more positive way to react to this might be to consider what improvements would attract support from these currently low-support areas. Perhaps increased Sounder service and better bus feeder lines from the outskirts would help? The greenish corridor around the Sounder line suggests that even in those areas, people will vote for transit if they can use it.

    • Martin H. Duke says

      Honestly, if you don’t want to write off South Pierce County, you’d probably need to build humongous parking garages in Puyallup and Sumner.

      And even that might not do it.

    • Oran V says

      With all the development that has happened it’s too late to do anything about the UGB now. Changing the UGB can get really political as it could mean denying people the right to develop their land for houses. Even if the UGB were changed now, developers who have filed for permits will still have the right to subdivide and build. There was Redmond Ridge argument a few years back that created an island of “urban” development in the middle of nowhere.

      Improved access to Sounder is part of the ST2 plan. I think ST3 for Pierce County is going to have to offer those folks something more compelling to get their votes. The Long-range plan calls for new cross county ST Express routes, a DuPont Sounder extension, and possible BRT down 167.

      • alexjonlin says

        But if you look at it, the edge of the ST boundary down there is almost as far away from the Puyallup Sounder and the 167 as Puyallup is from the airport. The people down there would have to drive 20 or 30 minutes to get to the station. But even if they put Sounder down there, I still don’t think anyone would take it. It’s not that kind of place. We should pull the ST boundary in, and then we can bring them back in a few years when they’re ready to accept transit.

Sign in or create an account to save your credentials and make commenting faster.



You may want to read our comment policy.