Let’s talk about density maps.
The concept of a population density map seems easy: take the population and divide it by the area to retrieve the density. Unfortunately a major problem stands out: what exactly is the area to divide by and how to easily count the population? Traditional density maps suffer from unevenly-sized census blocks that can inflate or deflate the density. Newer density maps created using satellite imagery can be much more accurate with evenly-sized areas calculated throughout the world. They’re much better at highlighting both the density clusters and where transit should go throughout the Seattle metro area.
Old Density Maps
https://maps.geo.census.gov/ddmv/map.html
The older density maps shown above are based on census tracts, which are of different sizes and were arbitrarily defined before recent population trends. Small census tracts can accidentally be calculated as overly dense, or they can leave out two apartment buildings just outside the boundary and thus understate the density. Large census tracts can hide pockets of density within them implying lower density, or misleadingly imply higher density throughout the entire tract when it was just one block that housed apartments.
Modern Density Maps
<empty lines to prevent map from shadowing over text>
<empty lines to prevent map from shadowing over text>
<empty lines to prevent map from shadowing over text>
- Above WorldPop 100m blocks: https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=f9cb5e481ecc48bfbdd6486c42e19a24&find=seattle
- WorldPop Less granular 1km blocks: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=38b7672a1977426caa6cf4c62e37b777
- Other Population density map using GHSL: https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#10/47.6455/-122.3053
- Job Density map of USA using census: https://www.rclco.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/USA-Employment-Map-2017_Layers_v3.html
Nowadays using a combination of satellite imagery + existing census data we can see density granularity down to the 100m2 to 1km2 range. All these blocks are the same size, allowing us to compare city blocks rather than just mile-wide areas. For instance, Lake City has a low-income apartment cluster at 145th & 30th NE, a commercial cluster on Lake City Way, and single-family blocks around them. If you just take the average of the entire census block, it can fail to indicate how dense those apartments are, or what people in them can walk to, or what’s in the walkshed of bus stops along Lake City Way. The newer mapping granularity is useful to calculate walk sheds for transit ridership.
The 100m2 map reveals denser townhouses or apartments that are obscured by averaging in the larger 1km map. In contrast, the 1km2 map is better suited for comparing larger regions. For instance, consider comparing one city that has denser townhouses (4k people per square kilometer) with double/quadruple the density versus a city that just has single family homes (1~2k people per square kilometer). Overall density is difficult to compare with the 100m2 map’s green gradient. While with the 1km2 map one can click on the individual square to bring up the estimated people per square kilometer.
For most of the examples below both maps will be used to highlight certain aspects, the luminocity3d map’s color gradient is slightly easier to tell where apartments are in red, while the WorldPop map is easier to compare townhouse vs single family home density for a neighborhood as a whole.
East Link
East Link connects many job clusters with Downtown Bellevue, the Microsoft Campus, and in Bel-Red. However, connecting jobs is only useful when also connected with residents. Hopefully that gap to Seattle residents will be bridged after East Link fully opens across I-90.
On the other hand, while the light rail will definitely have higher ridership when trains crosses Lake Washington, its potential to serve Bellevue residents is hampered by not running on Bel-Red Road or NE 8th Street. As shown above, the light rail alignment misses almost every pocket of existing apartment density from NE 8th Street to Crossroads. Only the apartments in downtown Bellevue (shown in red left image) are reached.
Lynnwood Link along the freeway
The Lynnwood Link extension is built along i-5 rather than Aurora Avenue, so most stations miss the pockets of density between Northgate station and Lynnwood City Center station.
But of course Lynnwood City Center station does give access to jobs and retail, using the above job dot map (red) as a proxy for places where one can shop. Note that we can see some errors in the above map. For instance, Alderwood Mall appears as an empty (vacant) area.
Lynnwood Link bus connections to Aurora Avenue and Lake City
When the full Link 2 Line (Lynnwood-Seattle-Redmond) is open, the Lynnwood Link Connections bus restructure will be fully implemented. Sound Transit plans to redirect the Route 522 from Lake City Way NE (and terminating at Roosevelt station) to head west on N 145th and terminate early at North Shoreline station. Metro responded by adding more routes in the area the 522 will abandon. Some of these have raised doubts among some transit activists, such as the east-west part Route 72 or the L-shaped Route 77. While 145th, 130th, and Lake City Way must be served somehow, are these the optimal route alignments? We’ve covered this in a previous article.
The above density map shows Seattle north of Lake Washington Ship Canal. Most know about the large number of people living around UW as well as clusters in Ballard and Fremont. Some have argued Route 72 and 77 as being duplicative of Lynnwood Link and the new Route 522 and argued for their truncation or elimination. However, there are other corridors of moderate density along Lake City Way NE and Greenwood Ave that are important to serve as well.
The new Route 522 (in yellow) terminating at Shoreline South Station actually misses most of the density along Lake City Way NE. Most of the density is south of NE 145th St. The Route 72 (in pink) connects those apartments on Lake City Way NE and then heads south down 25th Avenue. Maintaining Route 72’s duplication on NE 145th with Route 522 is necessary to connect Lake City residents to a Link station without transferring immediately. Route 77 (in green) traveling east across on N 130th St connects the apartments on Greenwood Ave near Bitter Lake to future 130th Link station and Lake City.
Federal Way Link and RapidRide A
There is a slight misconception among some that along Pacific Highway from Seatac to Federal Way there isn’t much density. The Pacific Highway corridor has many apartments shown in red along the corridor.
Though note, the apartments are not five-over-one’s but the older design of 2-3 story stacked units with surface parking in front (aka “garden apartments”).
One can also see how routing Federal Way Link along I-5 misses most of the apartments in the area, which are along Pacific Highway South. The freeway alignment minimized construction and guideway impacts in the area, but the light rail stations are now a lot less useful for the community, and it’s missing potential stations at 216th and 240th. Transit riders along Pacific Highway will have to continue using RapidRide A to get to these neighborhoods rather than directly using an elevated light rail line along the corridor.
Future ST3 Link lines
The next three examples are about future ST3 Link projects: the Everett extension, Tacoma Dome extension, and the Issaquah-South Kirkland line. We’ll take a brief look at the density near the stations as well as the opportunities or drawbacks of each one.
Everett Link
Everett Link’s detour to Paine Field for manufacturing jobs has been criticized by some for lengthening the travel time between Everett and Seattle. However, the detour alignment actually reaches a sizable amount of density around the stations of Mariner, Airport Road, and Evergreen.
This makes the route stronger than expected at first glance. Even if the alignment was chosen for originally the “wrong” reasons, the sizable number of residents near each station will greatly increase ridership.
Tacoma Dome Link Station
You can see how Tacoma Dome Link Station manages to fall just short of the residential density in downtown Tacoma. Instead the line ends east of the I-705 freeway spur. Troy Serad recognized this problem wrote about some ways to bring Link into downtown Tacoma.
South Kirkland to Issaquah Link
Above shows the South Kirkland to Issaquah Link light rail and its relatively poor alignment. The proposed line fails to reach any residents between Issaquah and downtown Bellevue. The line manages to avoid not only apartments but even all single family homes.
In comparison, the existing ST 554 bus reaches downtown Issaquah as well as the Issaquah Highlands. While technically a truncated bus route could end at Issaquah Link light rail stations, it’s unlikely anyone would desire to transfer twice to reach Seattle. Instead of Issaquah Link, it might be more useful to add an HOV ramp to Issaquah or add tolling to the existing I-90 HOV lane.
Lower Density Suburbs
Of course not everywhere is an exception. For many cities farther from Seattle, the density maps validates the conventional assumption of low-density single-family sprawl that’ are’s hard to serve with transit. The darker green patches represent density around 2K per square kilometer, light green around 1K per square kilometer, and the bright yellow below that.
Conclusion
The new modern density maps, using satellite imagery and census data, help both planners and advocates better understand where people live, work, and play. By focusing on dense areas, transit systems can maximize their impact and better serve the community. Hopefully future Link alignments, BRT and RapidRide projects, and bus restructures can take advantage of the knowledge shown here and try to avoid the kinds of mistakes made in the past.
Really nice article, Wesley Lin. I love this.
Have you tried to get these layers yourself? I don’t like their basemaps (or lack there-of), and would love to fiddle. It’s really difficult to find landmarks, particularly on the job density map.
Yeah, the basemap for the job density map is not that good. It takes a bit more effort but I think the https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/index.html is better (although they tilt it for some reason). In contrast I think that first link has some excellent base layers. The ability to adjust the opacity is also great.
Maybe Wesley has played around with the layers, but I haven’t. One person you might contact is the guy who runs GISSurfer (https://mappingsupport.com/p2/gissurfer.php). You might ask him how hard it would be to add the layer or tips on getting started if you want to do it yourself (contact info can be found on the main page — https://mappingsupport.com/). I’ve donated some money for his maps before (although I’ve found that CalTopo works best for me now). He is local as he often comments on NWHikers where he goes by the name of “Joey” (i. e. https://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8039414).
Hi Cam, the job density map used to show the streets and city names when zoomed out, it seems like its slightly broken.
@ross
> You might ask him how hard it would be to add the layer or tips
no we can’t overlay it like that simply. the job dot density map is a bit more complicated to load unlike the normal arc gis ones. (well of course technically we can but it’s a lot more work)
unfortunately we’ll probably have to wait for someone to fix the map or create a new one.
I’m saying that he has done this sort of thing before. He has dealt with a lot of layers from a lot of different sources (as have the folks at Acme and CalTopo). Maybe they all follow the same pattern (and the employment site doesn’t) but it wouldn’t surprise me if he has experience dealing with situations like this.
It seems like the job density map isn’t a downloadable file, but if someone has good GIS chops, they could recreate the layer by processing the census results in the same way the website does, and then layer that over a better basemap.
(also, the reason the census maps are “tilted” for WA is because they use the standard Albers equal area conic projection for the whole USA, which preserves relative area and centers the majority of the population of the USA east of the Mississippi, unlike the Mercator projections which stretch the northern states)
It’s great that you’re exploring the new analytical mapping tools!
A few notes:
I’m glad that you’re showing population density. It’s not lost on me that many residential zoning discussions center around housing unit density and most population density. Someone might tear down a rambling old house that housed 6 people (roommates) and build an 8 unit micro-apartment building but the density only increases by 2 people. Three middle market townhouses with 3 people each is actually creating more population density. It’s easy to think that adding units also results in marked increase in population density when it doesn’t.
Residential density doesn’t guarantee good light rail ridership by itself. It’s also about where people are going that creates a market to ride transit.
There are other geographical factors that can be masked in density maps. One is directness as many places have density but if the sidewalks don’t easily connect to transit it can seem like it’s far away. Another is elevation as people avoid using steep hills.
I actually think destination parking cost and availability is a much bigger factor in attracting transit ridership at a level more than a modest level. If a destination is costly enough, lots more people will walk further or ride a feeder bus to make a trip.
“Someone might tear down a rambling old house that housed 6 people (roommates) and build an 8 unit micro-apartment building but the density only increases by 2 people.”
It’s just as likely if not more so that that rambling old house has only 1 or 2 adults. It may have had 6 people in the 1970s, but it’s not the 1970s anymore. Household sizes have been decreasing both in Seattle and nationwide. People who can afford to buy increasingly-expensive large houses for one or two people are doing so. And if they don’t tear them down for microapartments or townhouses, they’re often tearing them down for a larger house — for one or two people again. Or, god forbid, buying them for an investment or money laundering and leaving them empty.
Mike Orr,
Do you really believe that density is the road to affordability in the USA? Because I don’t see it. What town added density over a decade and gained affordability in housing?
The sad truth is that changing zoning regulations are pushed by market forces, not the other way around. There’s absolutely no way Seattle could ever build its way into affordable housing. Maybe it would possible if Seattle was some sort of City-State not connected to the rest of the US housing market, but that’s not true.
Take those fires in L.A.. You think that’s not going to impact Seattle housing prices in a highly negative way? The more walkable, affordable housing Greater Seattle adds, the less anybody currently renting here will ab able to afford it.
“Do you really believe that density is the road to affordability in the USA? ”
Do you really believe that preserving old ramblers and houses is the road to affordability?
“What town added density over a decade and gained affordability in housing?”
Only towns that allowed the housing supply to increase proportional to the population increase. Dallas, Houston, and Chicago have been cited. The issue is not density alone in isolation, but the total number of housing units. Dallas’s and Houston’s growth is part moderate density and sprawl, but it increases the total number of units, and the regulations allow enough housing to be built. In Chicago you’ll probably say the city as a whole has lost population, but that’s mostly in the challenged south side. The north side is gaining population, and allows robust infill density like I’d like to see Seattle do, and north-side housing prices haven’t increased as much as Seattle’s have. More density but not rapidly-increasing prices, who would have thought?
“Do you really believe that density is the road to affordability in the USA? Because I don’t see it. What town added density over a decade and gained affordability in housing?”
Minneapolis was a trail-breaker in loosening zoning, and their rents stabilized, relative to other similar cities in the US.
It does work, we just haven’t tried it, or tried it at a scale that matters.
Houston also has relatively loose zoning laws, and, until recently, was rewarded with relatively stable housing costs.
And then there are vast examples outside the US.
@ Mike:
You do realize that there are immigrants who come from countries that often have large homes that house extended families, right? The same tends to be true for minorities too. It’s also seems likely that more single women also are more willing to prefer roommates.
The creation of tiny little micro apartments out of lots that had larger older homes is very much a single younger white male bias guiding redevelopment. And the marketplace promotes it as mega corporations can build/ own them and charge higher rents compared to a small landlord who lives onsite.
By looking at population density rather than housing density, it paints a picture where people live — not where cooktops and ranges live.
“You do realize that there are immigrants who come from countries that often have large homes that house extended families, right?”
Yes. But that’s not most of those large old houses; it’s only a few of them.
“It’s also seems likely that more single women also are more willing to prefer roommates.”
You think so? You can live with roommates in an apartment, like Laverne and Shirley.
“You think so? You can live with roommates in an apartment, like Laverne and Shirley.”
Laverne and Shirley did not live in a micro or even a studio apartment.
Mike Orr,
Let’s get one thing straight. You’re not in charge of tearing down anything, or building anything. If I want to buy a big old house anywhere in the USA, from Atlanta to Seattle, and live in it by myself, I can. All of the houses you want to tear down and build micro apartments on…. are owned by other people.
Those rich people who own houses in Seattle, happen to like things the way they are. They do not care about affordable housing…. because the more expensive housing is, the bigger their net worth.
Do these owners want to sell to some developer? Maybe, but that’s their choice. And let’s say I do want to sell my house to developers? First, there’s zoning laws that dictate what can be built… then there’s the permitting and utility work that needs to be done… then there’s the purchase price of the house and demolition costs. We’re talking a couple of million dollars for maybe a 5,000 sq ft lot in most of Seattle. There’s no affordable housing going to built on that. $700k condos for Cali ” climate refugees” moving North? That’s my guess.
@tacommee
if you want to stay in a single family house, no one is forcing you to sell. secondly even if you do like single family houses, im not quite sure where the weird logical jump that goes to enforcing it on all cities nationwide.
“Do these owners want to sell to some developer? Maybe, but that’s their choice. And let’s say I do want to sell my house to developers? First, there’s zoning laws that dictate what can be built”
As Hercule Poirot said to Hastings, “You have a remarkable ability for stating both the problem and the solution without realizing you’re doing so.”
Will a developer buy it? Not if the zoning allows only single-family housing. You talk about me wanting to tear down other people’s houses, when I’m talking about giving homeowners more freedom and options. Some people say 90% of Americans want to live in single-family houses and don’t want to densify them, but I say many of them haven’t been given a choice. Seattle’s zoning was tightened in the 1950s and 1970s, and 80+% of other US cities are even more restrictive, so whatever choices people may have had in the 1950s, they don’t now. Only20- 30% of the land allows multifamily or middle housing, so those units get full with affluent people and there aren’t enough to go around.
tacomee, who cares if Seattle has “affordable housing”? It’s an international high-tech employment center with spectacular views in a lot of places because of the north-south hills. The “affordable housing” for the fraction of the King County workforce that is industrial workers in and around the Port of Seattle can be in Kent or Maple Valley. The baristas and hotel cleaners can live in Burien and take transit to work in the high-density employment centers.
Just because somebody wants to have one of those great Seattle views and a ten-minute bus line does not give that person the right to demand that society provide their dream for them. I agree strongly that everyone deserves to be housed, but not necessarily exactly where they’d like to live.
I would LOVE to have lived in Malibu — well, until this month — but I’ve never gotten that chance. I didn’t bring the sort of value added to the entertainment industry sufficient to generate the cashflow to afford a Malibu lifestyle. Poor me; I guess I “chose” the wrong parents or the wrong DNA strands for my zygote.
Most people who haven’t “made it” bring even less EVA that I did during my working career. They might be morally and ethically very upstanding and potentially valuable employees, but if they can’t do some sort of advanced mental work or are lucky enough to inherit a home, they just aren’t going to make enough money to live in Seattle.
More apartments and ADU’s will add to the population of the city, and lead to the development of more small neighborhood centers with interesting shops, but it won’t help with “affordability” very much at all. Such densification will make it possible for more high-EVA folks to live closer to their workplace and in “fifteen-minute neighborhoods”, but they won’t be folks in the first three economic quintiles.
The one thing that would help Seattle develop a permanent population is for the State to reform the Condo liability laws while at the same time tightening the safety standards for the buildings themselves. Limit the tail-risk to the builder but ensure that construction is sound up front; that is a winning combination for everyone in a place like Seattle.
> tacomee, who cares if Seattle has “affordable housing”? It’s an international high-tech employment center with spectacular views in a lot of places because of the north-south hills. The “affordable housing” for the fraction of the King County workforce that is industrial workers in and around the Port of Seattle can be in Kent or Maple Valley. The baristas and hotel cleaners can live in Burien and take transit to work in the high-density employment centers.
TT, please tell me this is satire because it’s a shockingly ridiculous belief, even from you. I hope it’s satire because it belies an incredible ignorance of the demographics of Seattle’s workforce and remarkable disrespect for the half of residents making less than our extremely high AMI.
Sure, exclusive enclaves like Malibu or Medina will persist, but they should not be the demographic example for the core of the state’s primary metropolitan area.
You should know that 90% of Seattle households don’t have a view. That most workers aren’t affluent tech workers or Port industrial workers or baristas or hotel cleaners. Did you forget about school teachers, medical assistants, clerks? That it sucks to live in the Kent Valley or Burien without a car?
Why do you think most people don’t deserve a ten-minute bus line?
“More apartments and ADU’s will add to the population of the city, and lead to the development of more small neighborhood centers with interesting shops, but it won’t help with “affordability” very much at all.”
It will slow down the citywide/regionwide price increases compared to not building them. They still won’t be affordable to the bottom 60%, but at least it will slow it down from getting worse.
It’s no satire. It is acknowledgement that “location, location, location” is a cliché because it is also a real thing. I don’t live in Seattle any more, either, for the simple reason that when I got an inheritance that provided the money for a down payment on a first home, it was way too small for a Seattle down payment. So I moved to a suburb and made the commute to techville for twenty-five years before retirement. By bus most of the time except for “deployment weekends” when the buses aren’t running at the hour the deployment’s complete.
I miss being able to take a bus anywhere any time, but I’m lucky enough to have three grocery stores, a Kohl’s and a good hardware store within a mile so walking for daily food, “project” supplies and even jeans but driving to Costco for a big purchase every couple of weeks works.
So I admit that I am not directly affected by the continued gentrification of Seattle. I don’t mind being called callous for saying that the poor will never again find housing in Seattle and that’s OK. If they want to work there they can commute in from the lower cost suburbs.
This process can’t be stopped artificially by zoning changes. There will always be waaaay more people that want to live in Seattle than can be accommodated. Poor folks will be out-bid on units inside the City by those with greater EVA. That is the inevitable result of “Middle-class capitalism”.
Unless of course there’s a nuclear war or some really lethal and at the same time very contagious disease comes roaring out of Congo, at which time there will be buying opportunities for the brave who live elsewhere.
Sad.
This process can’t be stopped artificially by zoning changes.
Ha. You have it completely backwards. The problem was caused artificially by zoning. If there was no zoning there would be plenty of low income housing in Seattle. If there was even reasonable zoning (like in other parts of the world) there would be plenty of low income housing in Seattle. If there was no free market and the government just built all the housing there would be plenty of low income housing (assume the government was good at building housing).
But instead we have an artificial scarcity created by regulations that prevent the free market from doing what it does best: make stuff. If we had similar regulations on smart phones then used phones would cost well over a grand and people would be writing things like “phones will never be cheap — too many people want them”. The science is clear on this — the only reason that housing prices are so expensive in Seattle (and New York, and San Fransisco, etc.) is because of the regulations.
Nathan, let me be clear. As I said, I believe that every citizen — and to the degree that we can keep up with the immigrant inflow, every non-citizen resident — deserves safe, adequate housing. Just not necessarily where every person might “want” to live.
That’s a task that’s almost impossible to solve at the local level. Nice places to live like Seattle would be overwhelmed. Even at the state level it’s difficult, because generous states will attract “refugees” from hard-hearted ones. So ideally it would be a national responsibility, but we know that Republicans hate that and would sabotage any effort. So practically speaking, it has to come back to the states.
How to do it effectively is a big problem, because it’s expensive and issues of family wealth are so bound up in real estate. There is no easy answer, but creating a goal — housing low EVA people in globally attractive cities — that violates the inherent biases of human beings is bound to fail.
Ross, sure you can have lots more housing between 145th and the wiggly southern boundary of Seattle, but developers aren’t going to build low-income units unless they’re heavily subsidized. And if you get rid of zoning restrictions, they’ll build high-end buildings for tecchies and Chinese investors who keep them empty like happened in Vancouver. Until the supply of people interested in moving to Seattle from elsewhere “runs out” — and as tacomee noted, the LA fires are going to free up a large amount of “hip” money — that’s not happening any time soon.
Developers make more per hour of work invested on high-end units than they do on low-income ones. So in the absence of large subsidies, that’s what will get built. It behooves government to spend its subsidies in ways that produce the most net housing, and that means the periphery of desirable cities where land is cheaper.
Economics is a hard task-master.
@Tom — You are conflating housing with land. This is common. Consider this paper, which I’ve cited before: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/hier1948.pdf. Here, let me quote part of the intro:
This paper argues that in much of America the price of housing is quite close to the marginal, physical costs of new construction. The price of housing is significantly higher than construction costs only in a limited number of areas, such as California and some eastern cities. In those areas, we argue that high prices have little to do with conventional models with a free market for land. Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.
(Emphasis mine.) The paper was written a while ago. Now it isn’t just “California and some eastern cities”. It is much of the country.
Anyway, did you get that? The “conventional models with a free market for land” would suggest that areas like Seattle are simply too popular. Housing is expensive because land is expensive. The paper — which is well worth reading — disputes that idea. Yes, land is more expensive, but more expensive land should have more development. It doesn’t (because of the zoning). This is why Tokyo is cheaper than New York City. Tokyo is ridiculously popular. Millions of people have moved to the city. But they have also built millions of units over the years. They have kept up with demand because they have a liberal zoning code. Seattle does not.
As the paper points out, this does not mean that housing would be affordable for everyone. That has never been the case. Some people can’t afford housing no matter the cost (just like they can’t afford food). We will always need *some* subsidized housing — that was true fifty years ago. But our dollars go a lot further once we allow the market to build an adequate amount of housing.
Poor folks will be out-bid on units inside the City by those with greater EVA.
Again, you have it backwards. Imagine I am wealthy enough to afford a million dollar home and I want that home to be in Seattle. Now imagine an empty lot opens up and I can build a million dollar home on that lot. At the same time, there are a dozen people, each of which want to have a condo on that same lot. How the hell can I outbid them?! The simply answer is I can’t. As soon as they get to 200 grand I am out. I can afford a million dollar house but not one worth 2.4 million.
But wait! I know! I can ban apartments. That way I *only* compete with other people who can afford houses. Now I get that house for a million no problem. Tough luck poor people. That is basically Seattle. Many of the folks who own or buy homes don’t realize it, but they are part of a brutal cartel that makes life very expensive for most of their neighbors and pushes people out of their homes or out of the city (or both).
You are suggesting that somehow Seattle can’t possibly build enough housing for the demand. You think we will somehow become like Hong Kong and yet prices will still be too high. Sorry but that is absurd. Seattle has plenty of land and not that many people want to live here. The *only* reason that housing prices went up a lot is because employment went up a lot as well. But there is a limit to how many people Amazon and the other tech companies will hire.
To be clear I don’t think we need to look like Hong Kong to get prices to be much lower (i. e. match the cost of construction). I think we can keep the heights in most of the city but lower the density limits. We also need to change some of the regulations (get rid of design review, setbacks, FAR, parking requirements, etc.). We should make it as easy as possible to build as many places to live as possible (even if the housing is “only” three stories high). Spokane has a very good model — we should start with that and go farther.
Nathan Dickey,
For the record, I’ve worked construction all my life and haven’t worked on a project I’d could afford to live in since, say, 2002? After living in Seattle, I moved to Tacoma 30+ years ago to, you guessed it, buy a house. I’m not rich by any means, but I’m in a way better financial place than friends who are long time renters who stayed in Seattle (even with college degrees).
If I would have kept renting in Seattle, I’d be so fucked right now.
As the son of old time “Lefty” hippies, it pains me to see the new “Lefties” believe the solution is more government partnering with big business interests. Do you really believe that changing the zoning would somehow make housing more affordable in Seattle? Why would the REITs, the banks, the property managers, the developers, the builders, right on down the line to Gonzales the drywall guy…. work harder for less money? Why not match the amount of housing built to the amount of out-of-town money moving in for maximum profit? You think these people are dumb?
To be totally honest, the housing industry looks at renters as a product to managed for maximum profit. We have a nationwide housing shortage, right? How did even happen? What we don’t have is a real estate profit shortage. Here’s a big college word for you… collusion. The big boys are so far ahead of anybody over at “The Urbanist”. Any zoning changes will only be made to increase the profits for builders, period. Nobody is going to build themselves into making less money.
Here’s a little house for sale right next to Ball State University. I’d guess a high number of people reading this should just cut their loses and move to Muncie. The AMI to housing prices are pretty good there.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/327-N-Meeks-Ave_Muncie_IN_47303_M31323-57474?from=srp-map
If you choose to rent in Seattle, your landlord is going to choose to charge you as much rent as they possibly can. Any new building will have even higher rent. I’m pro affordable housing, but I don’t make the rules here.
tacomee, I think your professional experience exclusively building luxury homes significantly devalues your opinions regarding multi-family housing and urban living in general.
Do you really believe that changing the zoning would somehow make housing more affordable in Seattle?
Of course. It is obvious it would. Not only that, but there are studies proving the obvious. There are examples of how it did in other cities. You have yet to provide one shred of counter evidence. Not only that but your counter-arguments aren’t even arguments. They are like someone saying that umbrellas cause rain. “I know a guy who knows a guy and they only build fancy places now”. First of all — bullshit. Apartments going up in Lake City are not fancy. Second of all, the reason why it makes sense to focus on high end construction is because it is the only type the city allows. You have it backwards. Other cities — cities with way more demand than we have in Seattle — build lots of middle class housing for the same reason that McDonald’s has served billions. There are a lot of middle class people who want it.
Nathan Dickey
Ah, actually I’ve worked on almost every sort of project, from big homes to little tiny (but expensive) apartments. I couldn’t afford any of them.
Imagine living an a house with a $900 mortgage working on crackerjack box apartments renting for $1800. Wild, isn’t it?
And here’s a little free math education for you…. over a 30 year run of a home mortgage, the difference between buying and ever increasing rent is enough money to invest in a 401K and retire on. Buying a house in Tacoma vs. renting in Seattle since 1995… that’s a million dollars in a 401k retirement. Plus owning a home worth $350k to $1M (depending on the neighborhood)
Renters get…. Merry Christmas! The rent’s going up next year!
Buying a house is an investment for yourself. Renting is giving your money to someone else’s investment portfolio. Once again, you are the product here. Investors are using your money for their gain. As a renter, you will manipulated for the investor’s highest return.
Jesus! What in hell are they teaching in college these days?
@tacommee
Lol tacomeee you espouse houses in the suburbs are expensive therefore people like them. Then in the next sentence say apartments in cities are expensive therefore no one likes them. One of the statements can be potentially true but not both.
Then you say apartments are only for the poor but then the next day say only the rich can afford them.
If you place two or three of your comments together they are never consistent
tacomee, you seem to be guessing a lot about my personal experience and life decisions, without knowing anything about what my personal experience actually is or what choices I’ve already made.
> Jesus! What in hell are they teaching in college these days?
Lol tacommee part of the problem is people being way too overconfident after taking one 101 Econ course
Hey, let’s artificially limit the number of rental homes (and homes in general) and then tell all the people that pay rent they are idiots for not buying a house they don’t want or can’t afford. Let’s just ignore what triggered the financial crisis not that long ago.
While we are it let’s imply that condos don’t exist even though the argument about zoning applies just as much to them as it does apartments. Better to throw some sort of side issue at people just to keep them on their toes.
Anyways on a larger note it is a bit of a drag for tacommee to derail the threads repeatedly every single time
Yeah, I’ve largely lost my patience with tacomee’s illogical and repetitious ramblings.
Alongside no need to be insulting people for being college educated or renters. As if that matters and comes off more of a strawman to distract from having no solid argument on the topic.
The market does create affordable apartments in desirable urban locations if they are not outlawed by zoning regulations. “Micro-apartments” (Apodments and similar) start at around $750 a month and are typically located in dense, urban areas with good transit. I’m sure it’s not the most comfortable living experience but they are much more affordable than other options.
Before they were outlawed in 2014 around 1000 non-subsidized, deeply affordable units were being built in desirable urban locations every single year. HB 1998 finally re-legalized them at the end of last year; I am hopeful that we will see another micro-apartment boom in the next few years.
If I really believed that the average large old house had 6 roommates, a three-generation family, 15 working-class immigrants, or an adult family home or such, then I might be more interested in protecting them from upzoning and replacement. But I fear that’s a minority of such houses, and protecting them as “natural density” or “an opportunity for lower-income homeowners”, just allows the majority of those houses that aren’t that to skate by with extraordinary privilege, displacing needed density/walkability and household privacy (for the people who would be in apartments instead of rooms) and allowing a wider variety of housing choices at a wider variety of price rangers.
Mike Orr,
We have private property laws in the USA. As a property owner, I’m just not responsible for issues density or walkability.
“just allows the majority of those houses that aren’t that to skate by with extraordinary privilege, displacing needed density/walkability and household privacy (for the people who would be in apartments instead of rooms) and allowing a wider variety of housing choices at a wider variety of price rangers.”
First off. Don’t be a hater. Home owners are backbone of America. Second, what owners do with their property is absolutely none of your business as long as they don’t break the law and fallow current zoning regulations. Changing the zoning regulations gives the owners more choices around redevelopment…. but nobody but the owners can make those choices.
There’s no social engineering in the private housing market.
@tacommee
You do realize rezoning doesn’t mean bulldozing right?
perhaps tacomee thinks zoning in reality is like zoning in SimCity.
Great post! The East Link density maps make it appear as almost the entire line was designed to avoid where people live.
I had the same thought. I’d guess that the fact that few were living along the route is what made it technically and politically feasible to build largely at grade though.
The issue isn’t at-grade, it’s political feasibility and Bellevue’s vision. Forward Thrust and East Link weren’t intended to be at-grade. The reason Bel-Red is partly at-grade is Bellevue wanted to divert some money to get a tunnel in front of City Hall. The city paid for half the tunnel, and got ST to pay for the rest of it out of East King’s budget (and convincing North King to take on the cost ot CID to Judkins Park as a goodwill gesture to Bellevue). (This was before it was widely recognized that Judkins Park could be a significant asset to Rainier Valley and that the station area would densify.)
I came to Bellevue right after Forward Thrust was defeated, but I long assumed it would have been on NE 8th Street where the existing population and transit was. Bel-Red was a decaying industrial area at the time with few residents. So when East Link was proposed, I was surprised it was in Bel-Red instead of 8th Street. The reason the city wanted it there was to build a new village without opposition from existing residents and businesses (on 8th), and because it was a solution to the declining industrial use. And then as I learned more about Forward Thrust, I found out it would have been in Bel-Red too! So Bellevue is following its long-term vision from the 1960s; it didn’t just suddenly choose Bel-Red for a short-term reason or to benefit a large developer.
And now that I’ve thought about it more, I think Bel-Red was a good choice. It’s a shorter travel time between downtown Bellevue and Redmond because of the diagonal nature. The housing density in the Spring District/Bel-Red is already higher than on 8th. 8th is all 2-story garden apartments, a golf course, those one-story businesses on 148th. The alignment misses Crossroads, which is unfortunate, but there’s that gap between Crossroads and downtown Bellevue. I’ve been riding Metro in that gap for fifty years, and my relative lived near 124th & 8th in the middle of the gap from 1990 to 2022 in a garden apartment, and that’s my impression of the area. (And I hoped they’d still be there when East Link opened and I could walk from Spring District station, but their health deteriorated and they had to move to a different kind of situation.)
Yes, exactly. It goes together with Bellevue and Redmond’s growth strategy. They have both been building many, many apartments over the past several years (Redmond has been far more enthusiastic about this than Bellevue). But they haven’t upzoned any low-density residential areas at all. What they have done is rezoned low-density commercial areas (that is to say: strip malls) to allow 5-over-1s. This transformation has been just about completed in Downtown Bellevue and Downtown Redmond, and Overlake is pretty far along, too. Bel-Red and Marymoor Village are the next frontiers. And probably the last frontiers too, until the legislature gets their butts in gear and mandates some TOD in South Bellevue.
That is fairly common. Typically they only allow apartments on busy streets — the same sort of streets they only allow retail. Thus in a relatively mature city (like Bellevue) you see strip malls being replaced by 5-over-1s.
Much of Seattle’s zoning works the same way. That is why you can walk (or drive) down Phinney Ridge and think the neighborhood is really dense, only to find there are nothing but houses a block over. More recently they adopted the “Urban Village” concept which was not based on corridors but instead more of a small neighborhood that allowed density (and retail). Unfortunately this still didn’t provide enough housing* and as a result prices skyrocketed as employment in the area also skyrocketed. As expected**, homelessness also skyrocketed. Now the city is finally considering significant changes to the zoning rules. Unfortunately the mayor and city council right now are very conservative. They are reluctant to address the cost of housing (or homelessness) for fear that they might upset those in the single family neighborhoods.
* https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattles-longstanding-urban-village-strategy-for-growth-needs-reworking-new-report-says/
** https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/
Here’s another resource for comparing rail transit and population density that was just released: https://schoolofcities.github.io/rail-transit-and-population-density/
This is a great resource, thank you!
Eastside density maps are wild. One part that really stands out is the corridor west of 148th Ave NE where there are apartments and condos all along the west side of the road, then a sharp edge with no housing at all to the east (the Microsoft campus). Despite all the density the street network is mostly unconnected — if you wanted to walk or bike to see a friend that lives nearby you’d probably have to go out to 148th. There are no shops you can walk to or even that are a convenient drive. If you work at Nintendo or Microsoft you might have a short commute but, again, regional traffic on 148th makes it a pretty unpleasant one by any mode. You can get to East Link but you have to cross the freeway. There are lots of trees around but somehow not much in the way of neighborhood parks. I can’t imagine schools are easy to get to.
One angle here is that this is a total failure of planning in some pretty obvious ways. Another angle that’s got some attention in recent years is taxes. With that many residents and eastside rents those apartments and condos have to account for a lot of property tax revenue. The residents, whether directly or indirectly, pay those taxes. They’re getting very little public realm in return. That’s pretty sad.
hi just to slightly correct, the maps above are a couple years late and don’t quite account for the new apartments recently built near overlake village station, but the overall point of missing apartments is still valid
I used to live there. I worked at Microsoft at the time, so the commute wasn’t too bad. The sidewalks on 148th are actually a quite decent width, except for the crossing of 520, and even that, you can now bypass by taking the ped bridge to Over lake Village. Once in Overlake Village, the Safeway is close enough to do grocery shopping by foot – just bring a backpack to avoid bags tearing before you get home. And, of course, if riding Link, the ped bridge over the freeway drops you off right at the station.
I agree that it was poorly planned, but I wouldn’t say there are no shops that are a convenient drive. Look a little to the south. It’s not really a terrible walk, either (although there’s free parking all around, so nobody really does it).
OK, now do 130th. Whole lotta yellow…
@another engineer,
As they say, “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics”. And data maps like these aren’t too far behind.
There is an important data layer missing from all these maps — mainly undevelopable land.
A person not familiar with the area around 130th might look at all that light yellow (and white) and assume an opportunity exists to convert low density development into high density housing via the magic of TOD.
But no! Those “low density” areas around 130th are actually “no density” areas, and they always will be.
The freeway corridor is not going to be converted to housing. And neither are the Jackson Golf Course, Thornton Creek/Licorice Fern Natural Areas, or the Northacres Park. All those areas are undevelopable.
And they always will be.
uhh the article discussed density mostly along the corridor for 130th not about new developments.
> Jackson Golf Course, Thornton Creek/Licorice Fern Natural Areas, or the Northacres Park. All those areas are undevelopable.
It’s the same for 145th and 185th
But the other lots are developable. And if ST had chosen the Aurora alignment, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. Instead we’d have the ST-proposed extra station at 130th & Aurora. Right at the Bitter Lake senior housing complex and the highly-developable large KMart and Ross lots and the surrounding ones. But ST chose I-5 instead, so we have to have a semi-useful station rather than an excellently-useful station. That’s still better than no station.
What WL and Mike said. This article is about existing density. If you want to look at potential density then that boat sailed a long time ago. Lynnwood Link is way too close to the freeway which means that every station north of Roosevelt has a limited amount of land that can be developed. Here, I’ll list them:
1) Northgate. Not only is this next to the freeway but it is also close to a massive interchange. On the other side of the freeway there is a greenbelt (Barton Woods and campus pond).
2) 148th. Not quite as big of an interchange but there is still plenty of space used by the freeway. Southeast of the station there is the same golf course you mentioned. Directly east of the station is a (smaller) park.
3) 185th. Not as bad as the rest as there are no ramps there. But the freeway still takes up space directly next to the station. The Shoreline School District owns some of the land across from the station that is basically just empty. It is possible they will develop it but it is also quite likely they don’t.
4) Mountlake Terrace. Another huge interchange (much bigger than the one at 130th). It also abuts a park (Veteran’s Memorial Park). It also sits kitty-corner to a golf course. The area north of the golf course is currently zoned single-family (even though the station was opened months ago). The zoning could change, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
5) Lynnwood. Again it sits next to a major freeway interchange. Not only that but the freeway sits in a major greenbelt (part of Scriber Creek). There is nothing between it and the freeway. It is a long walk from the other side of the freeway to the station. Thus roughly half the potential land close to the station can’t be developed (it is either part of the freeway or greenbelt).
Then there are the parking garages. Every station (other than 130th) has a major parking garage close to the station. They also tend to have lots of private parking as well. Some of the private parking could easily become new apartments or other destinations (that is happening to some degree at Northgate) but for the garages that would be an expensive and controversial change. Thus the land that is closest to the station — the land most likely to have transit riders — often has no potential for development.
Overall 130th Station is nothing special and that is the problem. It was a bad idea to run by the freeway for various reasons. It hampered the potential of every single station while limiting the number of potential stations. Ridership is much lower than it would be as a result. But again, that ship has sailed.
“This article is about existing density.”
Just to clarify, this article is about new tools to get a more granular picture of existing density, to show smaller dense pockets that have previously been overlooked. The goal is to give people a better sense of what density we have, and the ability to envision more future possibilities, or changes they might want to propose.
OK, now do 130th. Whole lotta yellow…
Wesley actually did do 130th (or to be more precise 130th/Roosevelt/125th). The corridor has plenty of density (as he mentioned). He also covered all of the Lynnwood Link stations and noted that near the stations there wasn’t much density (whole lotta yellow). That is what happens when you run next to the freeway.
Speaking of which is it interesting to look at the detailed map while making the street map completely transparent. You can pick out the freeways (I-5, 405, etc.). You can also pick out parks, hospitals, industrial and major business areas as well. It is important to note that this is a slice in time. Many of the areas that show no density are being redeveloped and will soon have housing.
Great article. I have several thoughts but I’ll split them up, starting with this one.
Everett Link’s detour to Paine Field for manufacturing jobs has been criticized by some for lengthening the travel time between Everett and Seattle. However, the detour alignment actually reaches a sizable amount of density around the stations of Mariner, Airport Road, and Evergreen.
Yes, I’ve been saying this for some time. If Everett Link follows the freeway it has no chance of success. By deviating from the freeway you serve more density, especially if you serve the “provisional” station at Airport Road. Even so I fear it won’t pencil out for a few reasons:
1) There aren’t many stations.
2) Most of the stations aren’t particularly close to major destinations (Downtown Everett is relatively small and Seattle is a long ways away). Proximity is a key factor in ridership and this lacks it.
3) Some of the particulars are worrisome. For example it will serve Boeing but riders still won’t be able to walk from the train to their work in most cases.
4) For various trips the speed benefits are minimal. Following the highway is better than following the freeway but this deviates from the highway as well. If I’m trying to get between the two stations on SR 99 then Swift Blue is about as fast. This means that transferring to Link (if I live a half mile up the road) is not worth it.
5) It is quite expensive. Current estimates are somewhere in the 5 to 7 billion dollar range.
While sending Everett Link to different parts of Everett is better than just following the freeway I don’t see this actually being a good value. Everett is just not that big. Everett is the type of city where BRT makes a lot of sense (as we’ve seen) and building a (very expensive) metro just isn’t worth it.
You can tell how little ST thinks of downtown Everett by the fact that Everett Link doesn’t even serve it – it just ends at a middle-of-nowhere parking lot, designed primarily for people to drive to the train, but with the option for those few that really want to get to downtown Everett to switch to a bus.
In other words, ST does not see Everett as a destination in its own, but just a bedroom for people to drive to to catch a train to Seattle. In which case, they may as well just drive a few miles further and catch the same train in Lynnwood.
“You can tell how little ST thinks of downtown Everett by the fact that Everett Link doesn’t even serve it – it just ends at a middle-of-nowhere parking lot, designed primarily for people to drive to the train”
Just like Tacoma Dome. But it wasn’t ST pushing it on the counties/cities, it was Snohomish/Everett and Pierce/Tacoma insisting on it. The decisions were made in the 1990s when there was more of an assumption that P&Rs are all that matter, and it’s best to use an existing P&R because it doesn’t have the cost of acquiring private land. It’s not just Everett Station and Tacoma Dome that were biased this way: so were Shoreline South and Northgate stations. If you want to know why they’re in those locations, it’s because of this. The prevailing political mindset in the 1990s, and intertia.
Northgate Station could have been near 5th & Northgate Way, surrounded by the mall, other retail, TOD housing, and the library/community center. The library/community center was built after ST2 was planned, so the station could have been adjacent to them in a three-purpose government tract.
Shoreline South station could have been at 130th & Aurora, or 130th & I-5, or 155th & I-5. Those were all Lynnwood Link alternatives.
“ You can tell how little ST thinks of downtown Everett by the fact that Everett Link doesn’t even serve it – it just ends at a middle-of-nowhere parking lot, designed primarily for people to drive to the train, but with the option for those few that really want to get to downtown Everett to switch to a bus.”
Ditto Tacoma.
Ditto Lynnwood.
Ditto Federal Way.
Ditto Issaquah.
Ditto Kirkland.
It’s not ST that thinks that way. It’s these places very own elected officials who sit on the ST Board who also think that way.
The thing to remember is that Everett Station is in Downtown Everett, it’s on the Eastside of the area from my time going up there to shop and visit friends.
I’d also point out that despite Downtown Bellevue being more west of the actual station. Bellevue’s own Downtown is moving eastward towards the Downtown station and Wilburton on the other side of I-5 with future development.
I think people need to be reticent to the fact that we are looking at this in the present tense and not so much future tense. Everett and Tacoma will be different places from when they are a decade or so from now. The dome district in Tacoma is taking shape now with new developments and will keep doing so by the time TDLE is built. As will be Everett in the future. I have an acquaintance who owns a business near Everett Station and they know they’ll likely need to plan their move eventually for the inevitable eminent domain of their building along Link’s path.
I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the Everett Station. It is on the edge of downtown but it is still downtown. (In contrast the Tacoma Dome Station is outside of downtown.)
The bigger problem is that Everett is just too small. Does anyone think it would be a good idea if Spokane spent over five billion dollars on a subway with only one downtown station? How about Yakima? Even if you added a bunch more stations in the middle of Everett it still wouldn’t be a good value. Some cities are just too small.
“Just like Tacoma Dome. But it wasn’t ST pushing it on the counties/cities, it was Snohomish/Everett and Pierce/Tacoma insisting on it. ”
I attended a special joint meeting of the Tacoma transportation and planning commissions on Wednesday to hear Sound Transit present the results of the TDLE DEIS.
It was wild. So much shock and anger at how poor all 4 alternatives are at serving the area. People realizing the stations will be more blight than boon.
“I attended a special joint meeting of the Tacoma transportation and planning commissions on Wednesday to hear Sound Transit present the results of the TDLE DEIS.”
Did the commissions have specific objections?
Also, did they have other suggestions they felt were better suited?
I’m curious.
Yes, what did they expect? It has been known Tacoma Dome would be the terminus since the 1990s. Tacoma had thirty years to make the neighborhood more inviting and liveable and improve Pierce Transit.
I assume there’s still a long transfer walk between the Link platform and the T Line. ST can take responsibility for that; nobody asked for it.
“So much shock and anger at how poor all 4 alternatives are at serving the area.”
Many people cannot envision what it’s like to actually build and use Link — plus the diagrams with big dots don’t explain how things will be laid out and actually work. What many also don’t realize about light rail is that the design becomes fixed for many decades so it’s much more important to lay it out right at the outset.
And all of it is before the max speed limitations are understood. Link and especially T-Link will be quite disappointing for speed. Sounder and express buses have much higher top speeds.
And station layout is a whole other issue that doesn’t get enough discussion. Where the platforms go in 3D and how transferring riders use them in 3D matters a lot. Was this discussed?
Finally, I’m curious if/how the opening of Federal Way Link extension will educate more of the Pierce public what they will be hopefully using. And I hope that TDLE design isn’t locked into place before the opening. Even though it sounds like reality of what was voted into ST3 is becoming more obvious, there are still more realizations that need to happen.
Where to begin. There were a lot of objections.
First, it was the “close to Sounder” option which included the demolishing of Freighthouse square.
Then there was strong objection to the impact of looming, massive elevated structure, and it’s impact on the only walkable street in the area. They wanted at-grade to be studied.
Then there was the horrific transfer to buses, the main way people will likely be accessing Link. It is horrific. I’ve done it.
The complete closure of T-Link during the years of construction was not well received.
Related, there was confusion as to why a Puyallup routing was eliminated in 2019 and not studied, when it would clearly be a better option.
There were many other issues as well.
Puyallup Ave (24th) routing, to be clearer.
Cam, you said those in attendance were shocked and angered over the alternatives. So, describe an alternative they wouldn’t be shocked and angered over. Also, you seem to be saying people wouldn’t be angry if it was at-grade, which I find odd.
Puyallup Ave, at-grade would be a much better connection to the Tacoma Dome Station, where the buses connect. Why would they object to at-grade?
A routing actually into the City of Tacoma would be welcome as well. Snark.
Something that didn’t either involve 1) demolishing the last historic and somewhat vibrant structure in the Dome district, 2) shutting down the only local frequent service in Tacoma for years, or 3) in the case of 26th Ave routing, creating a horrendous transfer experience, would be most welcome.
Also something that didn’t take well over an hour to get from downtown Tacoma to downtown Seattle would have been better received, and more what was expected and to some extent promised, back in the fog of history.
“Many people cannot envision what it’s like to actually build and use Link — plus the diagrams with big dots don’t explain how things will be laid out and actually work. What many also don’t realize about light rail is that the design becomes fixed for many decades so it’s much more important to lay it out right at the outset.”
I couldn’t agree more, Al.
I mean, they are only at 10% design right now. If the Pierce County contingent on the ST Board had will and the political cajones to do what Harrell and Dow did with the CD station, they could push back and get a far better design, without massive delays. Looking at those 3, I’m not holding my breath.
Some of those public comments are the same as I’d make: have good transfers to buses, and don’t demolish Freighthouse Square. I can’t think of how Sounder transfers would be much used. Somebody taking Sounder from Lakewood and transferring to Link? There must be many times more bus riders transferring to Link than that, especially since Sounder doesn’t operate much of the time.
“Why would they object to at-grade?”
Because trains repeatedly have collisions in Rainier Valley and SODO. And other times they’re stopped by a car on the track or an “object on track”. ST is now studying mitigation measures in Rainier Valley, and has vowed no more at-grade.
Maybe just drop down to at-grade at the terminus?
They’ve already promised the Puyallup Tribe that they will minimize the impact to the river, which almost certainly means a soaring, massive, single-span bridge. So it can’t be at-grade until the very at, if that.
I can’t think of how Sounder transfers would be much used.
That was my first thought but remember that Sounder initially heads south and west before heading north to Seattle. Puyallup and Sumner are both south of the Tacoma Dome. So a trip from Puyallup or Sumner to SeaTac could happen with Sounder/Link. But Lakewood to SeaTac is another case. Same goes for the other stations.
Of course buses to Federal Way (or similar routes for other connections) would likely be faster but you could say that about the entire network. Folks are basically assuming the bulk of the transit network will be crap. Pierce Transit buses will be really bad. ST will focus their efforts on Link. Thus people will try and cobble together something using the trains (only to find that is awkward as well).
But yeah, the more important connection is buses/streetcar to Link.
“They’ve already promised the Puyallup Tribe that they will minimize the impact to the river, …”
The Puyallup Tribe can heavily influence what gets built. It can also determine how and adjacent land uses get developed.
Since I-5 and the 167 corridors bifurcate the reservation, the Tribe has long had to negotiate strategically.
I don’t think the Tribe has started to “play their cards” yet — at least publicly. (Corny casino reference) That means that they can significantly influence the usage of Link stations. It may be that they have ideas of what to develop in the future — even doing major things we’ve not even envisioned or considered.
Regardless, much of the corridor is also on ground covered by past Mt Rainier / Tahoma eruptions. That also guides what can be built on the land.
There probably would not be an East Tacoma station had the Emerald Queen Casino not been built along with other visions of nearby redevelopment — and the Tribe wanted to actually protect the area near the river. That’s pure speculation on my part.
“ I can’t think of how Sounder transfers would be much used.”
Yes this.
I think the case for good Cascades-Link connectivity is likely better.
I remain curious if the tracks between Tacoma Dome and DuPont is under ST control enough to enable it to be used for an Arrow-style shuttle service throughout the day. I’m not sure what track usage agreement was made. If that was introduced, the Tacoma Dome platform transfers become much more important.
For reference, this is the Arrow web page:
https://metrolinktrains.com/rider-info/arrow/
Zach B:
The developable area around Tacoma Dome is so limited and hemmed-in by freeways, railways, parking, industry, and natural features that no great transit oriented neighborhood can sprout from it. Of the few parcels that have developed, they are run-of-the-mill apartment buildings, not the multi-story towers one anticipates from billions of dollars of investment into rail and transit there. Absolutely, please build a better Dome District, but we should set realistic and defensible expectations for what the place will become.
Ross:
Agreed, Tacoma Dome is not and never will be Downtown Tacoma.
Jim:
I expressed dissatisfaction with the alternatives analysis of the project because it does not include the most credible alternatives to the preferred alignment, which as Cam mentioned are Puyallup Avenue (and a crossing of the river somewhere near—or at—Fishing Wars Memorial Bridge).
There are very few potential alignments for bringing a railway west to Tacoma. Despite this fact, the DEIS does not evaluate what may have been the two best options, Puyallup Avenue and the Fishing Wars vicinity. For decades, they formed what was understood to be the likely alignment to Tacoma and were long noted by Sound Transit as being some of the best options. Together, they may have been the most affordable, most constructable, best for passenger experience, best for bus-rail transfers, least disruptive to existing transit and the environment, and more. Yet we will learn nothing about these alternatives in the DEIS as they were discarded during a planning effort in 2019 called scoping. Because of this, we are needlessly deprived of information we could have used to make better choices.
To be clear, the options were eliminated for reasons sincerely held to be valid, and I make no claim that they are invalid. What I do claim is that their rejection was premature and has denied us a full understanding of their merit and failings. It has denied us the opportunity to refine them and perhaps make them viable. Unless, for some reason, a supplemental EIS is requested to study them, we will never know for sure if they could have become the superior alternatives.
Given the lack of alignment options available to begin with, this should not have been allowed to happen. It should be through the DEIS—right now—that Puyallup Avenue or any credible alternative is selected or discarded ahead of a Record of Decision. It is upsetting that, in light of predictable new details about the cost and complexity of building a station at 25th Street, that we are left with no decent alternative to consider. I have nothing good to say about the 26th Street option. That means we have 25th Street or frankly nothing at all, which is not a productive spectrum of alternatives to weigh. For this historic project we deserved to have all the facts, and we won’t
Mike:
I partially agree with your statements here, but there is a lot of nuance you don’t address. Yes, Pierce has long pushed for light rail, but the rail program also shifted under the county in ways that were hard to respond to. From the late 1980s to around 2007, it was believed that Tacoma City would be the south end of the rail system. Our completed Tacoma Link Light Rail project from 2003 is the product. The railway was envisioned as being extended to Sea-Tac and ultimately Snohomish County, although how this would occur after ST1 was deeply uncertain. The trams operating over Tacoma Link do so in a semi-exclusive urban right-of-way that reliably keeps them moving (compare this to Hilltop Link, which has a very different rationale for existing and a totally different mixed-traffic design). Any performance comparison to the mainline Rainier Valley Link is not appropriate, in my opinion.
The key reason why Tacoma Dome Link will not tie into Tacoma Link is because Sound Transit in 1999, in a rush to meet an opening day deadline in 2001 that the agency would miss anyway, chose to piggyback on a TriMet contract to get vehicles faster. The later Central Link would be designed for different trams with a divergent loading gauge, so the system vehicles differ in width by a few inches on each side. This choice put Pierce on an odd pathway that was hard to overcome—and it did try. But consider the tough position leaders were put in: should the subarea invest many millions to partially rebuild a brand new railway, or spend its limited dollars on other projects that would help secure an ST2 approval? They practically chose the latter. Also, why pay for this conversion now when it won’t even be needed until 2035 at the earliest?
The problem is what has unfolded since and certainly ST3. The original framework for Pierce light rail grew dim in the memory. Local leaders who were not transit or engineering professionals were told by Sound Transit that the railways were “incompatible”, dashing any new hopes of joining the systems. While technically true, they were not told of the original Pierce rail vision or that integration was a component project of the 1996 and 2005 long range plans. Tacoma Dome became substituted for Tacoma City in this vacuum, especially after leadership changes. ST3 was a fatal blow. Setting aside the criticism of light rail to Pierce County, ST3 should have included Tacoma Dome Link *and* a conversion of Tacoma Link for a seamless rail operation. This would avoid the giant stations, the huge guideways, some major construction impacts, the destruction of Freighthouse Square, and more. This also may have challenged the ST3 plan to run trains from Tacoma Dome to Ballard (early planners suspected a Federal Way or Sea-Tac transfer would be needed, and I think the idea still has a lot of merit). What would Tacoma Dome Link be if it completed the Spine from Seattle to Tacoma City? These are questions I have been trying to answer and emphasize now for years.
Al S.:
Agreed, Tacoma Dome Link remains an abstraction to most members of the public. Sound Transit does not even have information to share regarding total rail travel times from Tacoma Dome to Westlake, or Tacoma City to Federal Way (which would include a light rail transfer).
The railway is now reasonably locked into place by the EIS. Unless something extraordinary happens, it will likely be built on 25th Street somewhere, somehow. I personally suspect that Freighthouse Square will be demolished to accommodate a station within the parcel, possibly easing certain construction impacts.
Sam:
Either at-grade or aerial, I believe Puyallup Avenue would have been a superior alignment to Tacoma Dome. We will never know as it was not evaluated as even a baselining alternative.
Cam:
Agreed, Puyallup Avenue possibly could have hosted any variety of physical arrangements for a new light railway.
Finally:
The dominant transit transfers at Tacoma Dome will be bus-light rail and light rail-light rail. Had Puyallup Avenue been built, and presuming an elevated station, transfers could have simply gone downstairs directly to the bus bays from the mezzanine, or make a short trip to the T Line platform a few hundred feet away via a new walkway. With the new elevated station, the mezzanine could have been set at roughly the same elevation as the uphill 25th Street, on which the T Line platform rests. This would have greatly simplified that transfer, particularly for the mobility impaired.
“From the late 1980s to around 2007, it was believed that Tacoma City would be the south end of the rail system.”
I think you told me that Link was originally going to go to downtown Tacoma and I forgot.
Maintaining Route 72’s duplication on NE 145th with Route 522 is necessary to connect Lake City residents to a Link station without transferring immediately.
Yes. It is a tricky area. The section between 125th and 145th is both dense and a significant geographically. Three corridors from the south — Lake City Way, Sand Point Way and 35th NE — converge in that section (while 25th converged with Lake City Way to the south). Buses turnaround and layover close to the Fred Meyer, but that is still a ways from 145th. Thus the 61 won’t connect with the future 522 (or Stride 3). Even turning around at 145th is not trivial. I suggested going up 30th and going south on Lake City Way. That would mean either doing a live loop or laying over in the area. Both seem relatively practical.
One drawback to that approach is that 30th is often very congested and you would have to move the bus lanes on Lake City Way. Of course the 65 endures that congestion (although that doesn’t mean it is a good thing). I could also see buses doing the opposite (going north on Lake City Way and turning left at 145th and then left again at 30th). This is counter intuitive but there are some advantages:
1) We already have the BAT lanes (northbound).
2) Southbound traffic on 30th is not as bad as northbound (I think).
You would need to add a left turn arrow at 145th so that the bus could easily turn left on 30th from 145th. I could also see them add a left-turn signal from the bus lane on Lake City Way so that buses could turn left from the far right lane onto 145th like they do on Montlake Boulevard (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n4qHUxF9h3bZF1Yi6). The situation is quite similar (the bus would cut across two lanes of traffic when the arrow turns green). It is a little different because Lake City Way to 145th allows regular cars (while Montlake does not). But 145th is two lanes. The bus would be allowed to take a left and move into the far lane while cars and trucks taking a left are supposed to stay in the near lane. A little paint along with a bit of a head start for the bus and people will figure it out.
This is an obvious extension for the 61, but other routes could connect to the Stride route as well. As mentioned, the Lake City Way section of the 77 (split from the part that serves Bitter Lake) would make that loop. It could make a live loop or find layover space along Lake City Way (there are plenty of potential comfort stations). The 72 and 65 could end there (instead of going to the station). Either way they would serve the section of Lake City Way/30th between 125th and 145th. You want all the bus stops to be shared.
The block between Jefferson and James, and 5th and 6th, has 258,000 people per square kilometer. It is the epitome of urban density. Well done!
for those who might miss the joke, that’s where the King County Correctional Facility sits.
I used to work there, back in 2001. I can confirm that nearly everyone who lived there took the bus when they left. They usually arrived by car, however. For the people that worked there, I’d guess about half of them commuted by car.
The reason US planning study usually show population aggregated by block/block group or census tract is that this is the original census unit used to conduct US ceusus every 10 years. Population or employment data was processed and validated against these polygons. The source data is organized this way so it is easy to create map using these census units directly.
The US census units are determined mostly based on land use to my understanding, so it has some level of consistency, just not by its size. The problem with “modern Population Map” or I think it is technically called Kernel density map is that it involves a lot of interpolation of data. Original US census data cannot be broken down this way without averaging some stuff. Several examples included using kernel density map are world population maps. In those cases, we don’t have a consistent census units worldwide and it is impossible to figure out the what census units other countries used are equivalent to US census unit like block group or census tract. Therefore, in those case using kernel density map which calculation density by equal land area makes sense.
Between census-unit-based population density map and kernel density population map, I don’t think there is one absolutely better than the other. I probably wouldn’t choose kernel density map as a default for a task such as “Seattle MSA population density map” because it makes some assumption on tops of authoritative data source, but I am not surprised if someone uses kernel density map for a technical study. Sometimes, choosing one over another is the same idea as Gerrymandering. For study propose, I think usually the one that helps advance the agenda will be chosen.
BTW, I’ve done a lot mapping for planning study in my previous job. I am doing that as a hobby on these days and still keep a non commercial purpose ArcGIS license.
If the Blog has need to create any maps for future articles, I am happy to help as long as it is not used for commercial purpose.
Below is my ArcGIS Online Site
https://hztranspo.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html
Thanks for offering your help with ArcGIS! We’ll keep you in mind for future mapping efforts. Since the Blog is a is 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, all of our work is considered non-commercial.