Frequent Transit Nodes and What They Mean for Urban Village Expansions

19

Ten urban villages’ boundaries are expanding in the latest batch of Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) rezones, but by the city’s own logic many more should expand soon. The city justifies its urban village boundary expansions with proximity to frequent transit nodes, and many more nodes are popping up as the city upgrades more and more lines to the frequent transit standard.

Over the course of crafting the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) rezone plan, Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) developed the principle of expanding urban village boundaries to ensure they stretched at least as far as a 10-minute walkshed from each village’s respective Frequent Transit Node(s). Frequent Transit Nodes were defined as light rail stations or the intersection of two frequent bus lines.

The catch is OPCD locked in those Frequent Transit Nodes at the start of the process two years ago. As luck would have it, that was before investments from the Seattle Transportation Benefit District (STBD) came online, adding several additional frequent transit lines. The bus-to-Link restructure also bumped up frequencies on some routes. The Seattle Municipal Code defines Frequent Transit Service as “transit service headways [time between scheduled bus arrivals] in at least one direction of 15 minutes or less for at least 12 hours per day, 6 days per week, and transit service headways of 30 minutes or less for at least 18 hours every day.”

Frequent transit lines are designated with the thicker lines. RapidRides are red. (Oran Viriyincy)

Urbanizing Greenwood

RapidRide has been in the Frequent Network since implemented. Routes like the 5, 7, 8, 36, 40, 44, and 48 also met the definition back in 2015. Since the multiyear MHA journey began, Routes 45 and 62 have joined the ranks of frequent service, others later this year will, too. Those frequent network additions would have important ramifications for urban village boundaries.  The crosstown 45 cutting across the grid gives Greenwood a Frequent Transit Node–two in fact–with the intersections with Route 5 and RapidRide E. Adapting the Comprehensive Plan appropriately to meet this reality would put some meat on those skinny urban village bones.

Greenwood and Aurora-Licton Springs Urban Villages with two frequent transit nodes and 10-minute walkshed approximated by dotted diamonds around them. The light gray area is all single-family zoning. (City of Seattle, with edits by author)

Expanding Fremont and Wallingford

It would appear the principle of boundary expansions from frequent transit nodes didn’t get followed in all instances. Some exceptions are by design; OPCD intended to exempt for environmentally critical areas (e.g., steep hillsides or watersheds) from urban villages and has a preference to maintain industrial lands. Other cases seem to have just fallen between the cracks. Wallingford and Fremont don’t get boundary expansions from its Frequent Transit Node at Aurora Avenue and N 46th St where the RapidRide E and Route 44 intersect. This node happens to be at edge of each urban village, somewhat complicating matters.

Wallingford and North Fremont now have four frequent transit nodes with the intersection of the 5, RapidRide E, and the 62 with the 44. The two nodes on the left existed when the MHA process started. (City of Seattle, with edits by author)

As you can see above, the frequent transit node principle would dictate that North Fremont turn into a true urban village instead of an implied one. Wide swaths of single-family zoning exist near the frequent transit node at the intersection of Phinney Ave N (Route 5) and N 46th St (Route 44). The addition of Route 62 to the frequent network would support widening Wallingford Urban Village boundaries, particularly toward the east. The Seattle City Council should make these changes to the Comprehensive Plan at the next opportunity.

Putting Bryant, Laurelhurst and Sandpoint on the Urban Village Map

Northeast Seattle, which is currently pretty light on urban villages, got a handful of frequent transit nodes thanks to the U Link Bus Restructure and that suggests adding them as urban villages. Bryant, not yet an urban village, has a frequent transit node at N 65th St (Route 62) and 35th Ave NE (Route 65) and another at Sandpoint Way NE (Route 75) and 40th Ave NE (Route 65), which also puts Laurelhurst (and the much-debated Talaris site) in the walkshed of a transit node. The intersection of Route 62 and Route 75 give Sand Point a frequent transit node at N 65th St and Sandpoint Way NE. Alex Brennan and our editorial board noticed the relative paucity of urban village in Northeast Seattle in 2015 and recommended adding more.

Bryant and Laurelhurst are served by frequent transit nodes but are not urban villages are dominated by single-family zoning. (City of Seattle with edits by author)

South Seattle

South Seattle has fewer frequent transit nodes created by buses since southern crosstown routes do not meet the frequent definition. The light rail stations do qualify as nodes though and the MHA maps suggests the urban village boundaries will be extended in station walksheds. West Seattle does have some frequent transit nodes including Westwood Village (where the C, 21, and 120 all meet) and 35th Ave SW and SW Avalon Way (where the C and 21 meet). Though partially in urban villages, boundaries should be extended from these nodes to the full 10-minute walkshed.

South Seattle has less frequent crosstown service because the Duwamish Valley gets in the way. (OPCD)

Some routes are on the cusp of meeting the frequent transit definition. Route 32 could meet the standard with some amplification, as I made the case before. There’s also a case to be made to upgrade Route 50 as a frequent crosstown route for South Seattle. Route 2 is also close. As Seattle adds service hours, more routes will join the frequent transit network creating more nodes. More and more of the city should be zoned for multifamily density–by virtue of new and expanded urban villages–as that happens. Urbanists should make the case for these expansions and new urban villages as the Seattle City Council takes up the Comprehensive Plan. Getting them on the docket would ensure we more equitably spread growth across the city and avoid single family enclaves within frequent transit walksheds.

Broaden the Boom: How to Rezone Single-Family Seattle

We hope you loved this article. If so, please consider subscribing or donating. The Urbanist is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that depends on donations from readers like you.

Doug Trumm is The Urbanist's Executive Director. An Urbanist writer since 2015, he dreams of pedestrianizing streets, blanketing the city in bus lanes, and unleashing a mass timber building spree to end the affordable housing shortage and avert our coming climate catastrophe. He graduated from the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington. He lives in East Fremont and loves to explore the city on his bike.

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DutchBiking

Getting Urban Village in NE would be great! Making this a bit sleepy part of Seattle more dynamic. Around 35th Ave between 65ht and 85th the last few years already quite a few single family houses have been replaced with apartments or rowhouses slowly transforming the look and feel of this street. A nicely done project (of course very subjective) is on 65th st between 32nd and 33th ave. This is of course not an affordable project.

SylMar

I just got an e-mail about The Roy Street Apartments – 69 units of affordable housing – sold to a developer for $22Million as a teardown. Thanks HALA for reducing the in city affordable housing supply: http://www.djc.com/news/re/12108878.html?cgi=yes

SylMar

The problem is the MHA unit might be far away from the downtown core. What do you have to say about that?

Also, I don’t buy that “so little of the city is zoned for apartments”. I live in Ballard and I don’t have exact data but at least 30 apartments have been built in the last 5 years, many of them large. All of them say “Now Leasing” – that tells me it’s not affordable housing. Many of those replaced something that was affordable. So HALA Displaces!

RDPence

There’s lots of zoned MF capacity in SE Seattle, but builders aren’t that interested — neighborhoods not sexy enough, not “cool” enough. So we gotta rezone those SF neighborhoods adjacent to the trendy places. Somehow I don’t think this is sound planning process.

SylMar

Good one – accuse us of being racist – shut down the conversation – you don’t like hearing any opinions contrary to yours do you?

RDPence

There’s no logic in assuming zoning changes would result in significantly more “missing middle” housing. Private money is profit maximizing, and development profits are all in high-end housing. More expansive upzones would result in more demolition of what passes for affordable housing, replacing it with more high-end stuff.

I wish there was a zoning “magic pill” that would do as you suggest, but it’s just not there. Vaporware (or is that term passe now?)

RDPence

The “missing middle” in housing is not an issue of unit size, it’s an issue of unit price. We need housing for people who are too “rich” for housing subsidies, but not rich enough for what the market is providing. That’s the missing middle, and there is no rezoning magic that would cause developers to forego profits in order to build for that middle market.

RDPence

We get some of that modest-density MF in existing LR zones, and almost none of it is affordable to that missing economic middle I cited above. Developers go where the most profits are, and that’s high-end housing — regardless of density.

mike eliason

vienna has walksheds that are nearly 3/4 of a mile.

interesting to note that walkshed in greenwood matches the segment where over 30 blocks of MFH were gerrymandered out in the undemocratic ‘neighborhood planning’ of the 90s.

comment image

RDPence

I was heavily involved in neighborhood planning in the 90s and observed it was quite democratic. People generally supported their neighborhoods’ plans, often challenging the “top down” planning mode City Hall. Just because you didn’t get your way doesn’t mean the process was undemocratic.

mike eliason

96% of Seattle’s population had no say in the process. It was heavily swayed and influenced by homeowners who gerrymandered themselves out of urban villages while putting a bull’s eye on existing multifamily development.

It was anti-tenant. And severely anti-democratic.

RDPence

No people, no group were excluded from having their say in the neighborhood planning process of the 90’s. Tenants were not excluded (I myself was a tenant in those days). I’m curious which neighborhood you were involved in back then, that would give you such a tortured view of what went on.

RDPence

The 10-minute walkshed is fine, but that distance is 0.4 miles, not the 0.5 miles used by the city to redesign urban village boundaries.

Jonathon Morrison Winters

RE: upgrading the 50 as a south-end cross town route. In Metro’s Long Range Plan, it’s never considered for frequent service (most riders heading to West Seattle will probably take Link and xfer @ ID Station). But the plan proposes a new frequent cross town “route 1039” from Brighton to White Center/Delridge via Georgetown. Unfortunately, that won’t come on-line until after 2025. Probably 2031 when Graham St. Station opens. IMO, route 1039 is more important for south-end mobility than the Graham St. Station by itself. http://www.kcmetrovision.org/plan/service-map/