Just over a week ago, Sound Transit’s Chief Executive Officer, Peter Rogoff, announced that his agency would reverse course on branding of the light rail line running between the University of Washington and Angle Lake. The transit agency had recently begun implementation of its new systemwide branding effort, which sought to call the initial operating corridor the Red Line until becoming the Green Line in 2035 when the Ballard extension is slated to open. In listening to community members, staff heard clearly that many were concerned about the name, given the historic effects of “redlining” practices that were applied to communities of color in communities now served by the light rail line.

Context of redlining

Before getting into how Sound Transit ended up with line’s name and highlighting system rebranding and usability options, it is important discuss the context of redlining. A primary facet of redlining was a financial risk assessment practice where banks and insurance institutions would not lend or insure real estate in areas that were considered to be poor and risky investments.

“These discriminatory practices caused widespread damage and inequities that have had a lingering impact to this day,” said Jackie Martinez-Vasquez, Sound Transit’s Chief Equity and Inclusion Officer in an agency blogpost. “In response, we are going to identify a new system for identifying our routes. It’s the right thing to do, and we are grateful for the community members who encouraged us to take this action.”

Redlined areas closely tracked with where people of color lived. In Seattle, that meant the Central Area, Chinatown-International District, Beacon Hill, and parts of the Rainier Valley were designated as “hazardous” and functionally identified as red on security risk maps, hence redlined. Yellow-lined areas often had the same practical effects and were even more widespread.

In the mid-1930s, the federal government began a process of establishing these risk classifications through the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which financial institutions relied upon for investment decisions. Regardless of the actual condition of neighborhoods, racial makeup was a driver in determining risk. Predominantly Caucasian neighborhoods fared better in the risk ratings and many had restrictive covenants in place that precluded non-Caucasian individuals from owning property. Other prejudicial history played a socioeconomic role in how people came to live in places of American cities, such as the “alien” land laws, Jim Crow laws, racial steering, and racial zoning laws.

Fundamentally though, the process of redlining was systematic and used to protect the interests of privileged people while restricting opportunity, extracting and holding down wealth, and concentrating people that were considered lesser than the privileged ruling class. This was then further exploited through later processes, such as blockbusting and White flight, which drained capital from central cities and further harmed communities of color, essentially locking them in. So it is understandable then why people might object to a light rail line being called a “Red Line” in areas still marked by this painful history and stigma.

How we got here

The process of how Sound Transit ended up with the Red Line goes back to 2012. That year, the Sound Transit Board of Directors approved a policy framework for the light rail system naming process.

The policy framework indicated that Sound Transit would implement “a comprehensive naming structure for the entire Link light rail system that uses a color scheme and naming conventions for planned and future Link light rail lines.” It also outlined criteria that “[e]ach line will have an ‘end-of-the-line’ destination name and an associated color, which is [Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)] compliant.” The suggested initial colors were red (for the north-south line) and blue (for the east-west line).