-
Title (dcterms:title)
-
Eng
Stakeholder Perspectives of the Social and Economic Implications of Transportation Systems and Transit-oriented Development, A Case Study: Tacoma, Washington
-
Date (dcterms:date)
-
2016
-
Creator (dcterms:creator)
-
Eng
Rhoads, Anna
-
Subject (dcterms:subject)
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES OF THE SOCIAL
AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. A CASE STUDY:
TACOMA, WA
by
Anna Christine Rhoads
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
September 2016
©2016 by Anna Christine Rhoads. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Anna Christine Rhoads
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Shangrila Wynn, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
I explored the social and economic implications of the proposed Tacoma Link extension,
which will be expanded to the Hilltop District, in Tacoma, Washington. Using semistructured open-ended interviews with resident and community stakeholders, I found that
the stakeholders’ perceived benefits of the project include increased mobility in the
district and connectivity to larger transportation systems in the Greater Puget Sound
region. The stakeholders’ perceived drawbacks of the project include the negative
implications of increased property values, displacement of low-income residents, and
gentrification. I then determined the mobility ideologies that the stakeholders publicly
hold using a mobility ideology framework. Understanding the stakeholders’ mobility
ideology may provide insight to future transit-oriented development projects in the
district and related decision-making. In conclusion, this research sheds light on
stakeholder perception of transportation infrastructure in a historically diverse and lowincome neighborhood and how mobility ideologies can be valuable indicators of
stakeholder decision-making.
Keywords: Transit-oriented development, mobility ideology framework, transportation
systems, gentrification, transportation studies
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Preface
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Literature Review
vi
viii
1
2
6
Literature Synopsis
6
Defining Accessibility and Mobility
6
LRT: The Social and Environmental Benefits and Constraints
11
What is Transit-Oriented Development?
15
Costs of TOD
16
Impacts of Gentrification
Chapter 3: Methods
Chapter 4: Introduction to Case Study Site – The Hilltop District
Chapter 5: Results and Discussion
17
21
26
30
Perceived Benefits of the Tacoma Link Expansion
30
Perceived Drawbacks of the Tacoma Link Expansion
32
Tacoma Link Expansion and TOD Attracting New Residents
34
Property Values Impacted in the Hilltop District after the Link Expansion 36
Displacement in the Hilltop District
38
Gentrification and the Hilltop District
40
Policy and Politics - Disconnect between Agency and Residents
43
Mobility Ideology Trends among Stakeholders
44
Limitations to Research
Chapter 6: Recommendations for Future Research and Conclusion
46
48
Recommendations for Further Research
49
Policy Recommendations – Community Benefits Agreement Model
50
vi
References
Appendix
51
54
vii
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge several individuals who have supported and inspired
me throughout the research experience. I would not have been able to complete this
research and write a thesis without the support I received from the faculty and staff in the
Master of Environmental Studies program, and my family and friends. This has been a
difficult yet rewarding experience.
I received incredible support from the Master of Environmental Studies program
at The Evergreen State College, encouraging me to pursue a thesis topic based upon my
research interests. I would like to thank Shangrila Wynn, Ph.D for her valuable feedback
and patience throughout every step of the writing process. I would also like to thank Gail
Wootan and Jan Hays, two incredible women who cheered me on and motivated me to
keep going throughout my time in the MES program.
I would like to thank my parents, Clark and Mary Rhoads, for their continued
support and encouragement. I would also like to thank my brother, Matthew, for his peerreview and methodology suggestions. To my friends, I thank Rhianna Hruska who never
turned down a “shut-up and write” session at local coffee shops. I would also like to
thank Hannah Trageser, Danae Presler and Ryan Hobbs for their support.
And finally, I’d like to thank Justin Yim for listening to my practice presentations,
reviewing final papers, making sure I always had a hot meal to eat after class, and for
being a wonderful partner.
viii
Preface
I chose to focus my Master of Environmental Studies thesis on the Hilltop district
in Tacoma, Washington after interning at a transportation management association
(TMA) in downtown Tacoma during the summer of 2015. During my internship, I
learned about the local attitude toward transportation, mobility and of the upcoming
development in the Hilltop district. This thesis draws on my experience working for a
TMA and connections with various stakeholders throughout the city of Tacoma.
This thesis explores the social and economic implications of the Tacoma Link
extension into the Hilltop district, along with identifying stakeholder mobility ideologies.
Chapter 1 introduces the growth of transportation systems in North America, the need for
diverse transportation in the Puget Sound region, and a brief introduction to the Hilltop
district. Chapter 2 covers literature on light rail transportation, the social and
environmental benefits of transportation systems similar to light rail, transit-oriented
development and the implications of transit-oriented development. This chapter also
highlights gaps in the literature for studies using a mobility ideology framework for
transportation systems. Chapter 3 provides details on the methods used for conducting
this research and includes sample interview questions that were asked to stakeholders.
Chapter 4 provides an introduction to the case study, with information on the Tacoma
Link expansion and demographic information on the Hilltop district. Chapter 5 shares the
results and analysis of my research. This chapter shares excerpts of the interviews
conducted and an analysis backed-up by relevant literature. This chapter also shares
limitations to the research. Chapter 6 provides further research and policy
recommendations to be explored and concludes the research findings.
1
Chapter 1- Introduction
How we choose to commute to work, run errands, and engage with our
community can be determined by the transportation infrastructure that exist in our
communities. Whether we choose to walk, bike, take transit, or drive a vehicle may be
influenced by personal choice or by the existing infrastructure itself. With the emergence
of urban sprawl, families migrated from the city to the suburbs in the 1950s (Bernick
1997), single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) have become the dominant mode of
transportation in the USA. One study conducted by the American Association of State
Highways and Transportation Officials, over 120 million Americans rely on a private
vehicle to commute to work (AASHTO 2010). This number does not include th\e number
of Americans that use their car for errands or regional travel.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they
recommend that we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Many argue we must
reduce our dependency on CO2 emitting vehicles and rely on other modes of
transportation, such as public transportation, bicycling, and walking. Transportation
accounts for 29% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) in the United States, with CO2
accounting for 95% of the GHG emissions (FTA 2010). Transportation has become the
fastest-growing source of GHG emissions, following electricity generation (GHGRP
2012).
Many transportation advocates claim that light rail transportation (LRT) can be
the most efficient and optimal form of public transportation. LRT systems produce 60%
less pounds CO2 per passenger mile than SOV and 28% less than bus transit (FTA 2010).
Newman (2013) claims that additional advantages to LRT include lower per-capita traffic
2
congestion costs, lower per-capita private passenger transportation energy use, and lower
per capita emissions from the transportation sectors. Many cities in North America have
installed LRT or are planning install a rail line in the near future (Newman 2013).
In the Pacific Northwest, several planned LRT installations are in development,
along with several existing LRT lines. LRT could be a method to reduce regional air
pollution caused by SOVs in the Puget Sound region of Washington State. According to
the Department of Ecology, the population of the Puget Sound region has more than
doubled since 1960, with over 4.4 million people calling this region home (Dept of
Ecology 2016). The projections of growth in the Puget Sound region are significant.
According to Washington’s Office of Financial Management, they estimate that by 2020,
5.1 million people will live and work in the Puget Sound region. To continue to strive for
a sustainable Puget Sound, there will be a need to have sustainable mobility options
available for people living in the Puget Sound region. Overcoming dependence on SOV
(Banister 2008) and having additional transportation options can assist with goal.
Therefore, I chose to focus my research on a regional LRT installation in the city of
Tacoma. Tacoma, a port city south of Seattle, Washington, plans to expand their current
light rail/street car hybrid system, the Tacoma Link, within the next two years, ending the
line in the Hilltop District (see Appendix 1.1). Sound Transit’s goal for the Tacoma Link
is to increase mobility and access for Tacoma residents, employees and visitors
throughout the city’s major activity center and destinations within the city. Transitoriented development (TOD), compact mixed-use development that follows
transportation development, has a similar goal. TOD strives to improve mobility and
accessibility for residents living in its development (Dittmar 2004).
3
Mobility and accessibility have been significant discussions for the Hilltop
district. Geographically, the Hilltop District is separated from the downtown core by a
steep-grade hill. This hill has decreased the walking mobility between downtown and the
Hilltop district. According to the City of Tacoma and Pierce Transit, there are several bus
services that connect the Hilltop District and downtown. With the upcoming Tacoma
Link expansion, the City of Tacoma’s Subarea Plan for the Hilltop district, and a push for
more housing and business development to fill many vacant properties, the Hilltop
district could become an attractive place to reside, with a higher residential and
employment density. LRT often motivates TOD implementation near a station or popular
stops. TOD has the ability to alter a community’s physical and social dynamics. With
discussion of TOD following the LRT expansion, it is a critical time to identify how
different parties are visualizing potential development opportunities.
This thesis asks, “How do diverse stakeholders implicated in Tacoma’s light rail
expansion project weigh the relative benefits and drawbacks of the proposed project, in
terms of affordability, community changes and mobility, and in terms of mobility
ideologies?” More specifically, who benefits from the increased mobility, and who does
not? This thesis will also explore how progressive, neoliberal, and conservative mobility
ideologies come into play throughout the discussions and debates involving TOD
infrastructure. My research question addresses how stakeholders perceive TOD outcomes
in the Hilltop District by examining information released by Sound Transit, the media,
developers, and interviewing community members. It is critical to interview stakeholders
before a LRT expansion for multiple reasons. For one, it is a way to identify how
different parties are visualizing potential development opportunities following the light
4
rail installation. It is also a way to understand how the stakeholders value accessibility,
multimodal transportation options, and equitable development. Interviewing stakeholders
will also provide historical data on the project that could be used in a future study
researching stakeholder perception. Much of the literature that focuses on the social
implications of transportation systems does not research stakeholder perceptions before
the infrastructure is installed.
In order to understand the various perspectives and attached mobility ideologies, I
conducted open-ended interviews with diverse stakeholders in the Hilltop District. My
research suggests common trends among stakeholder perceptions of the Tacoma Link
extension in the Hilltop District. Overall, despite differences in age, education level, and
residency in the Hilltop, stakeholders held similar perceptions of how the Tacoma Link
extension will increase resident mobility throughout the Hilltop district. However, the
stakeholders held varying perspectives on gentrification and economic development that
are associated with the Link installation. There were also different perspectives on
disconnect between the city of Tacoma and Sound Transit and resident needs. This
research demonstrates the perceived social and economic implications of public
transportation infrastructure which exist, despite the small sample size of stakeholders
interviewed.
5
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Literature Synopsis
Throughout this literature review, I discuss the theoretical framework of the
literature relevant to my research question. I focus on mobility and accessibility
throughout the literature review because of their relevance to TOD and urban planning
literature, but also because they can provide additional understanding to topics that
stakeholders brought up throughout the interview process. I then describe the political
mobility ideologies attached to the term mobility and its influence over the
implementation of TOD infrastructure. I also discuss how these mobility ideologies are
intertwined in gentrification and displacement discourse, as I situate my analysis in the
context of mobility ideologies defined by Henderson (2013). Next, I address the
environmental and social benefits and constraints of LRT that are developed by
supporters and the opposition. I then briefly discuss TOD, the policies and
implementation of TOD, and the associated positive and negative implications that TOD
can have on a community, such as increased market value of residential and commercial
spaces, displacement of low-income residents, and gentrification. I discuss the limitations
of current literature throughout this section.
Defining Accessibility and Mobility
To understand the complexity of LRT and TOD, particularly with my case study
in the Hilltop district, it is necessary to understand commonly used terms in urban
planning and TOD. By defining these terms, their attached perspectives and ideologies
become clear.
6
For this research, I cite Litman’s (2003) definition of accessibility as the ability to
reach desired goods, services, activities and destinations that are collectively called
opportunities. Under this definition, accessibility is the ultimate goal of most modes of
transportation. From the user’s perspective, transportation users consist of people and
businesses that want to reach a particular good, service, activity, or destination (Litman
2003). An underlying assumption of accessibility may be that not all people can be
classified as a motorist, meaning there are different yet equal modes of transportation
such as walking, cycling, or taking public transportation. This perspective also
incorporates how land is currently used as an attempt to make connections among modes
of transport with current land use conditions (Litman 2003), by using the current
infrastructure that is already in place. For example, using the rail tracks of an
existingcommuter rail. Simply, accessibility is about the ability to reach a destination.
Litman (2003) defines mobility as the movement of people or goods. Mobility
differs from accessibility in that it assumes transport users are mainly motorists, but
recognizes that people rely on other modes of transport like cycling, rideshares, and
transit (Litman 2011). Bluntly, mobility pertains to the movement of people. The term
mobility is ingrained with meaning and power. Transportation studies have traditionally
attempted to remove mobility from ideology, however, mobility has become politicized
(Simpson 2009, Henderson 2013), because mobility is often based on morals and
ideologies (Cresswell 2006). Mobility can also be an issue for local political struggles, as
it can draw on the interests of diverse individual identities, such as gender, income, and
neighborhood residence (Law 1999). Henderson (2013) argues that “how we get around”
is an expression of underlying ideological tones, discussed in the “new mobilities”
7
paradigm (Harvey 2008). The “new mobilities” paradigm compels one to understand the
wider ideological assumptions about mobility to determine why decisions involving
mobility are made (Harvey 2008, Henderson 2013). The politics of mobility demonstrates
why space is configured and organized to encourage movement, ultimately determined by
political power (Henderson 2009). Henderson has identified three ideologies of mobility progressive, neoliberal, and conservative (Henderson 2013).
These ideologies are reflected in sustainable transportation during the planning,
design, and execution process. For example, the progressive mobility ideology believes
that urban planning should create social equity (Henderson 2013). Progressives are
concerned about improving mobility for the working and minority class, to alleviate
poverty and end racial injustice (Henderson 2013). However, progressives believe that
improving mobility does not always mean increasing mobility, but to increase
opportunities (such as employment and affordable housing) closer to the populations that
are in need of them (Henderson 2013).
An example of this would be to develop affordable housing closer to popular
transit lines or near a widely connected light rail station and safe bicycle infrastructure
along with providing new employment opportunities to the residents living in that
particular neighborhood. This should not be confused with a community development
mobility strategy, which attempts to help city residents commute to jobs outside the city,
instead of bringing jobs closer to the city (Hughes 1991). The Institute for Transportation
and Development Policy’s TOD Standard certification procedures takes the progressive
mobility into consideration, requiring that lower income groups have shorter commutes to
8
transportation in TOD mixed use development. This could mean incorporating affordable
housing intermingled with other types of housing and commercial establishments.
In contrast, the neoliberal ideology is the commodification of mobility
(Henderson 2013). Neoliberals shape new mobility investments as investments
throughout cities, the underlying logic of smart growth (Henderson 2013 & Ewing et. al
2008). Smart growth is an urban planning and transportation concept that concentrates
compact walkable urban centers to avoid suburban sprawl (Boeing et. al 2014), however
there is scrutiny that smart growth favors for-profit real estate and the use of marketbased pricing of roads and parking (Henderson 2013). Progressives also criticize the
neoliberal perspective as it separates transportation infrastructure as “premium” and
“basic”, where the wealthy can purchase more efficient mobility (i.e. toll highways,
private buses, commuter rails), whereas others may not be able to afford such types of
access (Henderson 2013). For example, the Tacoma Link extension serves to increase
mobility to connect different people to areas with high opportunity, like the downtown
core of the city. Depending on the price to ride the Link after the extension, it may be too
costly to the people who may benefit from the opportunities in the downtown core.
Lastly, the conservative mobility ideology emphasizes personal responsibility
over social responsibility, with the individual being responsible for their own actions
(Henderson 2013). Conservatives believe that the government should accommodate
motor vehicles, and keep fuel prices low to preserve the freedom associated with owning
and driving a car (Henderson 2013). Car ownership is considered a way of life for many,
resulting in a robust car culture in the United States (Urry 2008). An example of
conservative mobility infrastructure would be a built environment for cars and an
9
increase in free parking options, like multiple story parking garages (Henderson 2013).
Conservatives may also lobby for streetside parking to remain intact, specifically if a
large transportation system, like a light rail, will take away that parking option.
Conservatives favor the promises of automobility. Hagman (2006) writes the promises of
automobility as the belief that cars provide instant gratification through speed and the
freedom to go wherever and whenever one wants in their own personal vehicle.
Conservatives are likely to favor this idea of the convenience that a SOV can offer.
Mobility ideologies are important to understand when discussing transportation
infrastructure plans and policy, as they have the ability to shape the type of transportation
infrastructure and TOD implemented. While different environments promote different
forms of mobility, the type of mobility is likely to be determined by decision-makers
willpower (Henderson 2009). A decision-maker may be accepting of a type of
infrastructure due to their ideology, but other existing variables such as cultural, social,
and political practices and institutions in place may sway their verdict (Henderson 2013).
Public transportation systems and TOD success may depend on the ideological
perspectives of the decision-makers and the public’s support of the proposed
development.
It could be argued that North America has begun to shift from a conservative
mobility ideology to a neo-liberalist, and even a progressive mobility ideology in some
cities due to a shift in accessibility planning (Cervero 1996). Accessibility planning
focuses on people and places, and relies on land use change and pedestrian-oriented
designs (Cervero 1996). While much of the United States is still heavily car-dependent
(Newman 2013), many cities are implementing enticing transportation infrastructure
10
draws from the core values of accessibility planning. For example, Portland, Oregon has
exemplified how powerful attractive public transportation can be, evolving a former car
dependent city that is now accessible through light rail, streetcar, and bus systems, along
with TOD that boosts bicycle friendly and walkable streets (Newman 2013). However, it
is critical to examine how transportation infrastructure and TOD are transforming a
neighborhood’s cultural identity and how that will impact long-term residents.
As of the publication of this thesis, there are minimal studies that apply political
mobility ideologies to a case study. Henderson (2009) applies it to a parking debate in
San Francisco, identifying the progressive, neoliberal and conservative players in the
debate. In his research, Henderson (2009) explores the relationship between ideology and
parking. Henderson (2013) clearly defines progressive, neo-liberal, and conservative
ideologies, establishing an informal framework. My research provides an opportunity to
apply Henderson’s mobility ideology framework on a new case study.
LRT: The Social and Environmental Benefits and Constraints
Transportation activists tout the social and environmental benefits that
transportation systems can provide to an urban environment. Despite the benefits that
exist, such as healthier citizens and reduced air pollution, these benefits can create social
and economic implications for residents who have traditionally lived in cities. The three
mobility ideologies are held by stakeholders engulfed throughout this discussion and
debate. Henderson (2009) argues that the politics of mobility is part of systemic global
struggle over a more socially just and ecologically sustainable urban future. Throughout
11
this section, I will discuss the social and environmental benefits of LRT, along with the
constraints that are often debated in mobility and transportation studies literature.
In the context of social benefits, studies show that public transportation systems,
including light rail, lead to an increase in walking and cycling, and decrease commuterelated stress (Edwards 2008 & Legrain 2015). By utilizing modes of alternative
transportation such as walking, biking, or taking transit, stress associated with SOV
commutes can be decreased significantly, as driving was found to be the most stressful
forms of commuting (Legrain 2015). However, if transit is to be less stressful, there must
be adequate frequency, reliability and access for public transportation users (Legrain
2015).
Public transportation can also assist with the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle.
MacDonald (2010) found that the use of LRT to commute to work was associated with a
reduction of body mass index (BMI) and reduced the odds of becoming obese by 81%.
Edwards (2008) found that taking public transit will increase a person’s time walking an
additional average 8.3 minutes a day, encouraging a more active lifestyle. This study also
found that if bicycle access leads to public transportation (i.e. bicycle lanes or paths),
people may be more willing to ride three to five miles to take transit (Edwards 2008).
However, another study found that people will use light rail if the surrounding
community is walkable (Werner 2009). For a community to reap the health benefits
associated with taking LRT, it needs to be accessible by foot and bike. This can be an
incentive for urban planners to design LRT systems that are accessible through
multimodal transportation and built near existing infrastructure and housing. Even more
12
so, it is valuable to have transportation systems that are easily connected to larger
transportation infrastructure, such as a commuter rail or a bus station.
LTR has a greater appeal to the public than other public transportation systems in
place, like bus systems. Scherer (2012) found that surveyed public in Germany preferred
to take light rail over using local bus systems, in a belief that light rail is a more efficient
and timely transportation option than riding the bus. In fact, in a study conducted by Carr
(2008) in Columbus, Ohio, more than 38 percent of the participants said they were “much
more likely” to switch to riding public transportation if there were to be an
implementation of LRT in their city. The perceived benefits of light rail and its public
popularity may encourage policy-makers and developers to implement light rail over
increasing the number of bus lines.
In context of environmental benefits, transportation accounts for 29% of the
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, with CO2 accounting for 95% of the
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (FTA 2010). Transportation has become the fastestgrowing source of GHG emissions, following electricity generation, which is
demonstrated in figure 1 (GHGRP 2012). Chapman (2007) argues that sustainable land
use planning, such as planning for transportation systems and adapting cities to become
more accessible by foot and bike can reduce carbon emissions related to transportation.
However, Hensher (2008) agrees that public transportation can reduce carbon emissions,
but his research shows that it will only reduce emissions by 5%.
LRT systems produce 60% less pounds CO2 per passenger mile than SOV and
28% less than bus transit (FTA 2010). Newman (2013) claims that additional advantages
13
to rail systems include lower per-capita traffic congestion costs, lower per-capita private
passenger transportation energy use, and lower per capita emissions from the
transportation sector. However, critical factors to public transportation’s emission saving
goals are the number of riders per vehicle. For example, the more passengers that are
riding LRT at a time, the lower the emissions will be per passenger mile (FTA 2010).
Regardless of the type of public transportation system implemented, campaigns to
increase ridership may be necessary for the infrastructure to be worth the implementation.
“Ride the Bus” and “Bike to Work” campaigns are often utilized to encourage a change
in commuting habits. There are several other types of social marketing campaigns
implemented world-wide to encourage commuter behavior change, typically boasting
incentives like discounted fares for first time riders.
Following electricity generation, transportation has been the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions in the
United States (1990-2006).Source: Greenhouse gas reporting program 2012 (http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting)
However, there is little throughout the literature on how LRT can regionally
reduce air pollution produced by SOVs. Therefore, while it is important to point out the
environmental benefits that LRT and other sustainable transportation systems proclaim to
have comparatively to SOVs, such as the decrease in overall fossil fuel use and decrease
14
in land use, there still needs to be additional research with how LRT systems can impact
regional air quality.
The FTA and some urban planners have found that public transportation can
encourage TOD. By encouraging in-fill (the rededication of land) in urban areas, TOD
can reduce pressures to convert environmentally sensitive areas (like wetlands) into
residential and commercial development and reduce urban sprawl (FTA 2010).
What is Transit-Oriented Development?
The FTA defines transit-oriented development (TOD) as compact, mixed use
development near transit stations (FTA 2010). The Institute for Transportation and
Development Policy (ITDP) defines TOD as compact, higher density, mixed-use,
walkable development that is centered within a half mile of a transit station. ITDP
includes residential, commercial, retail and recreational space into their definition as
development. The ITDP have developed a list of principles for urban development and
transportation. The principles are:
1. Develop neighborhoods that promote walking.
2. Prioritize non-motorized transport networks.
3. Create dense networks of street and paths.
4. Locate development near high-quality transport.
5. Plan for mixed use.
6. Optimize for density and transit capacity.
7. Create regions with short commutes.
8. Increase mobility by regulating parking and road use.
15
Rail systems, like LRT, can increase the value of nearby land (Dittmar 2004).
Transit agencies and the federal government see large-scale real estate development on
property owned by transit agencies as a way to capture some of the value (Dittmar 2004).
Dittmar (2004) found that there are several benefits to TOD, such as transit ridership
growth, increased investment in transit, smart growth movements, and the public’s ability
to recognize the advantages to linking development and transit (Dittmar 2004). Scholars
credit Portland, OR, San Diego, CA, and Washington D.C. to be successful TOD case
studies (Dittmar 2004 and Newman 2013).
It could be argued that stakeholders with a progressive or neoliberal mobility
ideology would be partial to ITDP’s TOD principles. However, there is criticism that
TOD may not be adequately addressing social equity. Several studies indicate that
housing proximity to LRT systems lead to a higher market value, ranging from 6 to 45%
(Cervero and Duncan, Zuk 2015). This has led gentrification scholars to question if the
benefits of TOD are worth the potential displacement and a transitioning neighborhood
identity. This criticism is a central principle in the progressive mobility ideology.
Progressives believe that transportation systems shouldn’t increase poverty, but rather
relieve difficulties associated with to poverty and generate opportunity for all residents.
On the contrary, neoliberals believe TOD can be an opportunity to increase the market
value of housing and parking.
Costs of TOD
I have defined costs as negative impacts. Despite the FTA’s New Starts Program,
a federal program that rewards TOD projects that are close to existing and future
affordable housing, Zuk (2015) found that affordable TODs are experiencing more rapid
16
gentrification than other neighborhoods. Zuk (2015) ultimately found that transit-rich
neighborhoods are more likely to experience demographic shifts signaling gentrification
pressures. Additional scholarship supports this claim. Moore (2015) found that a largescale TOD condominium illustrated how mass transit can change the social dynamics
within a neighborhood, often creating fragmented communities. Many of Moore’s
interview subjects felt disconnected with their neighborhood after the condominiums had
been built (Moore 2015). Rayle (2015) supports this response, and has found that other
forms of displacement exist other than physical, such as social and psychological, and
can have similarly severe implications as physical displacement. For example, social and
psychological displacement could manifest by witnessing a change in the neighborhood
dynamics, like a shift in the neighborhood’s identity or culture. Social and psychological
displacement could occur by being unfamiliar or unwelcome by new neighbors moving
into the neighborhood.
However, at the time of this publication, I could not find literature that
interviewed stakeholders regarding their perspectives on the benefit of light rail and their
perspective of TOD before a major transportation system was built. This is a significant
gap in the literature, as capturing the stakeholder perspectives pre-installation of a LRT
system can be useful measurement of the degree of change in perspective that occurred
after the Link is installed.
Impacts of Gentrification
Gentrification is a significant cost of TOD. As Howard (2002) defines the term,
“gentrification is the process by which high income households displace low income
17
residents from a neighborhood, changing the essential character and flavor of that
neighborhood.” Simply, gentrification has the capacity to shift a neighborhood’s
demographic due to various social changes, including LRT development (Howard 2002).
Gentrification scholars should not ignore mobility as a potential factor in gentrification,
as “mobility is a potent issue for local political struggles, drawing on the interest of
individuals and variously identified by class, gender, disability, age and neighborhood
residence” (Law, p. 574-575 1999).
Some gentrification supporters argue that gentrification can increase vitality in a
neighborhood, providing more economic opportunity than what had previously existed
(Howard 2002). Many supporters also argue that crime rates lower in conjunction with
gentrification, creating a safer community (Smith and Williams 1986, Moore 2015).
While some benefit from the repercussions, if affordable housing is not increased in a
changing neighborhood, many low-income residents may be faced with increased rent or
a reduction in affordable neighborhood amenities, such as affordable parking, shopping,
or transportation (Howard 2002).
Kennedy and Leonard (2001) have a list of gentrification indicators: higher rental
rates, uncomplicated transportation centers (highways, light rail, etc.), metropolitan areas
constrained by growth, increasing levels of congestion, neighborhoods that have high
level or architectural value with comparably low house values. Every community is
unique, so gentrification indicators may be different. If a community fears they may be
subjected to gentrification, the best time to begin addressing displacement is at the
beginning of revitalization attempts (Rose 2002). During the prevention stage,
community stakeholders should assemble a housing affordability plan, set aside funds for
18
emergency rent relief, and remove discriminatory barriers from renters (Rose 2002).
However, a neighborhood needs to have actively engaged residents and politically
involved stakeholders that support their interests to make that possible.
Another method of reducing the effects of gentrification is following a
community benefits agreement model. A community benefits agreement (CBA) is a
contract for community groups and developers as a way to provide specific amenities or
mitigations to a local neighborhood or community. It is a private agreement between a
community coalition and developer(s). It differs from other agreements as it is between a
developer and multiple community groups with plural interests (Baxamusa 2008). Gross
(2007) argues that a CBA must be inclusive and accountable for the integrity of a CBA to
be meaningful and have impact. There are several key elements to a CBA that make it a
unique agreement. The CBA must focus on a single development project, be legally
enforceable, address a range of community interests, and is the product of community
involvement (Gross 2007). The community benefits movement first began in Los
Angeles, after a successful application of mixed-use development in the late 1990s. Since
then, CBAs have been implemented throughout the country for sensitive projects and
developments that could lead to gentrification and displacement of residents and small
businesses.
However, for a CBA to work, it must be taken seriously by all players. Gross
(2007) found that project proponents, like developers, may use a CBA as a way to fill a
political space in a community-driven CBA, as a way to ease the project approval and
marginalize the opposition. Community groups need leadership development and training
throughout CBA, along with advisors to assist with the creation of a contract. There also
19
is significant work slated after a CBA is complete, like monitoring the project as it is
being developed Gross (2007).
20
Chapter 3 – Methods
I used oral qualitative methods and public observation to answer my research
question. Oral methods are a way for subjects to speak in their own voice and a way for a
researcher to understand individual meanings and experiences to answer a research
question about societal structures (Hay 2010). I asked open-ended interview questions
supplemented by literature produced by Sound Transit, the city of Tacoma, and peerreviewed literature to identify stakeholder perspectives on mobility and TOD, in the
context of the upcoming Tacoma Link expansion. Using qualitative methods through
interviewing stakeholders before a large-scale transportation system expansion is a
critical time to identify how different parties are visualizing potential development
opportunities associated with the light rail installation, but also as a mechanism to
understand how stakeholders’ at large place values on accessibility, multimodal
transportation options, and equitable development.
This study has several research objectives. First, I needed to identify what Hilltop
district stakeholders know about the Link expansion. Second, to understand if certain
stakeholders have differing values and ideological perspectives placed on mobility.
Referring to chapter 2, Henderson (2013) proposed three proposed mobility ideological
perspectives that a person, agency, or organization could hold: progressive, neo-liberal,
or conservative. One of the questions I address in the research is how do different
stakeholders differ in mobility ideology to another? Third, to determine a connection
between certain stakeholders and perceived outcome of the Hilltop District after the
expansion.
I used interviews and participant observation at a public meeting to collect my
21
qualitative data. I conducted semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions and
observed one public meeting on a building proposal of a new apartment complex. This
apartment complex, considered a TOD project by developers, is slated to be built parallel
to the Link extension in the Hilltop district. I initially chose my interview subjects by
reaching out to professional colleagues located in downtown and the Hilltop district of
Tacoma, Washington that are either involved in the Tacoma Link planning process or
have an interest in the expansion. These colleagues include residents of the district and
working professionals. From those initial contacts, I used the snowball sampling
technique to find additional interview subjects. Snowball sampling is a qualitative
methods technique where an interview subject will recommend another interview subject
that may have relevant information to share in an interview. From the list of
recommendations I received, I reached out to as many contacts I could. Contacts that
responded to my request and wanted to be interviewed were then interviewed, unless
there was a scheduling or logistic barrier. I also received several interview subjects from
my e-mail being passed around throughout the community. Some of my interview
subjects reached out to me to be interviewed; however I did not interview all of those
who reached out to me due to time and miscommunication (unresponsive e-mails and/or
phone calls). I responded to the stakeholders who contacted me first. For this research, I
define a stakeholder as someone that has an interest in the Tacoma Link expansion to the
Hilltop district. Stakeholders include Hilltop district residents (renters and homeowners),
business owners, Sound Transit representatives, and representatives of Downtown On the
Go, City of Tacoma’s Healthy Homes, Healthy Neighborhoods initiative, Tacoma
Housing Authority, Hilltop Business Association and Hilltop Action Coalition.
22
The interviews were about thirty minutes to an hour in length. Most of the
interviews were conducted in the Hilltop or Downtown district of Tacoma, WA. The
exact interview location was usually left to the interview subject. Interview locations
ranged from office buildings, coffee shops, and private residences. One interview was
held over the phone due to scheduling constraints for meeting in-person. All of the
interviews were recorded, with the permission of the interview subject.
Every interview subject signed an informed consent form, which is required by
The Evergreen State College for research concerning human behavior and opinion. The
Institutional Review Board approved my human subjects research application on January
13, 2016. Each interview subject was informed of my intent of the research and the
promised confidentiality. I also offered each interview subject to receive a list of
questions in advanced before agreeing to participate. Interview subjects were also
informed through the Human Subject Review’s informed consent form that they could
choose to skip any question without penalty.
My original data consists of interviews with ten stakeholders. I held semistructured interviews. My questions were:
1. Please discuss your involvement or role in the Hilltop District.
2. What is your current knowledge of the Sound Transit Tacoma Link
expansion to the Hilltop District?
3. How have you been involved in the Sound Transit Tacoma Link
expansion planning process? If yes, how have you been involved?
4. What benefits do you perceive of the Link expanding to the Hilltop
District for residents that live in this neighborhood?
5. What drawbacks do you perceive of the Link expanding to the Hilltop
District for residents?
6. Do you believe that the Link expansion and transit-oriented development
will attract new residents to the Hilltop District?
7. Do you believe property values may impacted in the Hilltop District after
the Link expansion?
23
8. Do you believe that there is a concern that residents may become
displaced due to transit-oriented development, such as new housing and
commercial development located near the expanded Link?
9. What is your opinion of possible gentrification occurring in the Hilltop
District?
At the end of the interview, I asked for the stakeholder’s concluding thoughts,
concerns, or questions about the extension to the Hilltop. I also loosely collected
demographic data from my stakeholders. The demographic questions included:
1. Are you a resident of the Hilltop District?
a. Yes
b. No
2. How long have you lived in the Hilltop District?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 -5 years
c. 6 – 10 years
d. 10 – 20 years
e. 20 + years
3. What is your age?
a. 18 – 24
b. 25 – 36
c. 37 – 50
d. 50 – 70
e. 70<
4. What is your highest level of education completed?
a. Some high school
b. High school degree
c. Associate’s degree
d. Bachelor’s degree
e. Graduate or professional degree
f.. Doctorate degree
After transcribing my interviews into written data, I coded my data for recurring
themes and topics. For the transcription process, I used the software, transcribe.me. I used
24
Microsoft Office, specifically Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel to assist with the
coding process. The themes and keywords I coded for were revitalization (or associated
terms), gentrification (or associated terms), mobility ideologies (conservative, neo-liberal,
and progressive), increase access or mobility, benefits of increased property values to
homeowners, loss of community, Tacoma’s need for economic development, race and
class divide, Hilltop’s historic past and disconnect between residents and city officials. I
came up with the initial codes from the literature review, specifically the mobility
ideologies, and inductively from my collected interview data.
25
Chapter 4 – Introduction to Case Study
The city of Tacoma, a port city south of Seattle, Washington, plans to expand
their current light rail/streetcar hybrid system, the Sound Transit Tacoma Link by 2022,
ending the line in the Hilltop District (see Appendix 1.1). Sound Transit plans to extend
the Tacoma Link rail line 2.4 miles through downtown Tacoma. The expansion would
begin in the Theater district, and then extend to the Stadium district and Hilltop District.
Sound Transit’s (2015) goal for this project is to improve mobility and access for Tacoma
residents, employees and visitors throughout the city’s major activity center and
destinations within the city. After receiving the necessary funding, the expansion will
begin construction late 2017 or early 2018 (Sound Transit 2015). As of publication,
Sound Transit has published an environmental evaluation report, has conducted door-todoor outreach and focus groups, and is receiving feedback on platform designs.
According to the City of Tacoma (2014), the Hilltop District is a historically
diverse neighborhood. The district has a population of 12,002. 41% of the residents are
White, 30% are Black or African-American, 12% Asian, Hispanic or Latino 7%, 3%
Native American, and 1% Pacific Islander. 32% of the population is below the poverty
line (Census Data 2010-2014). With the rise of the automobile in the late fifties and early
sixties, suburbs began to emerge outside the city limit and Hilltop businesses began to
decline. Lack of investment in the district led to deteriorating properties and increasing
crime in the 1980’s. Currently, the City of Tacoma (2014) states that several
organizations work in the Hilltop district to provide services for families in need and
work on community improvement projects. For example, the Healthy Homes, Healthy
26
Neighborhoods initiative connects Hilltop residents to local resources that can help them
make their homes and community healthier and sustainable, reducing everyday
household costs (City of Tacoma 2015).
Mobility and access have become important discussions for the Hilltop district.
Geographically, the Hilltop District is separated from the downtown core by a steepgrade hill. This hill has decreased the walking and biking mobility between downtown
and the Hilltop district. According to the City of Tacoma and Pierce Transit, there are
several bus services that connect the Hilltop district and downtown. With the upcoming
Tacoma Link expansion, the City of Tacoma’s new Subarea Plan, and a push for more
housing and business development to fill many vacant properties throughout the district,
the Hilltop district could become an attractive place to reside, with a higher residential
and employment density.
I interviewed ten stakeholders. Four were residents of the Hilltop and six were
involved in the Hilltop district. Of the residents, all had lived in the Hilltop district under
ten years. The other six stakeholders either work in the Hilltop district, have work that
brings them to the Hilltop, or are involved in advocacy or volunteer work in the district.
In terms of age, the majority of the stakeholders fit in the 25 -36 age range (n=4), while
the second highest age category was 50 – 70 age range (n=3). All the stakeholders had
completed higher education degrees, from an associates to a graduate level coursework.
Half of the interviewed stakeholders hold a bachelor’s degree (n=5).
The following section is organized along four main thematic categories: Increased
mobility, changes in the community, gentrification, and policy and politics. Within each
27
category, I highlight key themes that emerged from the interviews. TOD was a popular
talking point amongst the stakeholders, resulting in conversations about property value
increasing in the district, displacement of low-income residents, and gentrification.
First, I asked what type of involvement or interest each stakeholder has in the
Hilltop district. Almost every stakeholder said they are involved in the Hilltop district or
have an interest in the Hilltop district, in the respect that they live there, have friends that
live in the district, work in the district, or their work takes them to the district
occasionally or often. Only one person claimed to have no involvement in the Hilltop
district, other than their involvement with the Tacoma Link expansion to the Hilltop
district.
Next, I asked stakeholders to describe their current knowledge of the Link
expansion. Not all stakeholders were asked this question because some of the
stakeholders had a clear connection to the project (e.g. they are working directly with
Sound Transit on the project). However, interview subjects who were asked about their
involvement seemed highly aware of the Link expansion to the Hilltop. There is some
discrepancy on the timeline of the rail’s completion (some said 2018, 2020, and one
stakeholder doubting the rail’s completion). Most of the individuals interviewed appeared
to be generally aware of the project occurring in the district. All of the stakeholders have
heard about the expansion.
I wanted to identify if and how the stakeholders were involved in the planning
process. Most of the interview subjects have had some participation in the planning
process (n=8). Some were directly involved in the planning and decision-making process,
28
holding positions on advisory boards or committee membership. Others had filled out
online surveys, talked with a canvasser or participated in neighborhood or city council
meetings where community feedback was solicited.
29
Chapter 5 – Results and Discussion
In this chapter, I discuss common trends observed in stakeholder perceptions of
the Tacoma Link extension in the Hilltop District. Overall, despite differences in age,
education level, and residency in the Hilltop, stakeholders had similar perceptions as to
how the Link will increase mobility throughout the Hilltop district. However, the
stakeholders held varying perspectives on gentrification, economic development spurred
by the Link installation, and disconnect between the city of Tacoma, Sound Transit, and
residents. This research demonstrates the perceived social and economic implications of
public transportation infrastructure exist among stakeholders. I discuss themes and
patterns that emerged from the open-ended interviews, which I situate the discussion
within the mobility ideologies framework offered by Henderson (2013). Lastly, I share
the limitations of this research.
Perceived Benefits of Link Expansion
I asked stakeholders to share their perceived benefits of the Tacoma Link
expansion. Six out of ten people mentioned how it will change mobility patterns for
Hilltop residents, specifically commutes to downtown and the greater Puget Sound
region. Many stakeholders brought up the geographical barrier that makes it difficult for
some to access the Hilltop district by foot or bike from the downtown core. The barrier is
a steep grade that goes for several blocks, a difficult walk or bike commute from
downtown to the Hilltop district. Several stakeholders mentioned that the Tacoma Link
will be an alternative way to access the Hilltop.
30
“Well, it would be a nice way to get up the hill! You know, [coming] from
downtown, it is always a kind of a hassle. It is kind of a barrier to people going
downtown.”
-Non-resident, Age 50 - 70
“I’ve talked to a lot of commuters who say that they would love to walk or bike to work,
but they don’t want to do the hill. So we feel like the Link takes the hill out of the
equation. So if you live on the Hilltop and you can just walk six or eight blocks home, it
changes your commute entirely.”
-Non-resident, Age 26 - 35
Others mentioned it will provide connectivity to the larger Puget Sound
transportation system. Many believed the Tacoma Link would provide an additional
connection for residents seeking to travel elsewhere, such as to SeaTac International
Airport or to greater Seattle by bus or the Sounder (a commuter train). For non-residents,
they did not mention if residents or non-residents would utilize the larger system.
“Those on the Hilltop will be able to connect to the Tacoma Dome Station, and
from there you can take the Sounder, you know, to Seattle….So, that will allow people to
take the mid-day train up to Seattle and not have to worry about traffic. Parking
downtown [Seattle] is about $20 bucks a day. You know, what is it gonna be in a few
years? So really, if you look at how we are connecting the Hilltop community with other
transit to me, to me that is the benefit.”
-Non-resident, Age 36 - 50
For residents, many expressed that they would take advantage of the larger system
once they had access to it by the Link.
“The thing I’m most excited about is when it is connected to the bigger system.
And I can walk out my door and go to the airport or go to Seattle.”
-Resident, Age 25 - 36
31
Increased mobility was the strongest theme present in response to this question.
By providing new mobility choices (such as new and/or additional transportation options)
can encourage new behaviors and entice new riders. While it is may be premature to tell,
the Tacoma Link may encourage multi-modal transportation connections to the greater
Seattle area, based off other transportation integration studies (Sharaby and Shiftan
2012). Other themes did arise in reply to this question, like changes in the community.
Other perceived benefits listed were an increase of economic development in the business
district, an increase in property values, and a revitalized neighborhood. These themes
come up frequently throughout the rest of the interviews and are discussed in greater
detail throughout this section. Unearthing the stakeholders’ perceived benefits provides
insight as to what the stakeholders believe they will gain from the Tacoma Link
expansion. It provides some understanding as to what the stakeholders’ value and one
method of determining their potential mobility ideology.
Perceived Drawbacks of the Tacoma Link Expansion
Changes in community and gentrification were prominent categories that
stakeholders elaborated on when they were asked about the perceived drawbacks of the
Tacoma Link expansion. Eight of the ten stakeholders were able to list perceived
drawbacks. One stakeholder did not list any drawbacks, and one stakeholder was
concerned that Sound Transit’s outreach was not far-reaching. The stakeholders that did
express perceived drawbacks mentioned increased property values (specifically
impacting low-income residents and small business owners), reduced parking in the
Hilltop district, construction from the Link expansion, and gentrification as drawbacks to
the Link expansion.
32
“I’m not a long time resident of Hilltop yet, but I think a drawback [is] that [there
will be a] direct increase in property value or speculative increase in property value”
-Resident, age 25 - 36
One stakeholder made the connection that if property values go up, there could be
displacement of low-income residents in the neighborhood as well. This is an indicator of
gentrification occurring in a community (Kennedy and Leonard 2001) if this occurs.
“....And I also see that as property values go up, so will rent. And as rents go up, that’s
going to push out um a number of, a lot, of the low-income families that we have in the
neighborhood, unless we somehow figure out a way to do rent control or something
similar because we’re surrounded here by low income rentals.”
-Resident, age 50 - 70
The perceived drawbacks highlight heavily on how property value increase may
lead to displacement and gentrification in the Hilltop district. This provides greater
understanding to stakeholder concerns with the Tacoma Link expansion. As there were
other drawbacks, such as parking and construction noises, these are arguably short-term
issues. Displacement and gentrification can have lasting effects on an inflicted
community (Kennedy and Leonard 2001). Identifying perceived drawbacks, just like
identifying perceived benefits, gives an understanding as to how the community
perceives losses prompted from the Tacoma Link expansion (such as loss of community
through gentrification or loss of the Hilltop district identity and culture), as well as what
the stakeholders’ value in a community. The stakeholders’ perspectives on gentrification
catalyzed by the Link expansion and TOD are discussed throughout this analysis, but it
was apparent initially that displacement and gentrification weigh heavily as a drawback.
33
Tacoma Link Expansion and TOD Attracting New Residents
Every stakeholder acknowledged that the Hilltop district is changing, or is ripe for
change. While some stakeholders debated whether the Tacoma Link expansion is the
catalyst for change in the district, there is a wide discussion as to how the Hilltop district
will transform over the next five to ten years and how the new development will impact
the community. Changes in the community perceived by the stakeholders were more than
physical development; they perceive cultural changes, displacement, and property values
increasing for residents and business owners.
I asked the stakeholders if they believe that the Tacoma Link expansion to the
Hilltop district will attract new residents to the neighborhood. Several felt that the Link
may be a contributing factor attracting new residents, along with the TOD that will
follow. However, others felt that current amenities or developing properties would attract
new residents. Some mentioned the Medical Mile, in reference to hospitals located in the
Hilltop district that may already be attracting new residents to the Hilltop district. Others
mentioned Seattleites moving to the Hilltop to escape the increasing costs associated with
living in Seattle, Washington. One stakeholder mentioned this demographic shift
occurring in the Hilltop District:
“...Because rent is more affordable, and there are a lot of vacant homes that are
just looking to be occupied and fixed up, and a lot of well to do folks just want to come in
and fix up a house and live in a nice area are coming to the Hilltop. And those people
generally don’t come from low-income backgrounds, they are usually coming from
middle class backgrounds, umm, from the North End, for example, from Seattle, from
34
downtown, those areas.”
-Non-resident, 18 - 24
One stakeholder was hesitant that the Tacoma Link and the following TOD will
immediately attract residents to the Hilltop. After witnessing recent development occur in
the city, like several condos and lofts constructed overlooking the Thea Foss Waterway,
this stakeholder questioned how rapidly Hilltop’s population will increase due to TOD.
“I think it will attract new residents. But, Tacoma’s been using the whole ‘build it and
they will come’ model for a long time, [and] they are just now seeing higher occupancy
down at the condos down at the waterfront, you know?”
-Resident, 25 - 36
Overall, the stakeholders believe that there will be physical changes. Changes
stakeholders listed were the Tacoma Link extension, TOD, and new economic
development opportunities. Many stakeholders believe that these changes occurring in
the Hilltop district are likely to attract more residents, potentially middle and uppermiddle class buyers. Kennedy and Leonard (2001) list this as a secondary indicator for
gentrification, when income levels rise among new residents. Throughout the local
media, there are several stories of Seattlelites choosing to move to Tacoma, as there are
more opportunities to purchase affordable and larger properties (KIRO 7 2015) and
improve the local economy (Driscoll 2015). Driscoll (2015), wrote an opinion piece in
the Tacoma News Tribune discussing the trade-offs of new residents moving to Tacoma,
35
including some lower-income residents being “pushed to the margins,” as affordable
housing options disappear.
Interestingly, one study found that a third of residents moved to TODs for a wide
range of motivations, with a third only moving to TODs because of their proximity to
transit (Lund 2007). However, it is uncertain how rapidly new residents will move to the
Hilltop district and how that will impact property values in the Hilltop. However, it is
worth addressing the speculation brought upon by the press as to why some people are
choosing to move to Tacoma and how that will impact the Hilltop district’s property
values and real estate market.
Property Values Impacted in the Hilltop District after the Link Expansion
There is a general consensus that property values will go up after the Tacoma
Link expansion. However, there are other driving forces in the market. Some
stakeholders believe that property values are currently rising and that this is a common
trend in the Puget Sound region; property values are going up everywhere, not just in the
Hilltop district. Some stakeholders believe that there is a correlation between an increase
in property values and the potential displacement of low-income residents. Change in the
community was a strong talking point among stakeholders, specifically how economic
development will shift the neighborhood’s demographic makeup.
“Well, for people like myself, as homeowners, our property values are most likely
to go up. The downside of that, as our property values go up, so will our taxes. That is
not a problem, you know. I don’t care about that. You have to pay taxes.”
-Resident, Age 50 - 70
36
This particular stakeholder expressed that their taxes will increase. This
stakeholder speculated that the Tacoma Link may impact them financially. In the
literature, Kennedy and Leonard (2001) found fear of property values increasing due to
higher taxes becoming a common concern among long-term residents, but also
“…welcoming a price appreciation due to the increase in financial equity it may bring, ”
(Kennedy and Leonard p. 14 2001). Another stakeholder surmised if demand will
increase for housing in the Hilltop district, potentially impacting the cost of their rent
over the long-term.
“I do wonder if it is part of this bigger wave, you know. I rent, I wonder if it will increase
my rent, um if things will be in more demand that way.”
-Resident, Age 25 - 36
Financial and economic changes were significant themes brought up in response
to this question. It is a valid discussion to address how property values will fluctuate over
the next five to ten years, and also how the property values will impact the cultural
changes and transform the Hilltop’s identity. Referencing the literature, there have been
numerous studies on the proximity to a LRT system and property values, with values
ranging from 6 to 45% (Al-Mosaind 1993, Armstrong 1994, Cervero and Duncan 2006,
Zuk 2015). Because the values range significantly, it is difficult to estimate how the
Tacoma Link extension will increase property values in the Hilltop district. However,
there is speculation by stakeholders that property values will increase enough to have a
noticeable impact on residents and small business owners in the Hilltop district.
Understanding how stakeholders perceived how property values will be impacted by
upcoming development projects provides insight to stakeholder perceptions on economic
implications associated with the Tacoma Link expansion and TOD.
37
Displacement in the Hilltop District
Displacement of low-income and long-term residents is a serious concern for the
stakeholders. Six of the ten stakeholders expressed concerned about displacement
happening throughout the Hilltop district. Some of these stakeholders claimed that
displacement would impact the economic and cultural diversity of the neighborhood. One
stakeholder mentioned that they are currently witnessing displacement, with an example
provided about an elderly neighbor unable to afford living in the Hilltop district any
longer. The stakeholders who seemed concerned about displacement expressed that
displacement may impact low-income residents, residents of color, and the elderly. Lowincome residents becoming displaced is a defining part of gentrification. Kennedy and
Leonard (2001) found that residents who are the most vulnerable to displacement are
renters who do not speak English or lack legal immigration status. Their research also
noted that the elderly are vulnerable of displacement, as 30 percent of low-income
homeowners are elderly.
One stakeholder expressed their fear of living in a neighborhood lacking diversity.
“...I have no interest in living in the neighborhood that is monocultural. It’s one of the
reasons I like living in the Hilltop, that there are young people and old people, and rich
people and not so rich people, you know….I really would draw away from a community
that was monocultural. So, and I, you know, that would be a danger for us, I think.”
-Resident, age 50 - 70
Two stakeholders said displacement is a concern but that it does not have to be
dramatic. Of the two, one stakeholder expressed frustration over the perceived lack of
government outreach to low-income elderly homeowners who qualify for property tax
38
exemptions 1, which the stakeholder claimed many qualified individuals do not know that
this is an option to reduce their tax payments. The same stakeholder also expressed that
mitigation from the City of Tacoma and Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) may be
necessary, but was uncertain if mitigation will be essential (Non-resident, 50 - 70). The
other stakeholder said, “There’s room for improvement without displacement,” (Nonresident, 25-36), hinting that the Hilltop district can withstand new development and an
increase in population density without changing the city’s cultural composition.
Several mentioned the THA having a role in mitigating the displacement in the
Hilltop. Two stakeholders mentioned THA as a solution to displacement, and one
stakeholder mentioned THA’s plans for an affordable housing development with
apartments and live-work spaces at the corner of Martin Luther King Junior Way and
Earnest S. Brazill Street.
“People will be displaced. I wish it wasn’t true. And I think there are people thinking
about this right now. I think that THA is looking into that, and they are putting together a
project in that area, that are mixed income housing. Which I think will make all the
difference.”
-Non-resident, age 25-36
Overall, most stakeholders are concerned of displacement following the Link and
TOD, but some do not believe it will be a serious concern for the community. Some
believe that the city or the THA will assist in alleviating displacement. However, one
1
According to Washington State’s Department of Revenue, the property tax exemption program for senior
citizens and disabled persons are available to taxpayers at 61 years of age or older, retired from
employment due to disability, or veterans of the armed forces of the United States and are currently
receiving compensation for a service-connected disability. Applicants who qualify receive reduction in the
amount of property taxes due and the reduction is based on the applicant’s income, value of residence, and
local levy rates. (WA Department of Revenue 2016)
39
study found that city planners may need to shift their focus to bicycle and pedestrian
accessibility as a way to mitigate displacement and improve the quality of life for lowincome households, as transportation costs are a considerably larger portion of household
budgets among families living in transitioning neighborhoods (Tighe 2016).
Gentrification and the Hilltop District
To begin, the word gentrification has several connotations. Some stakeholders’
body language changed when using the term, appearing to be uncomfortable. One
stakeholder became defensive about the term before we officially began our interview
because of criticism they had received from the community on a development project
they worked on. One stakeholder felt the term was no longer applicable to describe the
Link expansion in the Hilltop district, despite expressing a strong progressive mobility
ideology, as a progressive mobility ideology has a strong characteristic to promote social
equity. There is also considerable confusion among the terms revitalization,
beautification, and gentrification, as they were used interchangeably by many of the
stakeholders. One stakeholder also asked me to provide my definition of gentrification as
a point of clarification.
First, I noticed internal conflict among the stakeholders as to how they perceive
the Hilltop district in the distant future. It was apparent that most (if not all) of the
stakeholders would like to see the Hilltop district be a safe, economically stable,
affordable, and vibrant community. However, many expressed that there is a need to
conserve its cultural and historical identity despite the perceived physical and
40
demographic change that is occurring in the Hilltop. Many stakeholders asked how this
could be a reality.
“...How do we have affordable housing? How do we keep our cultural relevancy?
And how do we keep our neighborhood’s authenticity? And how do we not turn it into
another cookie-cutter, gross condo, and Starbucks bullshit?”
-Resident Age 25 - 36
One stakeholder felt that it is not fair for homeowners to live in a neighborhood
"that looks like Beirut," (Non-resident, age 50 - 70), referring to multiple vacant lots and
blighted buildings in the Hilltop district. The same stakeholder believed that
gentrification challenges are blamed on the developers, when gentrification goes back to
systemic inequities rooted in the community, such as poverty and crime. Another
expressed that while gentrification is not good, a changing neighborhood is. Many
stakeholders grappled with the side-effects of gentrification, such as a loss of community
culture, Hilltop identity, and displacement.
Some expressed apathy; they felt that this is out of their reach or control and that
gentrification is a common trend in communities similar to the Hilltop district. The
stakeholders who conveyed apathy were unsure what they could do as a stakeholder to
alleviate gentrification or who to communicate their concerns with. Gentrification
appeared to be an issue larger than one person could solve. Among the literature, apathy
is a common feeling expressed by those confronting gentrification (Lee 2014 & Nyborg
2008). For example, Lee 2014 found that tenants felt apathetic toward anti-gentrification
movements because of their perceived lack of power.
41
“I think rates are going to go up, and people are going to be pushed out for sure.
I’m not happy about that, but it is just the way it is.”
-Resident, Age 25-36
“...it’s really hard to know as an individual to approach that, if someone is
motivated to speak to their city council or representatives about it, it’s not clear what
they need to ask for to change that picture. I think that it’s not ideal and puzzling for
people who see it but don’t really know what to do.”
-Resident, Age 25 - 36
One stakeholder expressed positivity toward the Tacoma Link expansion in the
Hilltop, but drew on how it could be considered a tool that encourages gentrification,
impacting vulnerable residents the most.
“I wouldn’t think light rail is a cause of gentrification per se, but certainly part of the
process. There’s where I stand on this. I think that this is a total improvement and I think
it’s hopefully positive overall and [a] symbol for positive things and the direction we
need to move with mass transit. But that’s not to say that there aren’t problems for
individuals.”
-Resident, Age 25 - 36
This leads to the question, how do we provide quality mass transportation that
will not harm vulnerable populations? How can stakeholders empower each other to
communicate their concerns to agencies that have power and privilege to create social
equity and sustainability? In conclusion, the stakeholders acknowledge gentrification in
the Hilltop district as a concern, but it evoked feelings of apathy and confusion.
Stakeholders did not provide any plausible methods to reduce or mitigate gentrification in
42
the Hilltop district. There are several case studies citing methods to reduce the effects of
gentrification (Levy et al. 2007). Levy found that the best mitigation strategy for reducing
displacement in a neighborhood is to strengthen the local real estate market by providing
more affordable housing options. For this to be an effective strategy, there must be
available land-use, city government involvement and continual support to local
businesses. However, it would be interesting to follow-up with the stakeholders to see
what kind of solutions they have to curb gentrification’s impact throughout the Hilltop.
Policy and Politics - Disconnect between Agency and Residents
A small number of stakeholders interviewed believed there to be a perceived
disconnect from residents living in the Hilltop district and city officials and Sound
Transit officials. This was not directed as an open-ended question, but a common theme
that accumulated over the course of interviews. Some stakeholders conveyed
apprehension toward the interest and motives of the formal agencies in power. Two
stakeholders discussed the intention of agency and their long-term commitment to the
Hilltop district. One stakeholder said:
“And I mean, it’s a huge investment. There is a lot of money being put in there,
and part of the concern that I hear from the community is that they’ll just put their money
and just walk away and not connect it to the community.” -Non-resident, Age 25 - 36
This fear of disconnect relates to the fear of the loss of Hilltop’s identity changing
due to the type of development invested in the Hilltop district. This stakeholder perceives
that residents are worried that their interests won’t be met, despite agency effort to
provide assistance to the Hilltop district. Another stakeholder acknowledged disconnect
43
between agency and resident interests in the Hilltop district, specifically with the type of
programming applied in the community.
“But just gauging the response, like planning a bike to a business event or like a
Hilltop walk, or like any event in Hilltop where people in positions of power or relative
privilege particularly from the city government, or well-to-do non-profits or businesses,
come in and try to put on this event...it feels very loud, louder than the residents
themselves. So it’s like, you can come enjoy the event or you cannot come, but either way
your need won’t be met or your concerns aren’t going to be met. So there is a real
disconnect between resident concern and desire, and what’s actually being
implemented...I think about some of the programming that we do in the Hilltop, some of
the attempts in that area. And I don’t think any of them have any classist or racist
undertone, or like any malicious intent. But the problem is that the intent rarely lines up
with the impact.”
-Non-resident, Age 18 - 24
This stakeholder acknowledged that despite good intentions from agencies, there
is an apparent disconnect between the needs of residents in the Hilltop and agency
objectives. While the specific programming events are not directly related to the Tacoma
Link expansion, they serve as valid examples of ST and the city of Tacoma not meeting
the perceived needs of Hilltop district residents. This could be explored further by
assessing the outreach efforts of the City of Tacoma and Sound Transit by interviewing a
larger sample of Hilltop residents.
Mobility Ideology Trends Among Stakeholders
Mobility ideologies are important to understand, as they have the ability to shape
44
the type of transportation infrastructure and TOD (Henderson 2013). Their success may
depend on the ideological perspectives of the decision-makers and the public’s support of
the proposed development. After interviewing stakeholders, I wanted to identify their
alignment with mobility ideologies. I also wanted to determine if the stakeholders shared
a common ideological perspective.
After initially coding the stakeholder interviews, I found none publicly embraced
a conservative mobility ideology. None expressed any aversion toward public
transportation systems. However, interviewees may have not felt comfortable sharing
personal opinions on car ownership and parking, especially as public representatives of
an agency or organization that supports public transportation.
I found stakeholders leaned towards a progressive mobility ideology, with some
neoliberal mobility ideology tendencies. Again, a progressive mobility ideology asserts
that urban planning should create social equity (Henderson 2013). Progressives are
concerned about improving mobility for the working and minority class, alleviating
poverty and ending racial injustices. Neoliberal mobility ideology believes mobility is a
commodity. Neoliberals focus on how new mobility investments can foster further
investments throughout the city (Henderson 2013 & Ewing et. al 2008). Many
stakeholders indicated that they support affordable housing, particularly the THA’s
mixed-use TOD that will be along the Tacoma Link extension’s route. Stakeholders also
addressed concern over gentrification in the neighborhood and disconnect between
residents and formal agencies, which could be interpreted as a concern for improving the
livelihood of working class and minority residents living in the Hilltop and the need to
have tools in place to reduce the impact of gentrification and displacement. This captures
45
the progressive mobility ideology based on the discussions of gentrification and
displacement. However, follow-up with the stakeholders would provide further insight
towards their concern for this population of residents in the Hilltop district.
The neoliberal tendencies are prevalent when some stakeholders communicated
their excitement for the additional investment to follow in the Hilltop district after the
Tacoma Link expansion. For example, one stakeholder conveyed excitement about the
prospect of a large coffee retailer in the Hilltop district:
“And wouldn’t it be great if there is a Starbucks on Hilltop? Right? It’s like, you
can hate Starbucks, and I don’t like to go there, but it is an indicator that business is
booming.” -Non-resident, 25 - 36
But, not all stakeholders indicated their excitement for this type of business in the
Hilltop district. Many stakeholders indicated they would like a denser, walkable Hilltop
district. This idea voices the smart growth movement and the favorability of new real
estate (potentially for-profit real estate) to create this type of Hilltop (Henderson 2013 &
Ewing et. al 2008). Again, there would need to be a follow-up interview with the
stakeholders to determine if they favored the smart growth movement and to ask
specifically what type of development they would like to see in the Hilltop district.
Limitations to Research
To keep this project feasible, my sample size of stakeholders was reasonably
small (n=10). A more robust sample size may provide more certainty with patterns
among stakeholders. A robust sample size could have also provided significantly
different results as to what I had found in my research. Future research could include a
46
larger sample size and a more diverse group of stakeholders (in age, education level,
etc.). However, human geographer Iain Hay believes that “there is far more to case
studies than the number of units studied,” (Hay p 85, 2005), arguing that a small sample
size can still provide significant insight to a particular research question.
This analysis may also be limited geographically. It may be important to ask how
the findings from this research relates to other districts in Tacoma, particularly the
Stadium district, as that district will be part of the Tacoma Link expansion; as well as
beyond Tacoma or Washington state. How does this research relate to other
transportation system installation or extension projects in the US? This research could be
expanded to include multiple case study sites to see if there are similarities in perceived
benefits and drawbacks of LRT projects among stakeholders.
47
Chapter 6 – Recommendations for Future Research and Conclusion
My research identified how key stakeholders in the Hilltop district of Tacoma,
Washington perceive the Tacoma Link extension impacting their neighborhood. It
identified how stakeholders perceived mobility, the benefits and downfalls of transitoriented development, and hypothesized how the demographic of the Hilltop district may
change in the upcoming years after the completion of the Hilltop district. Ultimately, my
research demonstrated that there are several perceived social and economic implications
of public transportation infrastructure. It also demonstrated that there is much more to
LRT development than mobility and accessibility, as there are several social and
economic issues connected to the expansion. My research question asked, “How do
diverse stakeholders implicated in Tacoma’s light rail expansion project weigh the
relative benefits and drawbacks of the proposed project, in terms of affordability,
community changes and mobility, and in terms of mobility ideologies?” To answer, my
thesis research found that while the Tacoma Link will encourage and increase regional
mobility for the Hilltop district, the stakeholders perceive several changes to occur
throughout the community, such as property value increase and displacement of
vulnerable residents, resulting in the loss of community culture and identity.
Using the Tacoma Link extension as a case study, I used mobility ideologies as a
framework to understand the direction of development in the Hilltop district. I found that
an overwhelming majority of stakeholders hold a blend of progressive and neo-liberal
mobility ideologies. To move toward a sustainable transportation system, there is a need
to look past the technical and technological aspects of the system, and to identify how it
will be environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable. The environmental
48
benefits of LRT have been mostly conceptualized within a neoliberal paradigm, but there
are stakeholders that push for greater social and economic equity, ultimately indicating
the existence of a progressive mobility ideology. To be a truly sustainable system,
stakeholders must continue to shift away from a neo-liberal mobility ideology and
understand the social and economic implications that exist among mobility, which
include the increase of property values, displacement, and gentrification of a community.
Stakeholders, particularly stakeholders with significant power, should recognize the
potential impacts that the Tacoma Link expansion may have on the Hilltop district, and
plan to mitigate for gentrification or increase affordable housing options in the Hilltop
district.
To conclude this thesis, I share recommendations for future research in mobility
ideologies, gentrification and urban development, along with a policy recommendation
for Hilltop residents and stakeholders to adopt to encourage inclusive community
involvement and sustainable economic development.
Recommendations for Further Research
There are several directions where this research could be advanced. First, I
recommend follow-up interviews with the original stakeholders to identify how their
perspectives have changed on mobility, gentrification and economic development in the
Hilltop after the Link has been extended. This would determine if their perspectives were
swayed by the development’s impact. Another recommendation for further research
would be to interview stakeholders who live and work in the Stadium district, the other
district impacted by the extension. This would be a compelling way to see how the two
49
districts compare in mobility ideologies, perspectives on gentrification, and economic
development. A final recommendation would be to conduct a GIS analysis after the
Tacoma Link extension in the Hilltop to identify how land-use has shifted to new uses
and how land-use has correlates with demographic information of residents. This could
show how new resident needs are influenced by development in the Hilltop district.
Policy Recommendations – Community Benefits Agreement Model
A formal CBA may benefit the Hilltop district in several ways. One, it could
allow multiple community groups to come together and identify how a project like the
Link extension could impact their neighborhood (positive and negatively). It would be
impertinent to create a CBA with local developers planning to build mixed-use TOD
along the route as well. By forming coalitions and creating contracts, the CBA can be
tailored for the community to identify what benefits they would like out this project.
Examples of benefits include job training programs, living wages, green building
requirements, local hiring goals, and minority business contracting goals.
In conclusion, the Hilltop district may benefit from a CBA as their neighborhood
quickly develops. There are several aspects to development that the stakeholders I
interviewed have control over (like increase property values), but there are existing
frameworks like the CBA model that can potentially mitigate side-effects, such as
displacement and gentrification.
50
References
AASHTO (2013). Commuting in America 2013. The National Report on Commuting
Patterns and Trends. American Association of State Highways and Transportation
Officials.
Al-Mosaind, M. A., Dueker, K. J., & Strathman, J. G. (1993). Light-rail transit stations
and property values: a hedonic price approach (No. 1400)
Armstrong Jr, R. J. (1994). Impacts of commuter rail service as reflected in single-family
residential property values. Transportation Research Record, (1466).
Baxamusa, M. (2008). Empowering Communities through Deliberation. Journal of
Planning Education and Research 27:261-276
Boeing et al (2014). LEED-ND and Livability Revisited. Berkley Planning Journal, 27(1)
Carr, K (2008). Qualitative Research to Assess Interest in Public Transportation for Work
Commute. Journal of Public Transportation, 11(1)
Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. (2006). 'Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing
Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing?. Journal of the American planning
association, 72(4), 475-490.
Creswell, T. (2006). On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. New York:
Routledge.
Dittmar, H., & Ohland, G. (2004). The new transit town: best practices in transit-oriented
development. Island Press.
Driscoll, M. (2015). You’ll like Tacoma, and hopefully one day you’ll work here, too.
The News Tribune. http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/news-columnsblogs/matt-driscoll/article26287747.html
Edwards, R. D. (2008). Public transit, obesity, and medical costs: assessing the
magnitudes. Preventive Medicine, 46(1), 14-21.
Ewing et al (2008) Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate
Change. Urban Land Institute
Federal Transit Administration (2010). Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to
Climate Change. U.S. Department of Transportation.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateCh
ange2010.pdf
Frank, L. D., Andresen, M. A., & Schmid, T. L. (2004). Obesity relationships with
community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American journal of
preventive medicine, 27(2), 87-96.
51
Gross, J., LeRoy, G., & Janis-Aparicio, M. (2002). Community benefits agreements:
Making development projects accountable. Good Jobs First.
Hagman, 0. (2006) Morning queues and parking problems. On the broken promises of the
automobile. Motilities 1(1):1-22
Hay, I. (2010). Qualitative research methods in human geography. South Melbourne,
Vic.: Oxford University Press.
Henderson, J. (2013). Street fight: the politics of mobility in San Francisco.
Howard, M (2002). Light Rail Transit and Gentrification in Portland, OR: A GIS Based
Analysis Using Census Indicators. University of Oregon.
Hughes, M. (1991). Employment decentralization and accessibility: A strategy for
stimulating regional mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57, 288–
298
Kennedy, M & Leonard, P (2001). Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on
Gentrification and Policy Choices. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy. www.policylink.org
KIRO 7 (2015). New housing trend has Seattleites moving to Tacoma. KIRO 7. Video.
Lee, S. Y. (2014). Urban Redevelopment, Displacement and Anti-Gentrification
Movements. 대한지리학회지, 49(2), 299-309.
Legrain, A., Eluru, N., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2015). Am stressed, must travel: The
relationship between mode choice and commuting stress. Transportation research part F:
traffic psychology and behaviour, 34, 141-151.
Levy, D. K., Comey, J., & Padilla, S. (2007). In the face of gentrification: Case studies of
local efforts to mitigate displacement. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community
Development Law, 238-315.
Litman, T (2011). Measuring Transportation. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Lund, H. (2006). Reasons for living in a transit-oriented development, and associated
transit use. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3), 357-366.
MacDonald, JM. (2010). The effect of light rail transit on body mass index and physical
activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 39(2): 105 – 12.
Martens, K (2006). Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Social Justice. Berkeley
Planning Journal, Vol. 19
Moore, R. (2015). Gentrification and displacement: The impacts of mass transit in
Bangkok. Urban Policy and Research. 1-18.
52
P. Newman, J. Kenworthy and G. Glazebrook, "Peak Car Use and the Rise of Global
Rail: Why This Is Happening and What It Means for Large and Small Cities," Journal of
Transportation Technologies, Vol. 3 No. 4, 2013, pp. 272-287
Nyborg, A. M. (2008). Gentrified barrio: Gentrification and the Latino community in San
Francisco's Mission District. ProQuest.
Rayle, L. (2015). Investigating the Connection Between Transit-Oriented Development
and Displacement: Four Hypotheses. Housing Policy Debate, 25:3, 531-548.
Rose (2002) Combating Gentrification Through Equitable Development. Race, Poverty
and the Environment
Sharaby, N., & Shiftan, Y. (2012). The impact of fare integration on travel
behavior and transit ridership. Transport Policy, 21, 63-70.
Sound Transit (2015). Tacoma Link Expansion Evaluation. U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Tighe, J. R., & Ganning, J. P. (2016). Do shrinking cities allow redevelopment without
displacement? An analysis of affordability based on housing and transportation costs for
redeveloping, declining, and stable Neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate, 1-16.
Werner, C. & Brown, B (2009) Light rail use is more likely on “walkable” blocks:
Further support for using micro-level environmental audit measures. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 206 – 214
Zuk, M (2015). Is Transit-Oriented Development Offering Access to Opportunity?
Poverty & Race Research Action Council. Vol 24 No 3.
53
Appendix
Sound Transit (2015). Sound Transit Expansion Folio.
http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/projectdocuments/20150709_TLinkEXP_Folio_0.pdf
Appendix (1.1) This map displays the Tacoma Link rail line. The black line represents
the current route. The blue line represents the proposed expansion line.
54
55
