April 23, 2008
  

Central Puget Sound Growth Management: Goals Versus Reality

Matt Rosenberg

The gulf between plans for regional urban density and the reality of dreaded "sprawl" is widening in Central Puget Sound, writes former Washington State Secretary of Transportation Doug MacDonald in Crosscut today. The Puget Sound Regional Council is poised tomorrow to approve Vision 2040, its updated growth plan. It predicts another 1.7 million people (the size of metro Portland, Oregon) will move to our four counties between 2000 and 2040. To protect the environment and limit traffic congestion, the elected officials and staff of PSRC propose ways to funnel most new residents to the close-in "metropolitan cities" of Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma and Bremerton, plus 14 adjacent "core cities" such as Auburn, Redmond, Federal Way, Lakewood, Tukwila and unincorporated Silverdale.

But things aren't working out as planned. MacDonald comprehensively reviewed 2000-2007 population growth data for the region on a city-by-city basis, and found far more newcomers than hoped for are moving to our region's edges rather than its core, and that compared to the 1990s, the first- and second-ring target cities are now drawing a smaller percentage of population growth. If the trend continues, so will pressure on our natural lands, habitat, water and air quality. And traffic, already a huge concern, will worsen.

MacDonald reports that while Vision 2040 calls for 32 percent of Puget Sound newcomers to reside in the first-ring "metropolitan cities," only 13 percent complied from 2000 to 2007. The second-ring "core cities" were supposed to draw 21 percent of the newbies but again, only 13 percent complied. In the 90s, the same 19 cities drew 18 percent of the newcomers, so the 13 percent figure infers we're backsliding on density, according to MacDonald.

Where exactly are people settling in now, in greater numbers than planners would like? Mostly at the edges of the region, where housing prices are decidedly lower; places like Monroe, Arlington, Marysville, Dupont and Bonney Lake. (Those last two are respectively south and southeast off the regional map above, left). And in towns such as Sammamish, Duvall and Mill Creek, which while not cheap by any means, are at least more affordable than pricey Seattle and Bellevue.

As a metropolitan and regional transportation planning agency the PSRC by federal mandate must try to lay out goals and suggest strategies for managing growth. Vision 2040 is an ambitious plan with a bar set appropriately high. But the PSRC has never had decision-making authority. That's left to state, county and local lawmakers, and the swirling profusion of councils, boards and agencies overseeing transportation, growth management and economic development.

To abate the worrisome trend he sees, MacDonald prescribes development of beefier policies for affordable housing, better public schools and better bus transit in popular corridors. He also highlights the PSRC's own suggestion for unfied regional governance on Puget Sound water quality improvements, thus unavoidably also calling the obervant reader's attention to his own vocal role in advocating regional governance for roads and transit.

But no matter what exhortations and incentives are offered, high costs for single-family homes and the proliferation of family-unfriendly apartments and condominiums in first-ring Puget Sound cities - plus rapid urbanization in the second ring - will continue to drive many newcomers to the region's outskirts. Right now, that means longer commutes, more greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and more traffic congestion. Not exactly a recipe for environmental quality and sustainability.

Regional governance on transportation remains a hot-button issue in Puget Sound. Some zealous commentators see the idea as a nefarious plot by business and Republican interests to torpedo light rail. This is as foolish as the belief that any one transit mode provides the silver bullet to slay traffic congestion. Regional transportation governance has been recommended by two successive state blue-ribbon panels under two Democratic governors (most recently here) and all but endorsed in a recent state performance audit under a Democratic state auditor. Democratic-sponsored legislation for regional transportation governance passed the Democratic-majority state senate last year before stalling in the state house.

True, regional transportation decision-making doesn't by itself guarantee enactment of the right solutions to traffic congestion. But an elected regional transportation decision-making board would provide a crucial framework for coordinated, decisive actions to ration our limited peak-hour road capacity, to fully fund crucial road safety projects, to pay for operations and maintenance, to grow transit, and to incent other alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. These are just the kind of on-the-ground approaches needed to tame snarled traffic as newcomers keep arriving, and the outward expansion of the region documented by MacDonald continues.

Whether regional transportation governance flies or not, elected officials will need to muster a lot of political courage to address growth's effects on mobility. Puget Sound needs to expand time-variable highway tolling, plus form financial partnerships with union pension funds and developers, deploy more new commuter rail service, and create more robust incentives for paratransit and telecommuting. Suburban park-and-ride lots need to be developed into future-facing hubs with robust intermodal connections and re-charging stations for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

As in all other regions our size or larger, the tab for must-have transportation capital projects runs well into the billions, to which must be added ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Just as the solutions are multiple, so are the ways we'll pay: time, money, and adaptation. We're seeing that many newcomers to the region would rather adapt their travel habits and costs to less central, less clustered and less expensive homes. Policy-makers, while still encouraging density, need to understand that countervailing tendency, and more fully address its implications for regional mobility.

TECHNORATI TAGS:

Comments

Interesting, but certainly not surprising given that housing has doubled in this decade and income hasn't kept up with inflation.

To me this strongly supports the BNSF TRailway being converted to a commuter rail line. It is the most cost effective and direct transportation system available and can be created in months rather than years to accomodate the inevitable growth of rural King and Snohomish counties.

This closing line in Matt's essay above expresses the regional conventional wisdom: "Policy-makers, while still encouraging density, need to understand that countervailing tendency [toward less density], and more fully address its implications for regional mobility."

Instead of "encouraging density," an alternative public policy worthy of consideration is government protection through ownership and regulation of no-build zones, including present and future parks, national and state forests, greenspace, wildlife corridors, escarpments, wetlands, shorelines, riverbanks, utility corridors and abandoned RR rights-of-way, etc.

Then let the marketplace, private covenants, and local politics set the density on what land remains, as influenced by the dominant transportation network --increasingly intelligent (telematics-enabled) and energy-efficient cars, trucks, and buses on increasingly intelligent and (soon, necessarily) price-managed roads.

A few passenger ferries, street trollies, and DMU trains are nice amenities that won't change the mobility pattern very much. The non-motorized segments of mobility (cycling and walking) could double, but the overall picture still doesn't change enough to matter. Cars, trucks, and buses do the heavy lifting in regional movement, now and in the future.

Instead, we have PSRC's crumbling Vision 2020, and now Vision 2040, analyzed by Doug MacDonald using PSRC's numbers to be tanking.

Instead, we have the spectacle next Wednesday at the Reality Check exercise (http://seattle.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Reality_Check4) of invited community elites ("250 regional political, business, development, community, and environmental leaders") moving plastic blocks and yarn on a map to reach a collective vision of where jobs and housing should be densely located three decades from now. Think about that!

The exercise is I'm sure intended to bolster the case for an unaffordable urban (mostly light!) rail system (blue yarn) that would meet about one percent of daily trip demand if it were ever actually to be built.

But desperate times demand desperate action. The resulting pattern of blocks and yarn will be fed into a computer to be analyzed for costs and benefits. Maybe the results will be better than what has been churned out by professionals in Vision 2020, Destination 2030, Vision 2040, and Sound Transit's Long Range Plan, and implemented as what you see around you.

Matt,

Thanks so much for this update on the PSRC! I plan to pass on this info in my monthly real estate newsletter.

My wife and I have been a part of the trend of population moving to the fringes, by purchasing investment property in Puyallup. We live in Woodinville. Also, I routinely recommend to my investor clients to "go to Puyallup young man!" to purchase affordable investment property. I have found that southend real estate appreciates as fast as Seattle/Bellevue real estate, yet costs 20% less, and rents for almost the same as Seattle/Bellevue!

Post a comment

(We welcome your comments; they are screened for tone. See comment policy & tips for more information.)

Contributors
Western Media
Blogs
(The views therein do not necessarily reflect those of Cascadia Center)
National Media
Resources
CATEGORIES
ARCHIVES
SEARCH