P u g e t S o u n d R e g i o n
Final Report designed by Mithun.
Executive Summary
Change is coming to the central Puget Sound region. On April 30, 2008, the groundbreaking ULI Reality Check event at the University of Washington challenged participants to accommodate 1.7 million new residents and 1.2 million new jobs in the region by 2040. This is a population increase equivalent to the Portland metropolitan area.
An unusual collaboration
An uncommon alliance of ULI Seattle District Council, Puget Sound Regional Council, UW College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Enterprise Community Partners, Cascade Land Conservancy, Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, Futurewise, and the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties—organizations that have often sat on opposite sides of the table when it comes to growth issues—have set aside differences, raised awareness through the Reality Check event, and committed to breaking down barriers to achieving quality growth in the region. They have formed the Quality Growth Alliance: A Framework for Sound Action to:
Raise greater awareness of land use, transportation and
—
climate change
Provide expertise to key communities
—
Research compact development policy and
—
best practices
Highlight regional successes
—
The Reality Check visioning exercise was an extraordinary
opportunity for key business, political, community, and
non-profit leaders from King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap
Counties to pause for a day, think big and decide how the
region can best grow and thrive over the next 30 years.
2
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
2ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
There are two very special characteristics of the Puget Sound region. One, it’s just beautiful. It’s absolutely beautiful, and we all have a responsibility to maintain that beauty. Number two, the economic engine in the Puget Sound Region is truly extraordinary. We’ve outpaced job growth for 30 years over national averages. So we can have both. We can have prosperity and we can have beauty, but we can’t keep them both without planning effectively.
PATRIck cAllAhAN,
— REALITy CHECK CO-CHAIR, CEO OF URBAN RENAISSANCE GROUP
New era of climate change: the land use and transportation equation
This event made history. A broad sample of private, public, and non-profit leaders gathered to make land use decisions using a unique, tactile exercise developed the Urban Land Institute. For the first time among such visioning exercises, growth patterns and transportation were connected to climate change in real time.
As a recognized environmental front runner, Washington State was one of the first in the U.S. to establish a growth management law (the Growth Management Act of 1990). But that does not mean the goals of the law have been fully realized. Growth is occurring in dispersed patterns in the region’s counties, and many local roads are beyond capacity.
Fossil fuel use in low-occupancy vehicles is the single leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in our region. Among all the regional development patterns that emerged at Reality Check, the most compact scenario reduced carbon emissions by 23 percent. yet barriers to this kind of growth, which would leverage public investments in transportation and help to secure a more stable climate, hold us back. Reality Check organizers turned a spotlight toward this reality and participants sounded a call to action and demanded effective leadership.
Diverse leaders across the region found agreement
The participants in the visioning exercise reached consensus on several collective principles that should guide our region:
Create
— walkable, compact, complete urban centers
Invest in
— transportation and infrastructure
Protect and preserve the
—
natural environment
Balance
— housing with jobs
Create a variety of
— housing options for all
Stimulate
— economic development
Support the Washington State
— Growth
Management Act goals
Create more
— transit-oriented development
When polled, participants said that the most
critical barriers to achieving quality growth are: 1)
increased funding to create more transportation
and infrastructure capacity, 2) coordinated,
cooperative regional leadership, 3) increased
Photos: Todd Bronk, EDAW
housing supply for all income levels near jobs, and 4) reduced public resistance to compact development.
call to action
Participants placed new population and jobs within urban growth areas, consistent with the Growth Management Act. To ensure our region thrives, participants recommended focus on the following:
Place the majority of
— jobs and housing
within urban and regional employment centers, leveraging existing infrastructure
Make additional
— infrastructure investments, most specifically in transit in such a way as to connect the regional centers effectively Locate considerable
— growth along
transportation corridors, connecting jobs and housing with transit
Create
— great places in which to live, work and play
Despite the strong support that emerged at Reality Check for growth management goals, compact development and transportation choices—
including mass transit—a substantial part of our
region’s development has not achieved growth
management goals. In the era of climate change
and increasingly costly energy resources, regional
leaders from all walks of life resoundingly agreed
to move away from our old assumptions and
instead embrace innovative land use practices
and make needed investments as we prepare for
growth. The Quality Growth Alliance is committed
to leading collaborative efforts to break down the
barriers we face.
4
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
The Quality
Growth Alliance
Executive Summary ... 1
Background... 7
The Game ... 15
Specific Results ... 21
Findings ... 39
Next Steps ... 47
Reality Check and the Quality Growth Alliance Partners ... 52
Reality Check Participants ... 54
Volunteers ... 62
Recognition ... 64
Sponsors ... 65
Regional Resources ... 66
Contact Us ... 67
Table of
Contents
6 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Background
We employ 36,000 people, and we move 60,000 to and from our campus every day.
I want our employees to live reasonably close, with access to affordable housing, good transportation, and a strong education. We want this area to continue to be at a competitive advantage.
MARk EMMERT,
— PRESIDENT,
UNIVERSITy OF WASHINGTON
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
4,000,000
Population 5,000,000
2030
2020 2040
Employment
Population Forecast
Employment Forecast
Source: PSRC
Historic and Forecast Jobs & Population Growth in Central Puget Sound Region - 2006
The central Puget Sound region continues to be one of the most rapidly urbanizing areas in the nation, with a present population of 3.2 million and 1.7 million more expected to arrive by 2040. With a reputation for enviable scenery and recreational opportunities, the region is also an economic powerhouse, home to modern corporate engines like Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Nordstrom, REI, and institutional giants such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Institute.
But in recent decades, the growth of the region has been on a collision course with the desirable lifestyle that continues to fuel it. Traffic, the rising cost of fuel, and the cost of housing are issues that increasingly affect daily lives and pocketbooks. There are many problems, including threats to air quality, declines in the health of fish and watersheds, and ongoing clearing of forests for development that threaten the natural beauty and healthy air we all take for granted.
Perhaps none of these is more important or urgent than the
impact of overall energy consumption, greenhouse gases
and climate change.
These concerns, which threaten the health of the region and even the globe, cannot be solved on a city-by- city basis. They can only be addressed through regional cooperation and a systemic approach that includes the entire area.
Reality Check brought leaders from all over the four-county central Puget Sound area together in one room, where they could see the region, its growth projections, and land use patterns as a whole. They created visions together, but they were not building from the ground up. They worked with existing plans for the future, testing them, and considering
them while deciding how we could accommodate even more growth.
climate change
One key feature distinguishes the Puget Sound Reality Check from similar events around the nation. It dealt with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, not only as a fundamental issue in planning for growth, but as an environmental impact that is a direct result of specific land-use decisions.
There is now overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere due to human activities are contributing
Interstate 5 runs into the flooded Chehalis River at Centralia, Washington, Tuesday, December 4, 2007.
Drenching rain and howling winds that downed trees, cut electricity and caused widespread flooding left two people dead and closed Interstate 5, the main north- south highway in Western Washington. Governor Christine Gregoire declared a state of emergency following the third in a series of storms.
Photo: WSDOT / Jim Walker
Investing in ourselves ensures the region’s future prosperity, drawing people and business here.
Without making those investments, the potential to stall the economic engine becomes quite real.
TONy STEWART,
— VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, McKINSTRy COMPANy, BOARD PRESIDENT OF NAIOP, REALITy CHECK PARTNER
to global warming, with potentially catastrophic consequences. In the Pacific Northwest, the signs are clear.
Warmer temperatures are shifting the runoff cycle, with more precipitation falling as rain and less snow in reserve for delayed runoff and a reliable water supply. Municipalities, responsible for ensuring that adequate water is available prior to growth, must respond. At worst, lack of water can shut down development, with no permits issued.
In 2007, both the Governor and the Washington State legislature took action to address climate change, establishing greenhouse gas reductions of 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. To achieve the international Kyoto Protocol-related goal of keeping temperature increases to under three degrees Celsius, there is substantial consensus that it will be necessary to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The primary greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO
2). Greater fuel efficiency can help to reduce CO
2emissions. But this cannot achieve a net reduction if total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) keeps increasing. National research indicates that population growth has been responsible for only a quarter
of the increase in vehicle miles driven over the last couple of decades. Three quarters of the increase are the direct results of dispersed development and separated land uses, producing the need for more trips to meet basic needs, such as a trip to the grocery store or to a kid’s soccer game.
Rapid expansion has consumed land at almost three times the rate of population growth, and caused CO
2emissions from cars to rise, even as it has reduced the amount of forest land available to absorb CO
2.
The weight of evidence shows that, with more compact development, people drive 20 to 40 percent less, at a minimal or reduced cost, while reaping other fiscal and health benefits. A comprehensive study conducted in King County showed that residents of the most walkable neighborhoods drive 26 percent fewer miles per day than those living in the most sprawling areas.
First steps for the environment
There are encouraging signs in the central Puget Sound area. While vehicle miles traveled are increasing with population, per capita mileage is decreasing, according to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). This is an indication that neighborhood
(Back then) everything was pretty doggone simple. Gas was pretty cheap...if you had a traffic problem….well, just build a new road.
chRISTINE GREGOIRE,
— GOVERNOR, STATE OF WASHINGTON
10
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
activity is increasing as regional planners guide denser development to urban areas and urban growth centers. However, unless patterns of low-density development change, the 1.7 million additional residents expected in the area by 2040 cannot be accommodated.
The central Puget Sound Reality Check builds upon a generation of environmental leadership that has already taken some important steps toward protecting the regional environment.
The state took a major step in 1971 with the passage of the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), followed by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), both aimed at preventing harm from environmental consequences of development.
In 1990, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) set the framework for growth management, mandating urban growth areas and comprehensive plans for all counties growing appreciably in population.
In addition to overall protection of the environment, the goals of the act include increased affordable housing, multi-modal transportation systems, open space, and historic preservation.
Under the GMA, by the mid-1990s cities and counties in the central Puget Over the last couple of decades we have made remarkable progress in coming together to think as one region. We have powerful tools to achieve our growth management, environmental, economic, and transportation goals. But it will take a lot of hard work and committed leadership at all levels—
public and private—to make it happen.
BOB DREWEl,
— ExECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL, REALITy CHECK PARTNER
Source: 2020 Emissions - Puget Sound Clean Air Agency; emissions extrapolated to 2050
1990 10
0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
2008
1995 2035 2040 2045 2050
Central Puget Sound Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
Million Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent (MMtCO2e)
Projected Emissions Historic Emissions
Business as Usual
State Reduction Targets
Transportation
Buildings and Facilities
Electricity Agriculture, Forestry, and Solid Waste
Greenhouse gases are
produced from a variety
of sources, ranging from
agriculture to transportation. It
will take reductions in all areas
to meet state targets.
Sound region had set population and employment growth targets, adopted comprehensive plans, development regulations, and defined boundaries for urban growth areas. To coordinate growth management planning, in 1995 PSRC adopted VISION 2020, a long-range growth, transportation, and economic strategy for the region.
There are 82 cities incorporated within the four-county central Puget Sound region. Of these, there are 5 metropolitan cities (Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma and Bremerton) and 13 core cities, our most developed urban centers.
PSRC updated and expanded the strategy in the VISION 2040, adopted April of 2008, providing more extensive regional guidance and policies.
VISION 2040 built on previous regional planning efforts that focused on providing better access to jobs, housing and services connected to transit. VISION 2040 calls for 53% of the region’s growth to take place in urban centers linked with mass transit, and accommodated in little over three percent of the region’s urban land area.
There is progress being made toward existing growth management and transportation goals. Bus rapid transit has been making strides in all four
We’re worried about growth and we see a lot of change coming. So far not in Sumner, but around us there is a lot of sprawl. We see farmlands that we’ve preserved and yet we see lots of houses coming in, and all that traffic drains through those farmlands, and it threatens them.
DAvID ENSlOW,
— MAyOR, CITy OF SUMNER
Source: PSRC
Share of Permitted New Housing Units in Urban Growth Area by County
4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
King: 94.9% average Snohomish: 83.5% average Pierce: 72.7% average
Kitsap: 50.2% average
Since the adoption of the
Growth Management Act,
most central Puget Sound
counties have made progress
in concentrating more new
housing development in
12
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Even as traffic reaches extraordinary and costly levels, urbanization has reached an intensity that makes building new roads and highway lanes practically and politically infeasible.
At the same time, there is growing support at all levels of governance for an integrated transportation network that includes rail and bus rapid transit, accommodates private vehicular traffic, increases the overall role of bicycling and walking, and gives people transportation options.
As many as 10,000 acres of forest land in the Puget Sound area is cleared every year for new development, according to the Cascade Land Conservancy, with concurrent loss of streambed integrity and natural systems for slowing and filtering runoff.
The health of Puget Sound hangs in the balance, and although billions of dollars are committed to restoration, cleanup efforts cannot keep up with the degradation of natural systems resulting from sprawling development.
When it came before voters in 2007, Proposition 1 represented a joint effort by a Regional Transportation Investment District and Sound Transit to fund a mixed package of long-term transportation spending proposals for the central Puget Sound region.
Transportation, open space, affordable housing, climate change—all those things really boil down to land use. It’s the common thread.
GREG JOhNSON,
— PRESIDENT, WRIGHT RUNSTAD & COMPANy, ULI SEATTLE CHAIR, REALITy CHECK PARTNER
counties. Sound Transit is operating commuter rail from Everett to Tacoma, and is also on schedule building the first links in the region’s light rail system, due to begin operation in 2009. Compact, mixed-use urban neighborhoods—with open space and shopping within walking distance—are proving to be very popular living choices for residents of every age.
high cost of sprawl
However, the Seattle metropolitan area
tops the nation in the gap between
identified need in transportation
projects and funding to meet those
needs, according to a ULI-sponsored
study released in 2008. And Seattle
area traffic is the ninth worst in the
U.S., right behind Boston, according to
a 2008 study by Kirkland-based Inrix.
The defeat of Proposition 1 exposed fractures in the political landscape and left the challenge of major funding decisions for another year. It clearly demonstrated a lack of consensus.
One of the greatest challenges of growth is to bring affordable housing into cities, where most of the jobs are.
There are complex causes for rising land prices, including demand by residents. New jobs and an influx of new residents in urban neighborhoods are affirmations of good planning and design decisions.
But as values rise, people in moderate to low income brackets—and even median income and above—are being priced out. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development, in 2007 a typical family of four in Seattle had enough income to qualify for a house priced at $280,000, while the median price for houses was about $450,000.
Affordable housing options for a broad variety of income levels are needed.
Innovative solutions are critical to successfully achieving the region’s quality growth vision.
The progress that has already been made for protecting the environment of the central Puget Sound shows that
To meet the region’s long-term need for housing and environmental responsibility, we must ensure that our essential workforce has innovative and affordable housing choices near where they work.
SAM ANDERSON,
— PRESIDENT, MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF KING AND SNOHOMISH COUNTIES, REALITy CHECK PARTNER
30% 28%
37%
30%
27%
38%
25% 26%
45%
<20.0% 20.0 - 29.9% 30.0+%
55%
27%
18% 44%
28% 27%
40%
27%
33%
<20.0% 20.0 - 29.9% 30.0+%
1989 1999 2005 1989 1999 2005
Renters Owners
54.9% 48.8% 41.8%
16.7% 23.9% 24.3%
20.9%24.8%22.3%
7.7%9.2% 4.9%
1980–1989 1990–1999 2000–2006
Snohomish County
King County
Pierce County Kitsap
County
County Share of Net Permitted Housing Units by Date Range
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 King
Kitsap Pierce Snohomish
Source: Census, ACS
Source: Census, ACS
Single-Family Median Home Price
Source: Census, ACS
Households by Percent Gross Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs: 1989, 1999, 2005
Single-family median home prices in the region have increased substantially since 1995.
generations with the costs of rapidly increasing energy consumption, chaotic development and a degraded and unhealthy environment.
But population growth is expected
to continue at a rapid rate. The
central Puget Sound Reality Check
represented an opportunity for a large
and diverse group of government,
business and community leaders to
take a hard look at what that means
for the region, at how that growth
might be channeled so that the
lives of every resident of the region
improve. Regional economic health
and sustainable development truly go
14 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
The Game
Every day we come to work and mark our time hour by hour, day by day, week by week. This is a time to step back and mark it decade by decade, to confront reality as we know it, as we can truly predict it, and adjust for it.
Too often we let it happen to us. This is our chance to take control of reality.
EMORy ThOMAS,
—
PUBLISHER, PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL
The central Puget Sound Reality Check was a unique event that brought together a large and diverse set of political, business and community leaders to envision the future of their region. In so doing, they worked with the best and most recent information available about population growth as well as existing transportation and land use resources.
They decided on guiding principles, placed LEGO blocks representing growth on a board, and listed barriers to their vision along with solutions.
More than 1,600 individuals were nominated as participants -- 250 were selected and participated at the Puget Sound Reality Check. Participants included leaders from large corporations, small businesses, developers, elected officials, conservationists, and civic leaders. At the Reality Check event, each of the 250 invited participants was assigned to one of 30 tables. Each table had representatives from a wide variety of backgrounds along with a trained facilitator and recorder supporting each table’s deliberation. Together, they were charged with plotting where future growth through 2040 should go, deciding where to place population, jobs, and the transportation infrastructure to connect them.
The “game board” was a large-format map of the central
Puget Sound region showing towns and cities, major road
and transit corridors, existing jobs and population, protected
areas, and urban growth boundaries. The map was gridded,
with each cell equaling a half mile square (320 acres). Each
table’s game pieces included a set of colored LEGOs used to
allocate projected densities and two colors of yarn to identify
transit and road corridors. Residential and employment
densities increase as LEGOs are stacked together in a
grid cell.
16
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
According to the rules of the exercise, total growth projections themselves, based on PSRC projections, were not negotiable. Furthermore, all projections were additive—that is, the growth allocated on the board was considered an addition to what already exists.
All of the projected growth represented by LEGOs was allocated before the end of the two-hour game board exercise. Participants were advised to think big, keep an open mind, and to be bold and creative in their approach.
Before positioning LEGOs on the board, participants were invited to list and prioritize a set of guiding principles on which they could all agree. These principles guided the
here is democracy at work. It’s beautiful how people are designing how they want to live, because really, a city is only a means to a way of life. So, what we are really trying to decide here is: how do we want to live? What kind of life will make us happier?
ENRIquE PEñAlOSA,
— FORMER MAyOR OF BOGOTá, COLOMBIA
I’m hoping that the necessity of being realistic about what we can do, and the ability to set aside the posturing and the political agendas, will actually get us to some serious planning.
DAvID FREIBOTh,
— ExECUTIVE SECRETARy, KING COUNTy LABOR COUNCIL
Is it important for the future to concentrate housing where employment is? Those are the questions that we are now having to deal with.
FAAlAAINA PRITchARD,
— ExECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KOREAN WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION
allocation of growth and transportation resources symbolized by the LEGO and yarn allocations.
At their respective tables, participants then placed LEGOs representing growth of 1.7 million additional people and 1.2 million jobs forecast for the 2000-2040 period. Under the state Growth Management Act, the region’s cities and towns have already adopted local growth targets through the year 2025, accommodating the approximately 1 million people and 675,000 jobs of the forecast period.
The placement of the LEGOs took
place in two stages. In the first,
pre-counted packets of LEGOs
representing adopted local 2025
growth targets were placed onto the
game board. Participants were invited to analyze and adjust the placement of these, if needed, in response to their particular table’s guiding principles.
In the second stage, they placed the unsorted LEGOs representing additional projected growth, along with colored yarn representing transportation systems, on the board. yellow LEGOs represented residential population and red ones represented employment (jobs).
Many cells would have a mix of both.
Participants were informed by aerial photographs that showed examples of the different stages of density that they were representing with different placement decisions.
Placing blue and orange yarn, draped in place, indicated each group’s preferences for accommodating increased mobility needs through the region. Blue yarn stood for public high-capacity transit options (streetcar, light rail, commuter rail, commuter bus, bus rapid transit, or ferry service), and orange yarn for upgraded or new roads.
Black “barrier” cylinders were placed
on the game board map, giving
participants an opportunity to give
voice to special challenges related
to particular locations or conceptual
issues. After initially placing the
LEGOs and yarn, participants were
invited to review, discuss and adjust
their game boards, in light of their own
guiding principles.
The Reality check Game Board
The game board showed
the central Puget Sound
region’s designated
urban areas, rural and
natural resource lands,
and existing and funded
transportation systems.
Instead of a lot of talking heads, it’s hands-on and interactive, making it more real for people.
JONI EARl,
— CEO, SOUND TRANSIT
It’s worth taking a day . . . to think, to debate, and to dream a little bit.
DORIS kOO,
— PRESIDENT AND CEO, ENTERPRISE COMMUNITy PARTNERS, REALITy CHECK PARTNER
After the board game portion of the day concluded, data from each table was collected by volunteers. yellow and red LEGOs were counted and recorded on a cell-by-cell basis as was the presence of different types of transportation systems. The data were used not only to assess the land use pattern and transportation priorities that each table represented, but also to extrapolate the net effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
To arrive at greenhouse gas emission impacts of each game board scenario, a new and specialized program developed by Mithun and the Puget Sound Regional Council was applied to the collected data from each of the cells. This greenhouse gas analysis tool calculated only those variables that are highly correlated to density and distribution of houses and jobs.
Three tables representing diverse approaches, from relatively dense to relatively dispersed, were selected for immediate analysis following the close of the game and assessed in the form of a “report-card” that
visually connected land-use decisions with greenhouse gas emissions and climate impact.
Local, national, and international speakers delivered candid insights and inspiration to the packed room.
Governor Christine Gregoire energized
the Reality Check audience, speaking
of Washington State’s long pioneering
history of environmental leadership
and change. ULI’s Senior Resident
Fellow, Ed McMahon spotlighted
national examples of communities
that have planned for and leveraged
growth to create thriving, sustainable
places. He cautioned that, while our
region is doing many things well,
we still must make changes to curb
sprawling land use patterns. In order
to move to a world-class region,
Enrique Peñalosa, former mayor of
Bogotá, Colombia, spoke of leaders
who have made transformative change
with lasting effects. Hope, mixed with
reality and inspiration, were part of the
Reality Check experience, as regional
leaders thought big and envisioned
what the next thirty years could look
like in the Puget Sound region.
20
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
20 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008Specific Results
Every eight-year old should be able to walk to a library.
REAlITy chEck TABlE #15
—
One of the really special things about this process is that unlike any other metropolitan region where it’s happened, we’re looking at our existing plans for the future. We’re looking at how they work, and how to make them work better.
So we’ve got the real stuff on the table, and we’ve got very diverse people and interests in that discussion.
MARy M
— ccuMBER, BOARD MEMBER, FUTUREWISE, REALITy CHECK PARTNER
The results of the Reality Check visioning exercise include collected and compiled statements on guiding principles, barriers and solutions; data from the game boards themselves; and polling information.
Guiding principles
As Reality Check participants represented diverse
communities and brought a wide range of viewpoints to the exercise, it was recognized that total agreement on every aspect related to growth would not be achievable. Therefore, tables were asked to identify key guiding principles in which there was full table agreement and then used those same shared principles to inform and guide the visioning exercise.
A number of shared guiding principles emerged, including:
create walkable, compact, complete urban centers (all 30 tables): There was a solid consensus on this guiding principle, with each of 30 tables listing it as a necessary component of regional growth. The idea of “complete” was expressed in several ways. Some tables noted a range of core services such as health care, education and daycare, while others included technology, art, and culture. Still others called for preserving historic and neighborhood character.
Protect and preserve the natural environment (25 tables):
Protection and preservation of Puget Sound ecosystems, preservation of natural resources, and green space
preservation were among the guiding principles that centered on environmental protection. Throughout the day, participants mentioned the value of the natural environment in the region and the need to protect it.
Balance where people live with jobs (23 tables): A strong
majority of tables prioritized a balance of housing and jobs
within urban areas as a guiding principle for growth. One
table noted there should be a variety of housing choices to
match income levels within the community.
22
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
create a variety of housing options for all (22 Tables): The concept of diversity was represented in many ways, such as housing opportunities for all income levels as well as human diversity, including age and culture.
Invest in infrastructure (22 tables):
Tables emphasized multi-modal transportation—transit, auto, bike and walking—as a value that requires additional investment to achieve.
Some noted that all new investments in transportation should be part of an integrated network of reliable mobility choices.
Encourage transit-oriented development (22 tables): Over two-thirds of tables emphasized the
need to take advantage of transit investments by encouraging the development of dense, walkable communities around transit stations and nodes. A common theme was deliberate matching of rail lines with housing and jobs.
Support the Growth Management Act (16 tables): The preservation of the Washington State Growth Management Act was noted as a principle to guide successful regional planning.
Stimulate economic development (11 tables): Promoting job growth was an important guiding principle for many participants. Some tables I think a lot about the costs of business as usual. If we continue to grow the way we have been growing without investing in infrastructure, what is the cost of that? What are the environmental costs, what are the social costs?
MARGARET PAGElER,
— MEMBER, CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD
defined that in more detail, noting the need to revitalize older urban cores and maintain industrial zoning.
Transportation and land use
In the Reality Check game itself, participants created their own ideal scenarios for relating land use to transportation systems in the region.
After the two-hour game, dozens of volunteers counted the population and job LEGOs placed on each of the cells at all 30 tables. The result produced reliable information about how a diverse sample of political, business and community leaders would prefer to see the region develop.
When comparing the 30 separate table groups’ approaches to land use, some common patterns emerged:
Jobs and housing within urban growth boundaries. When all the cell-by-cell game board data were compiled, on average 88 percent of new population and 97 percent of new jobs were placed within existing urban growth areas.
Growth within designated centers.
Two-thirds of the tables focused a significant amount of growth in cities with designated regional growth centers. These centers—places like Seattle’s South Lake Union, unincorporated Silverdale in Kitsap
This region is incredibly beautiful. But it is also incredibly fragile. And the actual buildable land is very constrained.
STEPhEN NORMAN,
— DIRECTOR, KING COUNTy HOUSING AUTHORITy
24
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
County, downtown Everett, and downtown Puyallup—are areas that local jurisdictions have identified as places that should accommodate a significant amount of growth. Reality Check participants largely agreed.
Greater jobs/housing balance.
All tables agreed that the region must both plan for and achieve a better jobs/housing balance with enhanced opportunities for people to live closer to where they work.
Comparing the 30 tables’ approaches to transportation, there were some common themes:
Transportation choices. Participants clearly recognized the critical need to make transportation investments of all kinds, including a variety of transit options (local and regional buses, light rail, streetcars, and commuter rail), roads and freeways, and ferries.
The vast majority of tables focused on providing new and enhanced transit service throughout the region.
Transit-oriented development.
Transit-oriented development was specifically emphasized. Two-thirds (66 percent) of the tables focused a significant amount of mixed population and employment growth around areas that were identified as having existing or planned transit stations, and along transportation corridors. These transit station areas can accommodate a wide range of services, including light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, and passenger and auto-ferries.
Mixed-use concentrations in these areas was clearly seen as a good way to leverage existing and planned transit investments, and to provide better access to goods, services, and regional attractions.
Water-borne transportation. Almost all (90 percent) of the tables identified improved water-borne transportation as a key opportunity. Investments that were discussed included improved passenger and auto-ferries, as well as opportunities to recreate the region’s
“mosquito fleet,” a system of small- scale water taxis and private ferries throughout the region, both on Puget Sound and Lake Washington.
The first takeaway is, we didn’t bring enough yarn for this room. We had any number of folks taking yarn from empty tables, asking organizers to go out and bring more yarn. What that means it that we are looking at a lot of investments.
TAylOE WAShBuRN,
— PARTNER, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
The people are here, but the jobs are over there. We don’t have enough transportation available, either roads or rail or ferry or whatever. So you really get a clear picture of where the bottlenecks are.
— TOM kIlBANE, MEMBER, KITSAP COMMUNITy FOUNDATION
26
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
climate change and greenhouse gas emissions
Land use patterns are linked to greenhouse gas emissions through the relative dependence on cars that they represent. Through increasingly sophisticated models, development patterns can be correlated with vehicle miles needed for residents to get to daily destinations such as work and shopping. The relative emission of carbon dioxide (CO
2) is a function of vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Although there are numerous types of emissions related to real estate development, the greenhouse gas analysis looked only at emissions directly related to the placement of LEGOs on the game board map.
The Reality Check greenhouse gas analysis model looked at three factors:
Residential energy consumption
—
for space heating and cooling VMT from compact / mixed-use
—
residential development
VMT reductions from proximity to
—
high-capacity transit options
For example, tables that placed housing near transit scored better than tables that placed housing farther away. Tables with a mix of housing
and jobs fared better still, reducing the need to drive. Similarly, tables with greater residential densities scored better due to shared walls and lower energy consumption.
Because the Reality Check exercise looked at growth through 2040, a reference case was developed for the same time horizon. Based on Puget Sound Clean Air Agency data, a “business-as-usual” projection for 2040 greenhouse gas emissions was calculated by assuming that emissions continued at the same rate from 1990 to the present.
At the event, the placement of jobs and housing on each of the 30 game tables was counted and compiled, producing a real-time CO
2emissions calculation. Analysis has shown that Reality Check tables reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 7.5 to 23 percent below the “business- as-usual” projections. The average reduction from all tables was 13 percent. The chart below shows the scores for each of the 30 tables, along with several scenarios developed by PSRC.
A complete, table by table greenhouse gas analysis can be found at
www.qualitygrowthalliance.org.
It surprises me how many people get it—that we have a real serious challenge here as a species, and we’re going to have to change our behaviors very significantly in order to deal with that.
GREG NIckElS,
— MAyOR, CITy OF SEATTLE
Source: Reality Check Greenhouse Gas Analysis Model
% Reduction of Land-Use Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table or Scenario
no data available for this table 15
COM24 26 03 22 PGA 23 16 10 19 20 01 28 07 17 06 09 18 05 13 02 21 30 11 29 12 27 14 04 08 25 BAU DIS
DIS = Dispersed Scenario (Vision 2040 DEIS Alternative 4) BAU = Business-as-Usual Scenario (Vision 2040 DEIS Alternative 1) PGA = PSRC Vision 2040 Preferred Growth Alternative
COM = Compact Scenario (Vision 2040 DEIS Alternative 2)
25.0 23.0 20.1 16.7
16.6 16.1 15.8 15.5 15.5 15.1 15.1 14.7 14.7 14.0 14.0 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.0 12.0 11.8 11.4 10.9 10.5 10.5 9.8 9.6 9.4 9.3 9.0 7.5 7.0 6.0
10%
15%
20%
28
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
land use patterns developed by participants
While each of the 30 tables created a unique vision for the future, some similarities emerged. The scenarios below are examples of four generalized land-use patterns developed by Reality Check participants.
Each produces its own range of benefits and challenges. Several tables placed their LEGOs in ways that represent a hybrid of these patterns. The impact of these land-use decisions on greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed as well.
large central cities
Example: Table 24
Greenhouse Gas Reduction from Baseline: 23.0%
Central cities are characterized by compact urban infill and gradual redevelopment at higher densities. In this scenario, the bulk of the population was allocated to the five largest cities. In several places as many as 13 yellow LEGOs were stacked up, indicating a preference for higher density development that has no current precedent in our region.
Very few new areas would be developed at less than medium density. In time, certain key areas would reach densities not unlike the Chicago Loop or mid-town Manhattan. Central cities maximize the use of existing infrastructure and provide the greatest transit accessibility. A more compact urban form, access to plentiful transit options, and a high degree of mixed-use development produces the greatest climate change benefits of any participant scenario.
Density: broad mix, including substantial
medium, high, and very high density areas
uses: most new development mixed-use,
either vertically or horizontally
Transit: sufficient densities to support
diverse options; greatest transit ridership
Multiple Regional centers
Example: Table 28
Greenhouse Gas Reduction from Baseline: 14.7%
Rather than concentrating growth in just the largest cities, this table created distinct regional centers by clustering growth into well-defined core areas. This higher-density development helps maintain open spaces at the periphery for recreation or natural functions. Some regional centers are characterized by urban infill and the revitalization of existing downtown areas.
Others would emerge as urban areas after making strategic investments to increase competitiveness for jobs and housing. These centers typically have groups of 2 to 5 yellow LEGOs and plentiful jobs to create a mix of uses. When designed with new transit infrastructure, and transit-oriented development, these regional centers have the potential for
Density: broad mix, including substantial
medium and high density areas
uses: much new development mixed-use,
either vertically or horizontally
Transit: sufficient densities to support
diverse options; increased ridership
30
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Town centers and corridors
Example: Table 13
Greenhouse Gas Reduction from Baseline: 12.0%
Town centers are medium density areas that are smaller in scale than the regional centers, but more compact and mixed than traditional suburban development. They are frequently connected to transportation corridors where pockets of mixed-use housing over retail are surrounded by a variety of attached single-family and multifamily housing. A sufficient number of yellow and red LEGOs are placed in these town centers and corridors to support high-capacity transit such as light rail and bus rapid transit. Some jobs are located near housing, but many more jobs are accessible via transit.
There would need to be a fairly substantial number of town center and corridor developments to assume the bulk of new growth. This urban form is relatively more compact than the lower density business-as-usual case, and therefore offers modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Density: mix of low and medium densities,
with some pockets of high density
uses: some new development mixed-use,
either vertically or horizontally
Transit: specific locations well served by
new transit investment
Business As usual / Dispersed Development
Example: Table 8
Greenhouse Gas Reduction from Baseline: 9.0%
The business-as-usual case refers to the simple extrapolation of current land-use patterns. Some higher-density
development in urban centers will still occur in this scenario, but the bulk of residential construction would occur as low- density single-family residences. Many jobs are dispersed to smaller office and industrial parks, with most employment and retail separated from residences. At some point, however, the amount of land available to build at relatively low densities would likely require the incremental enlargement of urban growth boundaries. This table also placed a substantial amount of housing in currently rural areas. Because low- density, single-use development patterns increase automobile dependency and vehicle miles travelled (VMT), and increase household energy demands, maintaining this trajectory could make reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to target levels virtually impossible.
Density: mostly very low and low density,
with small areas of medium and high density
uses: mostly single use zoning with pockets
of mixed-use
Transit: most new development largely
automobile dependent
32
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Barriers
Compared to the guiding principles, tables differed more about the barriers to realizing their growth vision; however, common themes did emerge. These barriers include:
Insufficient infrastructure capacity (25 tables): Transportation capacity was the most noted obstacle to accommodating growth. Tables emphasized the need for transit, sidewalks, water, sewer and storm water management, and facilities such as hospitals, schools, and parks.
They expressed concern that growth gets ahead of what infrastructure can support.
Existing infrastructure funding mechanisms insufficient (20 tables): In that same vein, tables identified that current funding for diverse infrastructure needs falls
short, and accommodating future growth will require additional significant investments.
Regulatory gaps within jurisdictions (18 tables): There was broad
consensus that growth should happen within urban centers, and tables noted the following challenges to achieving greater compact development:
Lack of consistent, predictable
—
permitting processes Inadequate infrastructure
—
capacities between jurisdictions
compact development resistance (18 tables): Tables agreed that neighborhood “not-in-my-backyard”
response to compact development is a significant barrier to overcome, as well the difficulty of broadening homebuyer acceptance of compact living.
how will kitsap connect with jobs?
REAlITy chEck TABlE #10
—
Many of the issues we are confronting are usually considered in isolation, in their own separate planning initiatives. By combining climate change with land use decisions, zoning and transportation infrastructure and looking at it together, that allows us to solve things in a more effective manner.
PATRIck cAllAhAN,
— REALITy CHECK CO-CHAIR, CEO OF URBAN RENAISSANCE GROUP
Fragmented regional leadership, authority and jurisdictional alignment (17 tables): Regional initiatives, such as transit,
development along transit corridors, water/sewer/stormwater management, and response to climate change were perceived as fragmented and uncoordinated with regional growth goals. A major theme revolved around disconnected centers with disconnected transit. Several tables noted that while many urban jurisdictions are not meeting their growth targets, unincorporated areas will absorb significant growth.
Environmental constraints and issues (14 tables): Difficult and contradicting environmental regulations, climate change, and topographical constraints such as mountains and water were among the regional environmental challenges cited.
Gap in housing affordability (14 tables): The high cost of close-in housing was identified as a cause for sprawl. Those who typically earn less than median income often drive long distances to employment centers.
Jobs/housing imbalance (9 tables):
The lack of jobs near housing in Auburn, Maple Valley, Snohomish, and other smaller cities is an important challenge to how we grow as a region.
Interestingly, only one table noted
the Growth Management Act’s urban
growth areas as a barrier, suggesting
widespread recognition that growth
should and can continue to take place
within designated growth areas.
34
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Solutions
Ultimately, solutions to the region’s problems with housing, transportation, environmental protection, and resource conservation are all interrelated. What is most urgently needed, as articulated by participants, fell into four overarching categories: regional leadership, adequate financing, transit-oriented development, and education.
Transit-oriented development should be a high priority. Participants were convinced that intensive development near transit, with jobs and housing, would help to preserve rural land and allow people to go about their lives with many fewer car trips. Ideas ncluded:
“Preserve green space, farmland”
“Maximize growth in existing areas along transportation routes”
“Allow lower parking requirements around transit-oriented development”
Regional leadership will help to align policy at the level of local jurisdictions. Participants called for more cooperation between elected officials, business, and community leaders to coordinate overall environmental solutions with land use and transportation. More specific recommendations included:
“create incentive zoning”
“Encourage private-public partnerships”
“Streamline regulations”
“Institute one carbon authority”
“Streamline decision-making”
“create one transit authority with
interlocal agreements”
Expanding infrastructure and transportation funding makes it possible to build the systems that serve regional goals and get us where we need to go. Participants also said that rising prices that result, in part, from increasing scarcity of resources will help to put investments in sustainable transportation systems into perspective. Participants suggested possible solutions such as:
“create better jobs/housing balance”
“use federal level metropolitan program to focus resources and taxes in existing high-density areas”
“Address funding deficiencies with tax reform (income tax, use tax)”
“Reward communities for density”
Public education puts the issues of the region into true economic perspective, and allows people to make good choices about their own lives and the future of the region. Tables suggested educational topics that included:
“Reflect true cost of sprawl”
“create broader understanding of the connection between housing affordability with housing type and size”
“Broaden the framework in which we
evaluate transportation options to
include land use, quality of life, and
economic development”
36
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Polling results
Reality Check participants were polled individually three times during the course of the day-long event.
Using handheld polling devices, participants registered their priorities in the following categories: Guiding Principles, Barriers, and Solutions. The following table shows percentages of responses that were among the participants’ top three priorities most critical to address:
Guiding Principles Barriers Solutions
Invest in
transportation 22% Lack of regional
leadership 23% Invest in
transportation 22%
Growth in centers 15% Lack of funding
mechanisms 18% Transit-oriented development 19%
Green & resource
land preservation 14% Infrastructure
capacity 17% Incentives
for density in all centers
17%
Affordable housing for all income levels and in all areas
13% Housing
affordability
12% Meaningful regional governance
16%
Jobs-housing
balance / mixed use 11% Neighborhood resistance to density
10% High capacity transit / ferries 12%
Economic
development 9% Jobs & housing
out of balance 10% Match jobs
with housing 10%
Leverage existing transportation infrastructure
8% Rural /
suburban bias toward sprawl
7% Maximize
existing infrastructure
10%
Excellent design 5% Lack of open space
3% Education
about
quality growth 7%
Green building
practices 4% Incentives for
good design 6%
Better freight
mobility 3%
38
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
38 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008Findings
What comes out of this will be a big second wave and possibly a new approach to how we look at growth management in the region. We didn’t want to move the urban growth boundary, and density was a common theme.
JAy kIPP,
— GRADUATE
STUDENT, UW COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING
The principles, barriers, and solutions that emerged in Reality Check tell us that leaders and opinion-shapers are concerned about the regional challenges of growth. They believe there is a link between land use patterns, regional prosperity, and quality of life for everyone, and they want to grow more compactly. They are concerned about climate change.
They are ready to work toward solutions, and they demand effective leadership so that we can protect the beauty of our natural environment, continue to enjoy economic prosperity, and ensure that people at all income levels have access to quality housing near jobs.
Supporting growth management
Grouped around 30 tables and placing game pieces (LEGOs) that represent housing and jobs, 250 Reality Check participants showed strong support for growth management.
Overall, they strongly concurred with the aggressive goals that have already been established by regional planning agencies such as the Puget Sound Regional Council, affirming them and in some cases, stepping beyond those goals. In so doing, they found substantial agreement with models that call for compact development within a half mile of transit, within urban centers, and within the established urban growth area boundaries. The following messages emerged:
Guide growth into areas with existing urban infrastructure.
Inside designated boundaries.
— On average 88 percent
of new population and 97 percent of new jobs were placed within existing urban growth areas and consistent with the Growth Management Act.
Within existing centers.
— Furthermore, two-thirds (65
percent) focused a significant amount of growth in
cities with designated regional growth centers. And
these centers—places like Seattle’s South Lake Union,
unincorporated Silverdale in Kitsap County, downtown
40
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Everett, and downtown Puyallup—
are areas that local jurisdictions have identified as places that should accommodate a significant amount of growth. Reality Check participants largely agreed.
In accordance with the GMA.
— It
is also significant that accordance with the Growth Management Act was listed as a core guiding principle by 16 tables.
connect compact development with regional mass transit. A polling of participants, based on a range of options, yielded a trio of overlapping and interrelated priorities that reflect support for growth management , including investment in transportation, growth in urban centers, and the preservation of green and resource lands (see polling results on the preceding page). Transportation investment stood out clearly as the top priority.
When the results were compiled, the aggregate placement of new residents, jobs and transit systems showed that Reality Check participants favor guiding over 50 percent of population growth to urban centers, and also over 50 percent to within a half mile of transit. They would like to see over Legend
Urban Growth Area Regional Growth Center Metropolitan Center Rural
Forest Agriculture Commuter Rail High-Capacity Transit Regional Roadway Ferry
Monorail Freight Rail
Planning under the
Growth Management Act
Designated urban, rural and
natural resource lands and the
long-range vision for a regional
transportation system.
70 percent of new jobs situated in the same way. This would result in development that is more compact than business-as-usual, and nearly as compact and transit-oriented as the pattern projected in the guidance for local growth targets contained in the VISION 2040 regional growth strategy adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council.
linking land use and mobility
Participants demonstrated growing insight that land use and transportation are intimately connected in the central Puget Sound region. The many LEGOs representing housing and jobs that were added to the game board showed that as the region continues to urbanize, the connection becomes an even more critical one. As parts of the region become increasingly urban, automobile traffic will become a more and more burdensome fact of life.
Plan for transportation choices rather than dependence on cars.
Participants reiterated again and
again the principle that the region’s overwhelming reliance on automobiles for daily transportation needs cannot be sustained, and that the citizens of the region need transportation choices that are efficient, convenient, and reliable. The desire for increased transportation choices was
widespread and not limited to the most rapidly growing municipalities.
Make the major, long-term investments needed to create transportation choices. Virtually all agreed that planning and building an effective, integrated regional transportation system requires large investments. Investment in infrastructure came in as the fourth most cited guiding principle, tied with transit-oriented development at 22 tables. While no single funding mechanism emerged as a silver bullet, the tables recognized the critical need to make transportation investments of all kinds, including a variety of transit options (local and regional buses, light rail, streetcars, and commuter
Whether it’s parks, whether it’s trails—there’s a whole series of investments that have to be made on a regional basis.
RON SIMS,
— KING COUNTy ExECUTIVE
For a community like Everett, our future is higher education. If we can’t educate our citizens, companies won’t come and business won’t settle there.
RAy STEPhANSON,
— MAyOR, CITy OF EVERETT
42
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
rail), roads and freeways, and ferries.
Insufficient infrastructure capacity was the top barrier to achieving the overall goals of the region, cited by 25 tables, with transportation capacity as the biggest problem. Not surprisingly, other barriers cited represented obstacles to building the right infrastructure: existing infrastructure funding is insufficient (20 tables), and there is a gap in regional leadership, authority and jurisdictional alignment (17 tables).
Protecting the regional and global environment
General concern about the
environment ranked a close second guiding principle, at 25 tables,
demonstrating that participants feel that the health of natural ecosystems, with all they bring to the quality of life of the region, is threatened.
Preserve the natural environment as a precious regional asset.
Participants particularly value the natural environment of the central Puget Sound region, repeatedly citing it as a reason that many people decide to move here—and why people and businesses stay. They pointed to the pristine scenery that has always beckoned to residents, but they also affirmed the importance of clean water and air to residents and to the fragile ecosystems that these key environmental assets sustain.
There are some important issues that we are all grappling with, and certainly transportation is one of those, but in addition to transportation, addressing affordable housing, and continuing to respect the environment.
JAMES kElly,
— PRESIDENT, URBAN LEAGUE OF SEATTLE
