P u g e t S o u n d R e g i o n

Transcription

1 Puget Sound Region

2 Final Report designed by Mithun.

3 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 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. ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

4 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. 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 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. 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 2 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

5 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: Photos: Todd Bronk, EDAW 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. ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

6 The Quality Growth Alliance 4 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

7 Executive Summary... 1 Table of Contents Background... 7 The Game Specific Results Findings Next Steps Reality Check and the Quality Growth Alliance Partners Reality Check Participants Volunteers Recognition Sponsors Regional Resources Contact Us ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

8 6 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

9 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, 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 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. UNIVERSITy OF WASHINGTON Historic and Forecast Jobs & Population Growth in Central Puget Sound Region Source: PSRC 5,000,000 4,000,000 Population Forecast 3,000,000 2,000,000 Employment Forecast Population 1,000,000 Employment ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

10 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 These concerns, which threaten the health of the region and even the globe, cannot be solved on a city-bycity 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, Drenching rain and howling winds that downed trees, cut electricity and caused widespread flooding left two people dead and closed Interstate 5, the main northsouth highway in Western Washington. Governor Christine Gregoire declared a state of emergency following the third in a series of storms. Photo: WSDOT / Jim Walker

11 (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 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 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 2 emissions. 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 2 emissions 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 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

12 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 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 Central Puget Sound Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector Source: 2020 Emissions - Puget Sound Clean Air Agency; emissions extrapolated to Million Metric Tons of CO 2 Equivalent (MMtCO 2 e) 90 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 Business as Usual State Reduction Targets Transportation Buildings and Facilities Electricity 0 Agriculture, Forestry, and Solid Waste ULI Puget Sound Reality Check Historic Emissions 2008 Projected Emissions

13 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 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 Share of Permitted New Housing Units in Urban Growth Area by County Source: PSRC 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 King: 94.9% average Snohomish: 83.5% average Pierce: 72.7% average Kitsap: 50.2% average Region: 84.6% average Since the adoption of the Growth Management Act, most central Puget Sound counties have made progress in concentrating more new housing development in designated urban areas ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

14 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 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. 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 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 And Seattle area traffic is the ninth worst in the U.S., right behind Boston, according to a 2008 study by Kirkland-based Inrix. 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. 12 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

15 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 County Share Housing Unit 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. $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 Single-Family Median Home Price Source: Census, ACS King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Single-family median home prices in the region have increased substantially since % 9.2% 4.9% Kitsap County 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 citizens do not want to saddle future Households by Percent Gross Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs: 1989, generations with the costs of rapidly increasing energy consumption, Renters chaotic development and a degraded and unhealthy environment. 45% 37% 38% 55% 44% 40% 30% 30% 28% But population 27% 25% growth is expected 26% 27% to continue at a rapid rate. The central Puget Sound Reality Check represented an opportunity for a large and diverse group of government, business <20.0% and community 20.0leaders % to 30.0+% <20.0% 20 take a hard 1989look 1999 at what that 2005means 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 hand-in-hand. Ow ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

16 14 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

17 The Game 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. 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 More than 1,600 individuals were nominated as participants 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. ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

18 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 16 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

19 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. ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

20 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.

21 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. ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

22 20 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

23 Specific Results 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 McCumber, 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. Every eight-year old should be able to walk to a library. Reality Check Table #15 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. ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

24 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 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 22 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

25 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 defined that in more detail, noting the need to revitalize older urban cores and maintain industrial zoning. When comparing the 30 separate table groups approaches to land use, some common patterns emerged: 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. 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 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

26 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 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 smallscale water taxis and private ferries throughout the region, both on Puget Sound and Lake Washington. 24 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

27 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 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

28 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 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 2 emissions calculation. Analysis has shown that Reality Check tables reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 7.5 to 23 percent below the businessas-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. For example, tables that placed housing near transit scored better than tables that placed housing farther away. Tables with a mix of housing A complete, table by table greenhouse gas analysis can be found at 26 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

29 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 % Reduction of Land-Use Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source: Reality Check Greenhouse Gas Analysis Model DIS BAU PGA COM 15 Table or Scenario no data available for this table 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) % 15% 20% ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

30 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 28 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

31 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 substantial greenhouse gas reductions. 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 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

32 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 30 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

33 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 lowdensity 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 lowdensity, 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 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

34 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 How will Kitsap connect with jobs? Reality Check Table #10 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. 32 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

35 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. ULI Puget Sound Reality Check

36 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. 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 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 Streamline regulations Institute one carbon authority Allow lower parking requirements around transit-oriented development Streamline decision-making Create one transit authority with interlocal agreements 34 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008