December 2002
| Table of Contents |
| America's Best Plan |
"Destination 2030 provides a comprehensive and collaborative examination of regionwide needs and costs. Transportation investment principles in the plan support a regional land use vision that calls for the creation and revitalization of livable urban communities linked by an efficient transportation system," said the APA in its announcement of the winners. Destination 2030 was selected from more than 160 entries from around the country.
To find out more about Destination 2030, go to our Website psrc.org or call the Information Center at 206-464-7532.
Workshop Generates Recommendations on Transportation Concurrency
The Regional Council hosted a hands-on concurrency workshop in Bellevue last month to work with senior planners and other interested parties in the region to generate ideas for improving transportation concurrency practices.
Transportation concurrency -- the notion that adequate transportation services must be provided concurrently with new development -- is a requirement of the state's Growth Management Act. Local governments, however, have told the Regional Council that concurrency requirements can hinder their efforts to implement the land use and transportation plans required by the Act.
At the day-long workshop, over 90 participants worked together in groups to discuss potential actions and strategies to improve local concurrency programs and to identify ways the region and state can be more effective. Topics covered included:
- standardizing methodologies and practices to help foster coordination
- coordinating on data and standards issues to address pass-through traffic
- coordinating on funding issues to increase, and to more equitably share, development-related revenues
- determining the role of the Regional Council in assisting local jurisdictions with concurrency
- considering legislative changes that could make concurrency more effective
Whit Blanton, vice president of the Renaissance Planning Group in Orlando, Florida, offered insights from his work as a transportation concurrency consultant in Florida, the only other state in the U.S. with a concurrency law.
Blanton noted that while concurrency is an important tool to help pay the costs of new growth, it's not going to work for the "catch-up" and "keep-up" costs needed to maintain the current transportation system. He observed that concurrency is most effective when used to promote a community's land use vision.
Blanton described some of the lessons learned from Florida's system. Initially, concurrency requirements ended up encouraging sprawl in Florida, pushing development to the less congested urban fringe. After a number of fixes, the current law allows cities to exempt developments in "exception areas" to create more compact urban communities and promote public transportation.
An additional group of presenters spoke during the day, helping to frame the original legislative intent of the concurrency requirement, to discuss the current state of the practice, and to offer perspectives on how the public views concurrency.
Steve Wells, former assistant director of the state's office of community and economic development, discussed the legislative intent of the requirement. He noted that most jurisdictions have opted for lowering the level of service on their roads (allowing more congestion) rather than asking citizens to pay for improvements. And that's a choice that's acceptable within the law.
Eric Pryne, Seattle Times reporter, offered a layperson's perspective on concurrency. He noted that many people, right or wrong, feel that concurrency has been a "bait and switch," that government has not required new growth to pay for itself. He suggested that "building trust" may be an important, and perhaps overlooked, role that needs to be considered in concurrency.
Joe Tovar, member of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, offered information on decisions by the hearings board related to concurrency, citing key cases and the lessons to be learned from them.
Dan Carlson, senior lecturer at the University of Washington, described the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Project, a study of concurrency practices in Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond and Issaquah.
Ivan Miller, senior planner at the Regional Council, described some of the findings of the Regional Council's study of concurrency in King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
The hundreds of ideas generated at the workshop will be summarized in a report along with participant's recommendations on local practices, the regional role, and potential legislative fixes.
For more information on the Regional Council's concurrency project, go to the Web at psrc.org/projects/growth/concur/concurrency.htm, or contact
Ivan Miller at 206-464-7549 or imiller@psrc.org.
Regional Council Names New Transportation Planning Director
The Regional Council named Eli Cooper to head its Transportation Planning Department. Mr. Cooper was the Director of Planning and Growth Management at the Metropolitan Council, the regional government for the Twin Cities in Minnesota. Prior to joining the Metropolitan Council, Eli directed the Department of Intermodal Programs at the Delaware Department of Transportation. "Eli gets very high marks for his knowledge, integrity, ability to work issues through, directness, and sense of humor. People like working with him and for him," said Mary McCumber, Regional Council's Executive Director, ŅI think he will be an excellent fit--complementing our already strong staff." Eli begins work at the Regional Council on January 2, 2003.
Residential Building Permit Trends
 |
|
Figure 1. Net Authorized Housing Units by Structure Type, Central Puget Sound: 1980-2001  |
| [Net authorized housing units equals permitted new housing units minus permitted demolitions and losses.] |
Housing Starts Continue to Decline
The net number of new housing units authorized for construction in the central Puget Sound region declined in 2001 for the third consecutive year. A net total of 23,500 housing units were authorized for construction last year, down from 26,800 units in 2000, 27,000 units in 1999, and a peak of 28,800 units in 1998. Housing demand has dampened as the region's economy took a downturn.
The decline in net regional permit activity primarily occurred within the multifamily housing sector, which dropped by 20 percent, from 13,300 units in 2000 to 10,600 units in 2001. Net permit activity in the mobile home sector also fell, from 1,400 units in 2000 to just 700 units in 2001. Net permit activity in the single family housing sector remained level at just over 12,000 units from 2000 to 2001.
Housing Permit Trends at the County Level
Consistent with regional trends, net total permit activity declined in each of the four central Puget Sound counties. Net authorized housing units fell by 13 percent in King County, from 12,900 units in 2000 to 11,200 units in 2001; by 11 percent in Kitsap County, from 1,500 to 1,300 units; by 5 percent in Pierce County, from 5,800 to 5,600 units; and by 18 percent in Snohomish County, from 6,500 to 5,400 units.
Net multifamily permit activity declined substantially overall, dropping by 19 percent in King County, 58 percent in Kitsap County, and 33 percent in Snohomish County, while remaining level in Pierce County. In the single family housing sector, net permit activity increased slightly--by 5 percent--in both King and Pierce counties, stayed essentially level in Kitsap County, and fell slightly--by 7 percent--in Snohomish County. Net mobile home permit activity fell across all four counties.
| Figure 2. Net Authorized Housing Units by Structure Type by County: 2000 and 2001 | |||||
| Net Total Units | Single Family | Multi-Family | Mobile Home | ||
| King | 2000 | 12,900 | 3,800 | 9,000 | 100 |
| 2001 | 11,200 | 4,000 | 7,200 | 0 | |
| % Change | -12.8% | 4.6% | -19.0% | -84.9% | |
| Kitsap | 2000 | 1,500 | 1,000 | 200 | 300 |
| 2001 | 1,300 | 1,000 | 100 | 200 | |
| % Change | -11.2% | -0.7% | -57.7% | -15.9% | |
| Pierce | 2000 | 5,800 | 3,700 | 1,400 | 700 |
| 2001 | 5,600 | 3,800 | 1,400 | 300 | |
| % Change | -4.7% | 4.5% | -1.3% | -57.9% | |
| Snohomish | 2000 | 6,500 | 3,700 | 2,700 | 200 |
| 2001 | 5,400 | 3,400 | 1,800 | 200 | |
| % Change | -17.8% | -6.8% | -32.5% | -20.8% | |
| Region | 2000 | 26,800 | 12,100 | 13,300 | 1,400 |
| 2001 | 23,500 | 12,200 | 10,600 | 700 | |
| % Change | -12.1% | 0.7% | -20.4% | -45.8% | |
NOTE: Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100, and may appear to sum incorrectly as a result. Percentage changes are based on exact data.
The full version of this Trend is available from the Regional Council's Information Center at 206-464-7532 or on the Web at psrc.org. For questions regarding the data presented in this article, contact Carol Naito at 206-464-7535 or cnaito@psrc.org.
206-464-7532 - FAX 206-587-4825 - infoctr@psrc.org Sign language and communication material in alternative formats can be arranged given sufficient notice by calling Grace Foster at 206-464-7090. TDD\TTY; 206-464-5409. Funding for this newsletter provided in part by member jurisdictions, grants from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation. PSRC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information, or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see http://www.psrc.org/about/titlevi/index.htm, or call 206-464-6175.
Back Issues
November 2002 |
October 2002 |
September 2002 |
August 2002 |
July 2002 |
June 2002 |
May 2002 |
April 2002 |
March 2002 |
February 2002 |
January 2002 |
December 2001 |