Survey: Cost of living top dislike for region’s residents

Support for developing affordable housing in urban areas near transit

Today the Growth Management Policy Board was briefed on early results from a statistically valid survey of 2,000 residents in King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties.

The survey was conducted in March 2018 to measure attitudes and opinions about growth and other issues related to VISION 2050.

We've posted the survey online so anyone can share their thoughts on growth and how things are going in the central Puget Sound region.  

The board will receive a full briefing on results next month after all the survey data is fully analyzed.  Initial results include:

Chart - What do you like least about living in the central Puget Sound region?
Cost of living, homelessness and transportation are top dislikes.

Chart: Which of the following do you think is best for creating more affordable housing in the central Puget Sound region?
Most believe encouraging development in urban areas, near transit is best for creating more affordable housing.

The survey and public comments received during the scoping period will help inform VISION 2050.

Topic: 

Comments

How do we encourage more transit near affordable housing in addition to building more affordable housing near transit? Is it less expensive to extend transit options near existing affordable housing in communities like Monroe rather than try and build more affordable housing in urban areas near existing transit lines. More data on these options rather than an binary survey question (e.g. transit vs. highways) would be more helpful in guiding where future development is allocated during Vision 2050.

Thanks for your comments. Connections between affordable housing and transit services came up frequently in many of the comments we’ve received so far on VISION 2050.  We’ll be diving into this issue in greater detail as we conduct research and analyze data for VISION 2050.

Gee, I'd consider parking lots. Huge parking lots.

You need to separate buss from rail if you are discussing "transit", they are greatly different. Rail makes no sense outside of densly populated areas (cities). Take a car to to buss park, take a buss to the rail stop, take rail to a buss, take the buss to work/shop/recreate VS take a buss to work/shop/recreate.

We are not Europe where population density supports the Tube. Nor are we Japan. Acquire the right of ways such that they can be used by buss and be adequate for rail AFTER and AS the population supports it. We in Pierce County are not thrilled with buying Seattle's rail. I'll be dead long before it's in Pierce County.

When growth is forced, like it has been in King, Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap Counties, without the necessary improvements to infrastructure, the growth fails.

Seattle is too dense, too dirty and too many homeless people. Soon, the rodents that feed on the garbage surrounding the homeless tents will spread (thru bites or fleas) diseases that will result in some innocent child or adult dying.

The Health requirements of very large populations have not been met. PRSC.org and those who profit from all this unwanted growth need to step back and think about what they have created: a real mess.

The installation of transit infrastructure has caused the subsequent skyrocketing price of land around that infrastructure. Housing can't be affordable when the underlying land is now overvalued. The planners for PSRC and Sound Transit should have predicted that obvious outcome. Providing more transit options to outlying affordable areas (like Monroe mentioned by previous writer) is a more cost-effective choice. How likely the $250M+/mile, light-rail enamored, Sound Transit and PSRC boards will embrace cost-effective options (e.g. BRT) remains to be seen. The boards' ability to engage in strategic misrepresentation is well-known, and requires that they "stay the course" to validate earlier decisions.