Transit Policy Report - Containing Sprawl Chris Gandy

Christopher Gandy Transportation Policy Fall 2017 Professor Harata/Troncoso
Containing Growth: The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990
Introduction
It goes without saying that unregulated urban growth can be considered a serious issue in many
social contexts. But, what exactly causes it to be seen so ill-favorably? At one time, and in many
contexts, it was considered to be the future of cities. Now, these days appear to be gone however, as
practical wisdom and knowledge has accrued in order to truly assess the outcomes that it produces if
left unchecked; the checker, in this case, being growth management policies.
So, what exactly is sprawl; and why is it seen so poorly? In short, unregulated development can
most commonly be associated with urban sprawl. Sprawl is essentially characterized as a haphazard
patchwork of low-density housing and commercial strip development created by and dependent on
extensive automobile use. It typically moves away from existing settlements in a leap-frog pattern, as
widely spaced developments initially occur several kilometers from the central business district and later
become connected by infill development. In the early 20th century, urban populations in the United
States were concentrated within cities, but by the 1960s, this pattern began to change. During the
1970s and 1980s, more than 95% of US population growth took place in suburban areas outside cities.1
This not only eroded urban cores, but also the areas in which it entered.
Rapid and unplanned urban growth in the urbanizing and rural fringe areas of the United States
has led to numerous problems for state, local, and regional governments. In particular, six crises are
readily identifiable, each of which threatens to undermine quality of life and local competitive economic
advantage. These crises include: (1) deterioration of central cities, first-ring suburbs, and closer-in
neighborhoods, resulting in depopulation and abandonment of housing and the employment base; (2)
1
25 years of sprawl, p.51
spiraling suburban sprawl, creating massive infrastructure as well as energy costs; (3) loss of prime
agricultural lands; (4) environmental crises and threats to open space, air and water quality,
environmentally sensitive lands, and natural resources; (5) transportation congestion and resultant loss
of quality of life; and (6) inflating cost of housing and its effect on affordable housing.2 Lets keep these
in mind when evaluating how well growth management policies have worked.
Continuing on, in the USA unplanned growth and sprawl are converting forests, agricultural land,
and wetlands into built environments beyond the edges of urbanizing areas (the urban fringe) at an
alarming and increasing rate. Sprawl affects water supply, wildlife, habitat availability, and overall
habitat quality. Also, it is responsible for 51% of all wetland loss in the US. Sprawl not only consumes
natural habitats but also fragments, degrades, and isolates remaining natural areas. Furthermore, the
sprawl landscape is unlike the original and is often dominated by non-native plantings.3 In short, despite
the USs desire to spread out and be free, it is slowly realizing that this dream comes with some stark
and potentially irreversible consequences.
This paper aims to address how these issues have been coped with via providing an
understanding of growth management. Growth management is a method that has been employed in
order to reduce the negative effects of sprawl in addition to containing it. Growth management takes
many different forms, but in this papers case, we will examine its impact within Washington State and
its amendment of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990; specifically, within the Seattle
metropolitan region (King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties). Furthermore, building off of the above
definition of sprawl and its ill effects, GMA can be considered rather successful in the Seattle metro
region. While hard to measure on a scale, the GMA has helped protect wildlife to a degree, regain
urban cores, and is planned to continue to reduce transit emissions/ congestion. However, while it may
2
Making the most of the WA GMA, p.949-950
3
help wildlife in other areas, it can be a threat as well. Furthermore, sprawl still ensues, and affordable
housing is questionable.
The paper will give an overview of the context of the area (background, current state of affairs,
and social implications), then move into an overview of the GMA as a policy (including its legal
framework, funding, evaluation, and implementation constraints), and will wrap up by offering a critique.
Implementation cases are frequently mentioned throughout the document.
Background
Before 1990, the state permitted but did not require cities and counties to make plans and
regulate land uses, and a number of counties with large rural areas had no zoning ordinances regulating
land uses. 4 However, growth management has maintained a long going history in the Seattle
Metropolitan region, despite not being officially put into state legislation until 1990. It could be
considered that due to the Seattle region the state adopted the policy to begin with.
Growth management efforts in King County, Washington, were first initiated by its 1964
comprehensive plan, however, serious efforts to deal with growth management issues began with the
1985 comprehensive plan. The 1985 plan attempted to manage new growth while meeting economic
needs and providing affordable housing, public facilities, and other services. The plan called for most
new growth to occur in designated urban and transitional areas; and although residential
development in rural areas was still allowed, it was at lower densities.5 Moreover, during the 80s the
population experienced a 44% increase (from 1.2 to 1.7 million), while King County alone experienced a
4
Seattle region under GMA, p.4
5
72% increase in households.6 Most of this growth was located in suburban areas. Settled lands became
more contiguous while rural and wildland areas became more fragmented.7
The comprehensive plan of 1985 can be considered innovative in several other areas. It
established an urban growth boundary around existing cities (later, UGA), identified and protected
important rural resource lands, limited additional urban development to areas with adequate
infrastructure capacity, and initiated an annual growth report to serve as a basis for assessing progress
in carrying out the plan. In short, this planning program became the prototype for the requirements of
the Washington State GMA in 1990, demonstrated that these provisions were workable, and mobilized
political support for the state enabling legislation.8
In addition to the King County Comprehensive plan of 1985, the state and region began taking
the first step towards unifying interrelated concepts of land use and development policies and
coordinated transportation and urban mobility investments by developing and adopting the Vision 2020
regional land use plan and the Draft Regional Transit System Plan (DRTSP). The Vision 2020 plan
emphasized protection of regional open space while concentrating new employment within regional
centers. To implement these goals, while providing the mobility needed to sustain regional economic
growth, the DRTSP proposed a regional rail rapid transit line coupled with improvements to and
enhancements of existing bus service.9
It was, and still is, considered that the Central Puget Sound region will not be able to sustain its
continued economic development, preserve its natural resources and unique environmental features,
protect and conserve its existing neighborhoods, and limit the unwise and inefficient consumption of
6
7
8
Seattle region under GMA, p.5
9
Making the most of WA GMA, p.960
finite developable land without transit and transportation improvements.10 The Vision/Transportation
2020 plan was the first big step towards realizing GMA and providing a countermeasure to this pressing
issue. The governing and drafting body of the policy is the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and has
evolved this vision to fit the needs of 2040.
Current State of Affairs
King County and the Seattle Metropolitan Region are currently experiencing population growth
as businesses, such as Amazon, become more prevalent in the area. It is predicted that by 2040 the
population will increase 36% (from 3.5million to 5million) and there will be a 51% increase in jobs in the
region. To put this into the perspective of transit trends, in 2006 the regions population of more than
3.5 million generated more than 80 million miles of travel every day, or 21.5 miles per person. The
regions average daily vehicle travel speed was 41 miles per hour (mph) on freeways and 22 mph on
arterials. Furthermore, the region experienced 280,000 hours of delay on freeways and 560,000 hours
of delay on arterial streets a total of 840,000 hours of delay each day. This translates to an average
daily delay of 14.4 minutes per person.11
Thus, travel forecasts for the year 2040 predict that, without changes to the transportation
system and trip-making behavior, daily trips will grow by 40 percent and vehicle miles traveled will grow
by 30 percent to more than 102 million miles per day. While the per person growth rate of vehicle miles
traveled has stabilized since 1990,possibly thanks to the GMA, total growth in travel associated with
population and economic growth will strain the transportation system.12
10
Making the most of WA GMA, p.960
11
Transit 2040, p.28
12
Transportation 2040, p.27-28
For this, King County collaborates with the state and other local governments with the goal of
providing an integrated, multi-modal transportation system for the Puget Sound region. These
intergovernmental partnerships seek to ensure that the countys transportation system is designed,
operated and maintained in a manner that provides mobility options for a wide range of users,
contributes to safe communities for all, and helps to safeguard and enhance King Countys natural
resources and environment.13 This strategy is thanks to the GMA, and mainly the PSRCs efforts to
connect and collaborate; King County being one of the biggest players inside of the PSRCs area.
As a case study, King County alone provides a multitude of transit services for citizens and is actively
envisioning the GMA. King Countys metro Transit services an area of more than 2000 square miles for
over 2 million residences. Metro operates over 200 bus, trolley and demand area response transit
(DART) routes that serve destinations across King County. At a glance, the fixed-route ridership in 2015
was 121.8 million, with a vanpool ridership of 3.5 million, and access ridership of 1.4 million. The annual
service hours equaled 3.6 million, was serviced by an active fleet of 1,473 buses, 8,079 bus stops, 130
park and rides, and 25,468 park and ride spaces.14
Moreover, in order to encourage use of the system King County recognizes certain areas, called
Mobility Areas, where land use designations support a greater variety of transportation mode choices.
The Level of Service standards for Mobility Areas are set to recognize these greater choices and support
and encourage people to use forms of transportation other than cars.15 In addition to SOV trips
stabilizing since 1990, this number has also begun to drop. A PSRC 2006 Household Travel Survey
13
King County Comp Plan 2016, p.390
14
Metro Comp plan 2016 Transit Amendment, p.30
15
indicated that between 1999 and 2006 the percentage of SOV dropped slightly, from 43.7 to 43.5
percent.16 This can be seen as an effective result due to the GMA.
As indicated previously, this is being governed by the Vision 2040 / Transportation 2040 strategy
created by the PSRC, which is in turn a direct response to the GMA. Vision 2040, Transportation 2040,
and the Countywide Planning Policies promote the concept of maximizing mobility choices through a
multimodal approach to moving people, goods and services efficiently within and beyond the region.
Travel to and within regional growth centers is emphasized, with a focus on the availability of transit and
nonmotorized modes in centers. These urban centers are characterized by compact, pedestrian-
oriented development, with a mix of different office, commercial, civic, entertainment, and residential
uses and can be efficiently and cost-effectively served by transit and nonmotorized travel options.17 The
documents and strategies authority can be attributed to the GMA. Such changes and vision, however,
do not mesh with all societies in the state.
Social Implications
With changes in how the region is being organized, one can assume that this also impacts
individual behavior. Yes, the GMA is a law, but is it emphasizing equality? Efforts to increase urban
densities come into conflict with neighborhood resistance to compact development and multiunit
housing. For example, voter repeal of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax set back investment in necessary
transportation infrastructure in 2001.18 Behavior like this hinders the policy from working at maximum
efficiency in order to alleviate the growing issues formerly addressed. Though, the problem remains
16
Transit 2040, p.28
17
18
WA GMA: Goals and Promises, p.2
that not many societies outside of the Seattle Metro Region are ready to reverse the mentality of the
larger portion of the last century and switch to one that which the GMA highlights.
While the GMA is emphasizing sustainability, the issue of social equity is addressed in at least
three forms: intergroup, intergenerational, and interregional. Since these involve questions of social
redistribution of resources, they constitute ethical concerns which often prove to be politically difficult
to resolve. This suggests that there is more than one model for sustainability, and that these differing
models depend on local conditions such as population composition and size, their incomes, existing
environmental qualities, and economic structure.
The challenge to planners is to incorporate these features into optional strategies for the future
and to assess the implications of these to inform public dialogue and decision making.19 The GMA does
include within it a large component to try and maintain the urban form of a rural areas and calls for
strong citizen involvement; however, to what degree is not specifically determined. Despite this, the
fabric of the GMA aims to try and alleviate this problem via distributing most power to the local level.
Local communities, wherever they may be in the state, maintain the ability to control their urban form.
This will be further discussed in the following section with the GMAs framework.
Legal Framework of the GMA
Introduced in 1990, the GMA offers an approach to growth management planning unlike that of
other states. Largely modeled after Oregons version in 1973, it differs from this and others by
responding to regional diversity and strong traditions of local government control by decentralizing
19
Seattle Region Under GMA, p.7
planning and decision making to the cities and counties.20 It requires collaborative development of
regional policies by constituent local governments, sets deadlines for meeting state requirements for
issues which local plans must address, and establishes a set of thirteen goals to be used in developing
these local plans and implementing developing regulations.
These goals include: encouraging efficient multimodal transportation systems, reducing urban
sprawl, encouraging availability of affordable housing, protecting private property rights, encouraging
economic development, focusing development in urban growth areas, processing permits for proposed
developments in a timely and fair manner, working to retain open space, securing broad involvement of
citizens in the planning and regulatory processes, conserving lands in forestry and agriculture, protecting
critical areas, ensuring concurrency for public facilities and services, and historic preservation.21 These
goals can be seen as a rough evaluation for the policy overall, and are constantly monitored and
conformed to (RCW 36.70A.100)..
The GMA does not apply to all counties, however. As outlined in RCW36.70A.040, only urban
and other fast-growing cities (with populations >50,000 and annual population growth rates >2.0
percent) must comply with the policy. Thus, smaller communities that wish to maintain a lower density
setting can do so. However, in doing so, leaves space for sprawl to potentially ensue.
The GMA is a long legal framework, and it is hard for this paper to go into the detail of every
sub-category in detail. Therefore using a framework provided by Don Miller, the GMA can essentially be
organized into six categories:
1. Identification and protection of critical areas and resource lands
20
21
Seattle Region under GMA p.6
A first step in the growth management planning process is for cities and counties local governments
to specify environmentally critical areas and to develop regulations to protect them. These are lands
that provide important fish and wildlife habitats, floodplains, wetlands, and aquifer recharge areas
affecting domestic water supply as defined in agriculture and forestry.22
2. Developing and approving regional planning policies
The GMA requires the development of multi-jurisdictional planning policies by county governments
in high-growth areas. These are intended to identify issues common among municipalities and with
rural areas for which counties serve as the planning body, and to frame principles that address these
issues. These policies must be in collaboration with the governments of cities located in each county,
but are finally adopted by the legislative body of the county, and are mandatorily reviewed annually.23
3. Designating urban growth areas
A large feature of the GMA is the creation and ability for each county (via collaboration with cities)
to designate urban growth areas (UGA), which incorporate all land within municipal boundaries and land
already chiefly in urban use and served by urban infrastructure. The mapped boundary of urban growth
areas must enclose enough land to meet the forecast demand for space for the next twenty years. Not
only are counties expected to limit development to areas within the urban growth boundaries which
they adopt, but they are prohibited from funding urban services and facilities outside of this boundary,
and all annexations of areas to cities must take place inside of this spatial limit. This is then reviewed
every five years.24
4. Developing and approving comprehensive plans
22
Seattle Region Under GMA p,8
23
24
Seattle Region Under GMA, p.9-10
The GMA specifies that cities and counties in high growth areas must prepare comprehensive urban
development plans which deal with land use, housing, utilities, capital facilities, transportation, and in
counties rural use areas. These comprehensive plans also must address siting and accommodating
necessary public facilities that are often avoided by localities, such as correctional facilities, airports,
solid waste and sewage handling facilities, and major transportation facilities. Cities and counties must
identify lands useful for public purposes, and coordinate comprehensive plans with those of nearby
cities and counties. Furthermore, an explicit and important requirement of the GMA is that local
governments provide for early and continuous public involvement in developing these comprehensive
plans. This is intended not only to gain access to the knowledge and preferences of the parties who will
be affected by plans, but to provide a forum by which citizens can influence and shape development
decisions. Participation also serves to give the public a sense of ownership in the results, and
consequently develops a political constituency in support of the plans.25 These outcomes are important
to assuring that the plans are valid and to the process of implementing them, especially when
considering the shift in trend discussed under social implications.
5. Design and adoption of development regulations and other instruments to implement the
plan
Local governments must prepare and approve development regulations such as zoning and
subdivision ordinances which are consistent with the comprehensive plan. They must also make their
programming activities and capital budget decisions in a manner that conforms to the provisions of the
plan. The comprehensive plan is required to be consistent as the governing policy document of a local
government concerning physical development, and the other policy actions. Once a comprehensive
plan is approved by a local government, it must adopt and enforce a concurrency ordinance which
25
Seattle Region Under GMA, p.10-11
requires denial of any development which would result in the level of service for local roads or other
transportation facilities to fall below the criteria approved as part of the transportation element of the
plan, unless necessary improvements are made concurrent with the development. This can be considered
a pay as you grow standard, that allows for development outside of the UGA, and smaller communities
to maintain their urban form of decentralization. However, it must be smartly considered.
RCW36.70A.070 states that rural areas must be visually compatible with the surrounding setting;
however, this is rather subjective and up to each case. Thus, citizens and organizations participating in
developing plans and their means of implementation may appeal their adoption to one of three Growth
Management Hearings Boards. This gives added significance to the requirement that there be public
involvement throughout the process.26
6. Monitoring, evaluating and amending comprehensive plans and implementing regulations
The Washington GMA requires local governments to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of
their comprehensive plans and the means of implementing them. In addition to developing and
employing a set of benchmarks to track growth and assess how well growth management is working, the
GMA also requires six counties (mainly in Seattle Metro) in the state to undertake a buildable lands
inventory every five years to ascertain whether development is taking place at the densities prescribed
in their plans and to appraise the remaining availability of land to accommodate forecast demand for
residential and commercial space. This information is important in determining whether the urban
growth boundary must be adjusted to maintain a twenty-year supply of land. Finally, the Washington
Growth Management Act requires all local governments to complete a review of their comprehensive
26
plans and related regulations every five years and to revise them as necessary to satisfy the provisions of
the state legislation.27
Specific to transportation, RCW36.70A.070 also requires a unique pedestrian/bicycle component
to be generated by each city.
Overall, the GMA gives a strict set of rules to abide by, but also the freedom for each county to
adopt their comprehensive plan to fit their specific context. Thus, allowing for certain developments
and leeway outside of the designated UGA, only if it conforms to the reviewed standard. Citizens can
actively participate in the process and shape the way development occurs in their setting, ensuring their
urban form is sustained.
Funding
The GMA is a large policy covering a variety of contexts and settings, thus, a single funding
source is not established. However, some examples can be given in regards to the various levels, in
addition to projects that take place.
At the state level a Growth Management Planning and Environmental Review Fund has been
established via the state treasury. Moneys may be placed in the fund from the proceeds of bond sales,
tax revenues, budget transfers, federal appropriations, gifts, or any other lawful source. Money may be
only spent after appropriation (RCW36.70A.490). This provides a fundamental pool that counties may
access for GMA related works, however only after it has been determined to conform to the rules
outlined in RCW36.70A.500. Essentially an environmental review and analysis is conducted, the impacts,
27
consequences, alternatives, and mitigations in the plans region must be conveyed. In order to sustain
further funding substantial compliance towards achieving the goals must be highlighted.
The primary sources of the PSRC transit element are outlined in this chart (Transit 2040):
As one can see, most revenues come in the form of tolling systems and taxes.
King County Metros primary source of revenue (54%) comes from the state sales tax. A 5.5%
property tax to support transit has also been implemented, in addition to receiving federal and state
grants. However, King County has been experiencing a roads funding crisis, largely due to the 2008
recession; this has affected the quality of maintenance on road networks/projects.28
On a smaller scale GMA related projects such as the Westlake Cycle Track of the Seattle Bicycle
Master Plan received $1.7 million of its $6.1million funding via a grant by the PSRC. The other funds
were provided via the Levy to Move Seattle; a voter approved initiative in 2015. It provides $65 million
over nine years to build approximately 50 miles of protected bike lanes and 60 miles of neighborhood
28
King County Comp Plan 2016, p.423-424
greenways, and $7 million for programs (including maintenance and bicycle parking). On an annual
basis, the levy provides $8.0 million per year for BMP implementation, which includes $7.2 million for
facilities and $0.8 million for programs.29 In terms of evaluating the GMA, this is a good indicator of
success for the bicycle component.
An example of the Seattle BMP funding sources (provided via the BMP) can be seen below:
Evaluation Criteria and Implementations
Evaluating such a large and complex policy is rather difficult, but in addition to some of the
mentioned cased above, an analysis can be broken down in different areas. These come in the form of
29
Seattle Bicycle Master Plan, p.26
alleviating transit congestion, focusing growth in urban centers, and protecting wildlife. Overall it is
important to note that especially in fast growing regions, growth management (via UGAs) is evaluated to
effectively reduce sprawl.30
In terms of alleviating transportation congestion, GMA policies have shown to increase overall
system mobility in the Puget Sound region. Furthermore, this is expected to continue to improve.
Vehicle delays, time driving, and distance traveled are all expected to decrease.31 In order to ensure this
is realized, Vision 2040 outlines some specific transit measures that assess performance:
T-Measure-2: Travel mode splits, travel times, and delay by county and major corridor, and by
regional geography (including designated centers).
T-Measure-3: Traffic volumes, transit boardings, and delay by major corridor, by county and
regional geography (including designated centers).
T-Measure-4: Total and per capita vehicle miles traveled, by region, county and major corridor,
and by regional geography (including designated centers).
The overall system is constantly measured in a loop of evaluation, and if areas are meeting the GMA
requirements, plans are enacted. However, if not, they must be reformed and come up with an
alternative in regards to how
they will continue to support
increased densities and growth
in the area.32
If the Vision/Transit 2040
plan proceeds as intended, CO2
emissions are also expected to
30
Do growth mgmt. policies reduce sprawl, p.17
31
Transit 2040 p.32
32
Transit 2040, p.109
decrease below 2006 levels, despite increases in population (Transit 2040, p.36; above image). Even
under the constrained plan it is impressive to note that the system is still evaluated to decrease CO2
emissions within the Seattle metropolitan region.
The bottom left chart gives a highlight of Metro transits evaluation process. Overall, rideshare is
increasing in Seattle33, and the GMA can be praised for helping to assist alternative modes of transit in
the overall scheme. Furthermore, due to a light rail and increased bicycle network currently being
developed alternative transit rideshare can be expected to increase.
For bicyles, performance (as provided via
the GMAs required components) is improving in
Seattle (bottom right image, Seattle BMP 2017).
Moreover, the city (as discussed in the current
events section) is investing heavily into bicycle
infrastructure. Thus, the GMA can be considered
rather successful in terms of implementing the
bicycle component of the plan and encouraging
alternative, healthy transit.
33
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/reports/annual-measures/ridership.html
In regards to urban growth centers, the topic is rather difficult to analyze at this stage. Yes,
urban centers have been concentrated on via UGA. A study showed that since the implementation of
UGA in 1994 to the GMA housing density has indeed increased within these boundaries. However, at
the same time sprawling low-density housing in rural and wildland areas constituted 72% of total land
developed.34
From 1974-1998, sprawl overtook much wildlife in the study area (below image). County parcel
data showed that most of the residential building permits (77%) issued from 1995 to 1998 (following
implementation of the 1994 comprehensive plan) were for parcels inside the UGAs, indicating that
building density increased within existing urban areas. However, the increase in the percent of
residential building permits issued within urban areas since establishment of the UGAs was rather slight.
From 1995 to 1998, 60%
of land permitted for
new residential
development within the
study area occurred
outside the UGAs, and
sprawl continued to
claim wildlife (next page,
top right image).35
However, this study is
rather dated (2001) and
UGAs were rather young at the time. Thus, in conclusion it did state compact development policies
34
35
provided via the GMA do help with this situation.
However, it is still important to note that even under
the GMA sprawl can ensue via low density housing
exemptions discussed in the legal framework.
Returning to the transit evaluation element,
recent data has shown that more than 95 percent of
regional arterial investment costs and 94 percent of
highway system costs are for projects located in the
urban growth areas.36 This, possibly further indicating
that UGAs may have just needed time to develop not
only in terms of physical development, but in the minds
of people that live within them.
Constraints of Implementation
As one can imagine, coordinating such a vast policy across cities and counties can be rather
difficult. Washington State has a diverse and complex climate, and the urban/rural boundary is not a
simple straight line. As a result, the countys arterial network weaves through urban areas, rural areas,
and natural resource Lands as it facilitates regional mobility. This complex urban/rural/resource pattern
presents challenges to planning for the regions mobility needs and providing safe and adequate
roadways.37 As personally experienced, county roads that sit close to cities (for example NE 145th street,
which acts as the border between the cities of Shoreline and Seattle) can go neglected, as neither city
36
Transit 2040, p86
37
has the ability to deal with the road unless it personally annexes it (in the case of Shoreline). If not,
funding can be short for these county roads, as the need remains for a long term stable source of
revenue within King County.38
Criticisms
The largest critique that can be made is in the form of sprawl still continuing in the region.
Broadly applied low-density zoning policies need to be refined to reduce sprawl, fragmentation, and
habitat loss. Rather than zoning all areas outside of UGAs for low-density residential development, King
County and other local governments should consider zoning at least some of these areas at a variety of
higher densities while limiting the overall number of dwelling units that could be constructed in a given
area. If rural residential lot sizes were reduced from 28 ha (520 acres) to 1 ha (2.5 acres), and if these
residential parcels were clustered, then a substantial amount of land would remain undeveloped and
possibly even able to provide interior forest conditions. If this had been done in the study area
addressed above in King County, the amount of land consumed by the 1125 residential structures
constructed outside UGAs between 1994 and 2001 would have been reduced from 8905 to 2813 acres,
a reduction of 68%.39 However, this begins to question the authority of how even smaller communities
away from urban centers operate, possibly making the system too top down in approach.
It is also noted that counties should coordinate with citizens in order to complete the process of
planning. However, it is not required, and to what degree is not specified.40 This begs one to ask if the
process is truly democratic at its core, and focusing on what residents desire for their city.
38
39
40
Furthermore, the GMA has not only been shown to potentially allow for the harming of wildlife
outside of UGAs, it can also allow for species to be threatened within. There is a potential conflict
between the Federal 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the States Growth Management Act.
Many urban streams exist within the metropolitan area that are habitats for Chinook (threatened
species), and further urban development within the UGA (and the associated paving) increases the
urban runoff that pollutes these streams.41
Lastly, in terms of housing, the UGA, a concept of smart growth, can potentially decrease
property values, as density might exacerbate traffic, congestion, and crime if not coordinated properly.
It can also disrupted existing communities in quiet, local areas. In addition, it may also lead to the
increase of sprawl due to people aiming to flee these issues.42 In the case of Seattle, and Washington at
large, it may have the opposite affect and contribute to increasing home prices.43
Conclusion
The Washington Growth Management Act of 1990 provides a unique interpretation of the
concept, differing from other states implementation. In early years, results indicated that it was rather
ineffective in areas, and allowed for problems to continue in which it aimed to alleviate. However, a
policy affecting the organization and mentality of entire cities and counties across a state can possibly
take significant time to sink into the minds of people and the urban fabric that they live in. It is sure that
this case will be analyzed for many years, and opinions will be constantly reformed. Based on the Puget
Sound Regional Councils Vision and Transportation 2040 strategy, one can receive a relatively good idea
41
Containing Sprawl, p.12
42
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936977/
43
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/home-prices-rising-faster-in-washington-than-in-any-other-state/
in regards to how the policy will evolve in the future of many Washington cities. These documents
counter early datas reality, and promise a drastic counter to sprawl.
Moreover, the GMA appears to be working hard to connect transit systems, reduce pollution,
and contribute to sustainable development via alternative modes to the automobile. It is monitoring
systems and ensuring they conform with the goals rather frequently. However, how this will continue to
develop is not yet determined, and can only be predicted based on the vision, and mainly those who
support it. Democracy is a long, messy process and the question remains how those in smaller
communities dispersed in counties across the state will react to development that goes against their
way of life.
References
1. Accountability Center, http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/reports/annual-

measures/ridership.html
2. Anthony, Jerry. Do state Growth Management Regulations Reduce Sprawl? University of Iowa
3. Bae, Christine Chang-Hee. Containing Sprawl. Knapp, Gerrit-Jan, et.al eds(2007), Chapter 2, p.36-
53. Edward Elgar Publishing
4. Freilich, Robert H., Elizabeth A. Garvin, and S. Mark White. "Economic Development and Public
Transit: Making the Most of the Washington Growth Management Act." University of Puget
Sound Law Review 16 (1993): 949-73.
5. King County Annual Growth Report 2002
6. King County Comprehensive Plan 2016 (and Transit Annex/Report)
7. King County Metro System Evaluation 2016
8. Miller, Donald & Lee, Shi-Chul. Aiming for Sustainable Urban Development- Experiences with
Growth Management Planning in the Seattle Metropolitan Region.
9. Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation 2040/VISION 2040
10. Resnik, David B. "Urban Sprawl, Smart Growth, and Deliberative Democracy." American Journal
of Public Health 100, no. 10 (October 2010). Accessed November 22, 2017.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936977/.
11. Robinson, Lin; Newell, Josha; Marzluff, John. Twenty-five years of sprawl in the Seattle region:
growth management responses and implications for conservation. Landscape and urban
planning 71 (2005), p..51-72
12. Rosenberg, Mike. "Home prices rising faster in Washington than in any other state." June 22,
2016. Accessed November 22, 2017. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/home-prices-
rising-faster-in-washington-than-in-any-other-state/.
13. Seattle Bicycle Master Plan 2017
14. The WA State GMA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70a
15. "Washingtons Growth Management Act: Goals and Promises." Washington Research Council,
December 5, 2001, 1-4.

Transit Policy Report - Containing Sprawl Chris Gandy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transit Policy Report - Containing Sprawl Chris Gandy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christopher Gandy Transportation Policy Fall 2017 Professor Harata/Troncoso

Containing Growth: The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990

and potentially irreversible consequences.

Implementation cases are frequently mentioned throughout the document.

political support for the state enabling legislation.8

enhancements of existing bus service.9

evolved this vision to fit the needs of 2040.

Current State of Affairs

daily delay of 14.4 minutes per person.11

population and economic growth will strain the transportation system.12

park and rides, and 25,468 park and ride spaces.14

percent.16 This can be seen as an effective result due to the GMA.

do not mesh with all societies in the state.

environmental qualities, and economic structure.

Legal Framework of the GMA

these local plans and implementing developing regulations.

conformed to (RCW 36.70A.100)..

organized into six categories:

1. Identification and protection of critical areas and resource lands

affecting domestic water supply as defined in agriculture and forestry.22

2. Developing and approving regional planning policies

3. Designating urban growth areas

every five years.24

4. Developing and approving comprehensive plans

considering the shift in trend discussed under social implications.

to maintain their urban form of decentralization. However, it must be smartly considered.

involvement throughout the process.26

6. Monitoring, evaluating and amending comprehensive plans and implementing regulations

the state legislation.27

Specific to transportation, RCW36.70A.070 also requires a unique pedestrian/bicycle component

to be generated by each city.

urban form is sustained.

addition to projects that take place.

recession; this has affected the quality of maintenance on road networks/projects.28

success for the bicycle component.

Evaluation Criteria and Implementations

effectively reduce sprawl.30

alternative in regards to how

they will continue to support

increased densities and growth

If the Vision/Transit 2040

plan proceeds as intended, CO2

emissions are also expected to

emissions within the Seattle metropolitan region.

developed alternative transit rideshare can be expected to increase.

For bicyles, performance (as provided via

the GMAs required components) is improving in

Seattle (bottom right image, Seattle BMP 2017).

Moreover, the city (as discussed in the current

events section) is investing heavily into bicycle

infrastructure. Thus, the GMA can be considered

rather successful in terms of implementing the

bicycle component of the plan and encouraging

alternative, healthy transit.

From 1995 to 1998, 60%

of land permitted for

development within the

study area occurred

outside the UGAs, and

claim wildlife (next page,

top right image).35

However, this study is

rather dated (2001) and