State's growth planning is among top in the nation Monday, December 13, 1999 By KRISTIN DIZON mailto:kristindizon@seattle-pi.commailto:kristindizon@seattle-pi.com SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Washingtonians may be stuck in gridlock and facing a sea of subdivisions but a national planner's group says the state is one of the best at managing growth. The state's Growth Management Act, which turns 10 in July, is being heralded as a national model by the American Planning Association, a professional organization that held its annual meeting in Seattle this year.

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/smrt13.shtml

Gee-

Before we had growth planning, we sure didnt have this much congestion. It doesnt work, but we are awfully good at it.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 13, 1999

Answers

What do you mean SmartGrowth don't work? It has enabled Seattle to export it's congestion to Bainbridge, at taxpayers expense.

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/get131.shtml Ferry meets the road -- it's gridlock

Monday, December 13, 1999

Question: Why is it that the ferry capacity from Seattle to Bainbridge Island greatly exceeds the very limited capacity on state Route 305 down the middle of the island to the landing, asks Jennifer Strehler by e-mail.

"Traffic on Bainbridge Island is terrible . . . yet that's where WSF (Washington State Ferries) has chosen to provide all the reliable, regular ferry service."

Answer: We don't know that there is more room on the ferries than on 305, but the state tells us it has no plans to decrease the capacity of its Seattle-Bainbridge service, at least during the fall-winter- spring months, or to widen 305 on the island.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 13, 1999.

the American Planning Association is an organization with a more politicized agenda. It's purpose is more to effectively limit growth. Seattle has done this quite effectively. The resulting problems are not seen as a barrier or failure of these systems. So, they can argue that their plan has been effective. It's sort of like actually planning to kill the patient to eliminate a cancer. If that's your goal, success isn't particularly difficult.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), December 13, 1999.

Craig,

Our congestion problems started way before gma in 1990. I would argue that we are way better off now than many other states 39 to be exact (if you're not counting florida and arizona that have no formal growth legislation but have a good start and are expected to formalize it soon) that don't have any growth management legislation.

Our traffic problems stem from more people, higher car ownership, more women in the workforce, more miles traveled to work, etc. gma cannot solve our problems alone, but it is a good start.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), December 17, 1999.

theman-

"Our congestion problems started way before gma in 1990. I would argue that we are way better off now than many other states 39 to be exact (if you're not counting florida and arizona that have no formal growth legislation but have a good start and are expected to formalize it soon) that don't have any growth management legislation."

Well if you want to ARGUE for this, go ahead and do so. It certainly doesn't make an easy argument, but I'm willing to listen if you want to try to make a case.

"Our traffic problems stem from more people, higher car ownership, more women in the workforce, more miles traveled to work, etc." DUH! I'll grant you this argument. It conforms to the demographic facts that I've repeatedly posted on this website.

"gma cannot solve our problems alone, but it is a good start. " EXCUSE ME! GMA is an attempt to INCREASE population density. Can you explain to me how INCREASING population density is going to IMPROVE those demographics? It'll certainly CHANGE those demographics, in much the same way that drilling a hole in the bottom will CHANGE the amount of water in a leaky rowboat. That's a change, but not much of an improvement.

If you are pushing growth management as a technique for preserving rural farmland, it has a chance of working. I don't particularly support that plan, I believe cities are increasingly going to be an anachronism in the internet age and we are going to spread out like our hunter gatherer ancestors did, but if that's your goal, growth management is a credible mechanism.

But increasing population density doesn't decrease congestion unless it drives an increase in transit use DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER THAN THE INCREASE IN DENSITY, and it does nothing like that for any reasonable scenarios. Even if Seattle's planned population density exceeded LA's, even if it exceeded Paris', even if it exceeded Naples, it wouldn't matter. All of these cities continue to lose transit market share. Even in Japan, transit is losing market share, and the King County SmartGrowth plan envisions NOTHING APPROACHING THE POPULATION DENSITY OF URBAN AREAS IN JAPAN.

So explain to me how this is going to work. Don't chant slogans, don't give generalities, show me some facts. I've looked long and hard for a credible argument for growth management using increased density to control congestion. If you have a good argument, it'll be the first one I've seen. But make it facts. Don't tell me how much you hope it'll work or how bad the situation currently is. Otherwise your just telling me to get rid of the water by drilling a hole in the bottom of the rowboat.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 17, 1999.

Craig--"So explain to me how this is going to work."

================War of the Worlds disclaimer applies================= RCW666.666

Be it enacted by the state of Washington that anyone caught driving in a single occupancy vehicle (SOV) will be summarily shot on site. There are no positive defenses to this legislation.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 17, 1999.

"Craig--"So explain to me how this is going to work." "

For one, it'll make the WTO seem like a pleasant afternoon picnic.

But if you've got the votes to put it in, go for it. I'll be greatly amused by the result.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 17, 1999.

Do you think that growth should be left uncontrolled? If growth should be controlled, what methods should be used.

Should the state encourage growth into rural areas by building/expanding roadways into these rural areas? Who should pay the costs?

Should areas separated by a body of water be linked (e.g. Gig Harbor/Tacoma, Seattle/Bellevue)? Who should pay for providing such links?

-- g_ma2000 (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

Ah yes, growth planning.

Growth cannot be controlled, it can only be manipulated. Unless you propose closing the boarders?

Should the state encourage growth into rural areas by building/expanding roadways into these rural areas? Who should pay the costs?

The state is way behind. The growth in my rural area has been here for a long time. So far, no building or expanding of roads has occured. If I'm not mistaken, I have been paying for roads all along. They just did'nt get expanded or built. So we took some money away.

Maybe Tim's new initiative will get roads expanded around here. It will help to keep all those busses running on time to pick up their 1 dial a ride passenger.

Bodies of water get connected all the time. Pay the toll.

GMA, One more bit of social engineering we could do without.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

"Do you think that growth should be left uncontrolled?" YES.

"If growth should be controlled, what methods should be used." I believe that the local governments certainly ought to have the ability to do compatible zoning ordnances, subject to a vote of the people in the area involved. Should the state encourage growth into rural areas by building/expanding roadways into these rural areas? Who should pay the costs? I believe the people in that area should have reasonable access to the rest of the state highways that they assist in supporting. If the traffic warrants it for regional purposes, a higher juridiction (federal or state) would probably provide funding. If not, the people in the jurisdiction should fund it locally if they desire it.

Should areas separated by a body of water be linked (e.g. Gig Harbor/Tacoma, Seattle/Bellevue)? They already are. They have bridges.

Who should pay for providing such links? They were put in place by the state and paid for by tolls. You aren't very old, are you. I remember the tolls.

Now if your asking if a NEW Narrows Bridge ought to be paid for with tolls, you have a kind of funny situation because of the gerrymandering that took place to get the bridge proposal passed. The locals who would really be using the bridge on a day to day basis in Gig Harbor and the Kitsap peninsula voted it down overwhelmingly (80% in Gig Harbor), while people who would rarely if ever use it voted yes often enough to overcome local opposition. This will of course put it in the courts, and either delay it (with increase in total cost) or stop it altogether. A fairer plebescite might have avoided this outcome. Personally, I favor a new bridge, but not the stupid plan that WS DOT has come up with. It'll wind up costing $700 million before it gets done for a net add of one HOV lane each way. Even if the new initiative converts this into a general purpose lane so it gets better utilization, $700 million seems a little pricey for a 50% increase in bridge lanes.

But that's just my opinion.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 17, 1999.

planning enabeling legislation allows zoning without a public vote as long as there is due process, ie., public process. This law is old as dirt. You keep pushing for everything to be voted on. Why not write an initiative to abolish all representation in washington. Why are we paying people to make decisions when we are voting on the same ones. (hence the lawsuit)

the man, AICP, PE, MURP

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), December 17, 1999.