In the weeks between now and August 6th, the deadline to place propositions on the November 2024 general election ballot, the Seattle City Council has a critically important decision to make: how much tax authority to request from voters to fund transportation improvements across Washington State’s largest municipality.
For most of the twenty-first century, the city has relied on levy dollars to support the essential work of the Seattle Department of Transportation. Seattle voters passed an nine-year “Bridging the Gap” levy in 2006, when Greg Nickels was mayor, and then a nine-year Levy to Move Seattle in 2015, when Ed Murray was mayor. The latter of those is set to expire at the end of this year, and city leadership recognizes that a renewal is essential. But what should the size of this 2024 levy be? What’s the optimal level of investment for a growing city with a long, long, long list of transportation needs?
Our team was eager to investigate those questions, so we teamed up with our friends at Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, the Sierra Club, the Transit Riders Union, Transportation Choices Coalition, Disability Rights Washington, Lid I‑5, Sightline Institute, and several additional partners to gauge voters’ views. We drew on our extremely successful yearslong partnership with Change Research to bring the project to fruition.
The firm, which conducted all of our highly accurate 2021 and 2023 Seattle polls, interviewed 647 likely November 2024 voters in the Emerald City last week, from April 30th to May 3rd, 2024. Dynamic Online Sampling was used by the polling team to attain a representative sample. All respondents participated online and the survey was conducted in English. It has a modeled margin of error of 4.1%.
The results of our levy-related questions were quite definitive. Seattle voters categorically want to be presented with a bold 2024 transportation levy that has a higher level of investment than what Mayor Bruce Harrell has proposed so far. 25% of our respondents favored an option with an additional $300 million, while 54% — a majority — favored an option with an additional $500 million. A mere 21% are opposed to renewing the levy, even after hearing arguments against its continuation.
This survey yielded a lot of very informative data and we’re happy to be able to share it with the community. Let’s take a look at our levy-related questions in the order that our respondents saw them and examine the answers that we received.
We began our line of inquiry by asking respondents if they wanted to renew the levy:
QUESTION: In 2015, Seattle voters approved a $930 million transportation levy called Move Seattle to improve safety, maintain and repair our streets and bridges, and enhance transportation choices. The levy costs the median-priced Seattle property owner about $24 per month and is set to expire at the end of 2024. The levy is the largest single source of funding for the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) budget. Do you support or oppose renewing the levy?
RESPONSES:
- Support: 71%
- Strongly support: 41%
- Somewhat support: 31%
- Oppose: 22%
- Somewhat oppose: 11%
- Strongly oppose: 12%
- Not sure: 6%
More than seven in ten respondents expressed support for renewing the levy. That’s a really good starting place for a ballot measure campaign, especially one that would empower a large locality to levy property taxes for an essential public service.
Next, we asked about voters’ priorities:
QUESTION: Please indicate whether the inclusion of any of the following priorities in the transportation levy would make a difference to your vote.
Answer choices were much more likely to vote yes, somewhat more likely to vote yes, wouldn’t make a difference, somewhat more likely to vote no, or much more likely to vote no. The numbers below are the total who said they’d either be more likely to be vote yes or they’d be more likely to vote no. The priorities we tested are sorted by popularity, from greatest net support to least.
RESPONSES:
- 85% yes / 2% no: Repair bridges in poor condition
- 81% yes / 3% no: Repave streets in poor condition
- 77% yes / 5% no: Improve safety on Seattle’s most dangerous streets like Rainier Ave, Aurora Ave, and MLK Way S
- 77% yes / 5% no: Build sidewalks where they are missing
- 74% yes / 4% no: Invest in Safe Routes to School to help kids get to school safely when walking, biking, and rolling
- 73% yes / 6% no: Improve safety around light rail stations and strengthen station accessibility
- 69% yes / 9% no: Identify and invest in projects which prioritize the needs of historically under-served neighborhoods such as Rainier Beach, the International District, and South Park
- 67% yes / 14% no: Create pedestrian streets where people can eat, shop, and meet with friends at the heart of every Seattle neighborhood
- 65% yes / 12% no: Limit automobile traffic in Pike Place Market to open up more space for vendors, seating, art, or music while still allowing for business loading and unloading
- 59% yes / 8% no: Improve trails like the Burke Gilman Trail, Alki Trail, and Chief Sealth Trail
- 55% yes / 10% no: Mitigate displacement caused by new construction of light rail stations in Chinatown/International District and the Rainier Valley
- 54% yes / 19% no: Add more bus lanes to make buses run more reliably and frequently
- 48% yes / 14% no: Add a walking and biking trail along part of Lake Washington Boulevard
- 43% yes / 16% no: Increase bicycle storage options in neighborhood business districts and at public schools
It’s striking that the least popular priority we tested still had net support of twenty-seven points. These results demonstrate that Seattle voters deeply value freedom of mobility and robust transportation options that liberate them from being forced to drive.
Our data suggests that Mayor Harrell and SDOT Director Greg Spotts were right on when they said they heard a message of Yes, and… in response to their first levy draft, which proposed $1.35 billion in investments. None of the priorities we tested had negative net support. Most voters want a levy that’s multimodal to the max.
Harrell’s revised draft upped the scope of the levy to $1.45 billion in investments; you can watch the press conference and read the highlights from the new draft here.
Seattle voters would like to see an even greater level of investment, however. That was abundantly clear from the responses we received to our next question:
QUESTION: The Seattle City Council must decide how much revenue to raise before it submits a proposition to renew the transportation levy to voters, and what that revenue will pay for. The following are two possible paths for the Council:
- Option A: Raise $1.7 billion by asking voters to authorize an eight-year property tax levy beginning in 2025 at approximately $0.64 per $1,000 in assessed value
- Option B: Raise $1.9 billion by asking voters to authorize an eight-year property tax beginning in 2025 at approximately $0.72 per $1,000 in assessed value
Compared to Option A, Option B would:
- Build 180 more blocks of sidewalks
- Improve the transit experience on two more often-delayed bus routes
- Implement safety improvements on five more high-crash corridors
- Complete thousands of additional safety, mobility, and maintenance improvements
Both options would repave 38% of the busiest streets in poor condition and repair three bridges.
Which option do you prefer?
RESPONSES:
- Prefer Option A ($1.7 billion): 26%
- Strongly prefer Option A: 8%
- Somewhat prefer Option A: 18%
- Prefer Option B ($1.9 billion): 54%
- Somewhat prefer Option B: 28%
- Strongly prefer Option B: 26%
- Not sure: 21%
We then followed up that question with a final question in which we presented our respondents with arguments for each option as well as arguments for not passing a levy at all. As you’ll see, the anti-tax, pro-austerity perspective was represented, and respondents had the choice of saying they were opposed to renewing the levy.
QUESTION: Proponents of Option A say it is better because it costs less than Option B while still delivering significant investments in maintenance, safety, and mobility. They say in an increasingly unaffordable city we should be modest with what we are asking of taxpayers and that Option A only costs the owner of an $866,000 home an additional $20 per month.
Proponents of Option B say we should invest more to accelerate progress towards keeping people safe on our streets, maintaining our crumbling infrastructure, and providing options to avoid traffic. They say these expanded projects would help Seattle reach its climate action goals, right historic inequities, and create an accessible city for kids, elders, and people with disabilities. They say that all these improvements are a bargain for only costing the owner of an $866,000 home an additional $27 per month.
Opponents of both options say the Seattle Department of Transportation hasn’t done a good job with its stewardship of the dollars from the 2015 levy, and that both options are too expensive in an unaffordable city. They argue we should cut transportation projects, or perhaps come back in a future year with a smaller proposal.
Having heard arguments for each option, which do you prefer?
RESPONSES:
- Prefer Option A ($1.7 billion): 25%
- Strongly prefer Option A: 8%
- Somewhat prefer Option A: 17%
- Prefer Option B ($1.9 billion): 54%
- Somewhat prefer Option B: 26%
- Strongly prefer Option B: 28%
- Neither — Opposed to renewing the Move Seattle transportation levy: 21%
Notice that even though two out of three paragraphs presented arguments for either a smaller levy or no levy, with only one paragraph making the case for a bigger levy, there was almost no movement among our respondents at all. A few people became more enthusiastic about Option B… and that was about it.
And, recall that earlier on, 71% of our respondents said they supported renewing the levy and 22% were opposed. Here, at the end of our set of levy questions, 21% are opposed and 79% prefer a level of investment of $1.7 billion or $1.9 billion, both amounts that exceed what Mayor Harrell has proposed.
The key takeaway is that Seattle voters aren’t repulsed in the slightest by the prospect of a bolder set of investments. To the contrary: they’re intrigued and supportive.
Why? Well, Seattle voters are smart. They understand the logic of pooling resources to get things done. And, as I mentioned, they value freedom of mobility.
Here are a selection of comments from the majority of respondents who support renewing the levy. Younger voters demonstrated a greater proclivity to provide qualitative input when given the opportunity to in this survey, are the future of our society, and do not qualify for fiscal assistance policies like the senior exemption that older voters are eligible for, so I’ve chosen to emphasize their perspectives. These are just a few of the 424 — yes, four hundred and twenty-four! — pro-levy comments.
“Given it’s the largest source of funding for transit projects, we should renew the levy. If we want to put our money where our mouths are when it comes to transit-oriented development, this will ensure we can do that.”
– Male voter between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four in District 1
“Infrastructure is important and without [a] state income tax, this is how we can fund it.”
– Female voter between the ages of thirty-five to forty-nine in District 2
“I believe that transit and infrastructure are an important investment in the city’s well-being and future, as well as a positive economic investment that will incentive community well being and economic prosperity.”
– Nonbinary voter between the ages of eighteen to thirty-four in District 3
“I think we would all want the traffic in the Seattle area to get better instead of worse. Removing funding wouldn’t solve that.”
– Male voter between the ages of eighteen to thirty-four in District 4
“I think it’s important to have a bill that focuses on our ability to travel from place to place. Having good roads and side walks is in important in a city… I’d rather my tax money go to something that benefits us, which this does.”
– Female voter between the ages of eighteen to thirty-four in District 5
“As someone who bikes, walks, and uses public transportation in the city frequently I strongly support investment in this area and am willing to pay for it.”
– Female voter between the ages of thirty-five to forty-nine in District 6
“Our infrastructure needs all the money it can get, and property owners are at the best place financially to fund it.”
– Male voter between the ages of eighteen to thirty-four in District 7
Perhaps my favorite comment came from a male respondent from District 1, who opined: “Nice things cost money. You want nice roads that don’t screw up your suspension? Pay taxes. You want bike lanes and sidewalks? Pay taxes. You want potholes to get filled? Pay taxes. You want bridges that don’t fall into rivers? Pay taxes.”
That fellow really understands both sides of the equation!
Even a few folks opposed to renewing the levy stressed that they favor investing in transportation choices. A male voter between the ages of thirty-five to forty-nine in District 6 who opposes renewal told us: “The old levy spent too much on roads. The new levy isn’t dedicating enough to bike/pedestrian infrastructure, in favor of roads. Seattle needs to stop ignoring bike/pedestrian infrastructure.” Meanwhile, a cost-conscious female voter over the age of sixty-five in District 5 told us: “Somewhat opposed. My property tax went up over $800 last year. Would like to see a more equitable way of sharing the cost. The new levy will include an increase.”
It’s clear that there are voters in our sample who would be very receptive to seeing additional funds going to sidewalks, bike paths, pedestrian access, and traffic calming measures — even some who say they oppose renewing the levy!
The bottom line is this: The Seattle City Council will be leaving money on the table if it doesn’t increase the size of the 2024 transportation levy. This proposition authorizes funding for an eight-year timespan. That’s two years short of a decade. As we approach the 2030s, we can anticipate that climate impacts are going to get worse and that public support for taking urgent measures to reduce emissions will grow. Seattle needs to be getting ready for that future while also tackling its neglected streets. The Council should add at least a few hundred million dollars in investments to the levy proposition.
Leave a comment