Seattle voters want a bolder 2024 transportation levy with close to $2 billion in investments, NPI poll finds

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.