♪♪
-Hello. I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
Supporters say passing Seattle's new transportation levy
is a matter of life or death when it comes to road safety,
but opponents are balking
at the record sized $1.55 billion price tag.
Advocates say passing Prop 1
would start Seattle down a path
toward some overdue road maintenance.
A quarter of the city streets don't even have sidewalks.
-About 61% of our streets are not accessible
if you are disabled and not in a car.
-[Callanan] From new sidewalks
to road repaving and bridge repair,
supporters like Cecilia Black of Disability Rights Washington
say the levy,
which provides 30% of Seattle's transportation budget,
is a boost for mobility, safety and sustainability.
-[Black] This levy really is a balance between all
of the huge needs
that we place on our transportation system.
-[Man] It's a bad deal for Seattle.
-[Callanan] Opponents, like the city council's
former transportation chair Alex Peterson,
point out this is the largest levy in Seattle's history,
at just over one and a half billion dollars.
That's $21 more per month for owners of a median-priced home,
a property tax hike the No side says
would especially hurt those in need.
-Let's reject it and redo it
so that it can become a more affordable,
equitable, effective measure.
-[Callanan] Will Seattle voters say yes to a bigger investment
in transportation --
or put the brakes on what some call a pricey proposition?
-This is the investment that we need at this moment.
-[Callanan] Our studio panel weighs in.
-The proposal would also be the largest
property tax increase in Seattle history.
-We're looking both ways at the Seattle Transportation Levy
next on "City Inside Out."
♪♪
Thank you once again for joining me here on "City Inside Out."
I'm Brian Callanan and I have with me
two people with some different opinions
about the transportation levy
that's on the ballot for Seattle voters this fall.
First we have Kirk Hovenkotter,
He is executive director of
Transportation Choices Coalition,
an advocacy nonprofit,
speaking in favor of this measure.
Kirk, thanks for coming onto the show.
-Thanks for having me, Brian. -You bet.
Also, we have with us Charles Prestrud,
director of the Coles Center for Transportation
at Washington Policy Center.
The WPC is nonpartisan,
hasn't taken an official stance on this levy.
Charles is here as a voice of concern,
and I thank you for being here.
-Thank you.
-All right, let's jump into it.
Kirk, can I get an overview of why you support Prop 1
an opening statement, if you will.
Keep it to about a minute or so.
-Yeah, absolutely, Brian.
Thank you so much for having me.
For 18 years, Seattle voters
have voted to invest in our streets,
our trails, and our transit.
With the Bridging the Gap levy in 2006
and the Move Seattle Levy in 2015,
they've made investments to make Seattle more accessible,
inclusive city, and make sure our bridges work for everyone.
And this November, they're going to have a chance
to continue to build on that with the Seattle Proposition 1.
This is a $1.55 billion levy that is going to meet the needs
that we need for our streets in Seattle
and make it easier to get around.
It invests in our bridges and our roadways.
It is the largest investment in traffic safety,
it's the largest investment in bikes we've ever had,
invests 151 million to make our buses run more quickly.
It's a generational investment in our sidewalk network,
and it's going to transform the way we get around Seattle.
-Okay. Thank you very much for that.
We're going to break down those issues for sure here.
But Charles, if you could
summarize your concerns for us here,
if I can ask you that and give you about a minute.
-Thanks.
Seattle definitely does need to invest
in its transportation system,
but the levy doesn't do enough to fix the city's
streets and bridges.
The proposal would also be the largest property tax increase
in Seattle history,
and that is going to make housing more expensive.
It's going to raise the cost of living.
But at the end of the eight years,
it does so little for our streets
that they'll actually be in worse condition
than they are today.
So I think there's a lot of room for improvement in this levy,
so that it more effectively addresses
the city's real transportation priorities.
-Okay. Thank you for that.
And, Kirk, I'm going to go back to you
and talk about the cost of Proposition 1,
because a lot of people have been talking about this,
as you mentioned, $1.55 billion.
It would be the largest levy in city history if it passes.
So the cost is going from about 275 per year
for the owner of a median priced home to about 500 a year,
an increase of $21 per month.
Opponents would say it's simply too much for property owners.
It makes housing less affordable in our region.
How do you respond to that?
-One, this is the investment that we need at this moment.
Seattle has a great need to invest
in our transportation system,
as Charles mentioned.
And our bridges are well over a hundred years old.
Our roadways, we know, are potholes,
our bike lanes are not as safe as we want to,
and people are stuck in traffic on buses
getting to where they need to go.
This is the investment that's going to meet the need
for our growing city,
and it is the right investment for the moment.
I think it for a median household it is an increase,
but transportation is the second largest household cost
that we have here in Seattle.
And if Triple A Washington estimates that's
about $12,000 a year that someone has to spend
for the cost of car ownership.
The fastest way we can
put $12,000 back into someone's pocket
is to make it easier to live with one fewer car
or without a car.
And this levy is going to help Seattleites do that.
-All right, thank you for that.
Charles, let me kind of come back on this point with you.
The point I've heard from some Prop 1 supporters
is the whole idea these projects aren't going to get
less expensive in the years ahead.
Adjusted for inflation, we got this new levy,
it costs about 30% more than the old levy,
and some proponents were actually pushing
to raise even more with this levy before it was approved,
because the need is so great.
Talking about this idea that we're in this moment now,
we have some financial urgency to pass a measure like this.
Some thoughts?
-Well, I think there's some truth to that.
The projects will get more expensive when they're put off.
And in fact,
when you allow streets to deteriorate to the point
where they have to be fully rebuilt,
it costs about five times as much
as when you keep up with maintenance and do repaving.
But that's one of the problems with this levy,
is that the city has more than 3,900 lane miles of streets,
but over eight years it only repaves about 500 miles.
That's less than 2% a year.
And so the condition of the streets
is actually going to get worse.
So the argument for invest now to save money later
is certainly valid,
but it suggests that more money needs to be spent
on street repair
and less on some of the peripheral investments
that this levy has been loaded up with.
-Okay.
Well, let's talk about some of these investments, if I could.
Charles, maybe I'll start with you here.
I want to talk about what Prop 1 would do if it passes here.
It would put about $400 million into road maintenance,
$221 million into bridge maintenance,
about 200 million into pedestrian safety,
a host of other priorities.
I know the mayor and the council have described this as
having something for everyone here,
but it sounds like you're saying it spread too thin.
What's your point you're trying to make here?
-I believe it is, and
it includes things that
really don't do much for the transportation system.
Spends tens of million dollars on undefined climate projects.
Are they effective? What do they do?
I don't know. It also spends money on trees.
Well, I'm a tree hugger.
I love trees,
but that's the kind of thing
that should be funded out of the city's parks budget.
They've added in a lot of things
that really don't belong in a transportation levy.
They need to focus on the priorities,
and it looks like they had a hard time doing that.
-I heard some thoughts about this.
I know that Charles wrote a piece for the WPC
that said Seattle residents should expect
pavement conditions to be worse
at the end of the eight year levy.
And then today,
you brought that up today, as well.
I wanted to talk about this.
The levy investments haven't been able to keep up
with the road maintenance needs of the city.
And this idea that maybe this is spread out too thin, too.
-Yeah, I absolutely, I think we don't catch up with them
by voting no on this levy.
The way we do that is by making this investment.
And not only does this make a generational investment
in our roadways and bridges,
it makes a generational investment in sidewalks
to help people get around our communities.
For people who have a disability
or for people to be able to walk to our brand new
light rail stations that we have in Seattle.
This also makes the largest investment
that we've ever seen in bikes.
It's a huge, the largest investment we've ever had
in transportation equity investments,
and also spends to speed up our buses that are stuck in traffic.
And for everyone, our transit, our bikes,
people getting around, our ambulances,
they all rely on our arterials and our bridges.
And this is going to make sure that they work for our city
for years to come.
-Charles, can I jump back to you on a point
that Kirk made earlier about this idea?
When a levy like this,
if it passes, invests in many different options,
making it easier to bike, use transit, things of that nature,
that could potentially reduce costs for the average family
because they spend so much on transportation.
Do you have some thoughts about that?
-Well, it would be wonderful if it worked that way.
But over the course of the eight years,
the average household is going to spend
more than $4,000 on this levy.
But I think a lot of those households
will see very little benefit from it.
And it would be nice if,
spending hundreds of millions of dollars
on bike lanes increased the number of cyclists.
But I haven't seen any evidence
that it's actually going to do that.
I mean, it will make it easier for the people who already bike,
but that's only a very small percentage of the total people
who commute and travel around the city.
-Okay. A rejoinder there,
if you wouldn't mind, some thoughts about
what Charles has just said?
-Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, I think this is an investment
that is going to respond to
how people want to get around our city,
no matter how you get around.
And it's going to make it easier to reach the opportunities
that we have here.
I just think back to before the last levy passed.
There's so many investments now from that levy
that we take for granted that we get so much joy from.
The Westlake Trail,
where you see so many people jogging,
the path around Green Lake.
These investments bring people joy.
They help people get around.
They allow people to get to work easily.
And we're going to see another incredible amount of investments
in this levy over the next eight years across the city
and make it easier to get to places
like our new light rail stations.
-Okay, maybe I can stick with you
to talk about one major issue
Seattleites are definitely concerned about --
safety for pedestrians, for drivers,
people with disabilities,
everybody out there.
Council member Morales pointed this out a few months ago
on the Seattle City Council.
Traffic deaths in Seattle are at record highs.
Stats from 2022 show a 32% increase in serious injury
and fatal collisions in Seattle, compared to 2019.
Do you feel confident that the investments of this levy,
if it passes, will bring those numbers down?
-I do, Brian.
One, we know that the numbers of our friends,
our family members, our neighbors
who are being killed or seriously injured
on Seattle streets are going the wrong way.
Every one of those is a tragedy.
This levy invests over $100 million in Vision Zero projects,
these projects that work to make our most busy,
dangerous intersections safer for people walking,
especially for kids getting to school.
And this levy doesn't shy away from tackling
some of our most dangerous, biggest roadways.
It makes investments in Aurora Avenue
and in the northern end of Rainier and Henderson.
These roadways that we know
that too many of our family members and friends
have gotten hit or killed in a car crash
while walking or biking or driving,
and this is going to work to revamp those streets
to make them safer for our neighbors.
-Did you have a thought?
-Well, yeah, I did.
No one, of course, can oppose improved safety.
And there is a need to make the transportation system safer.
But when you look at the statistics,
what you see is that most of the fatalities
and serious accidents are due to driver behavior.
It's people who are impaired.
They're texting, they're talking on the phone.
They're driving 80 miles an hour on a city street.
And the levy doesn't do anything
about those fundamental causes of most of the accidents.
That isn't to say we shouldn't be looking for ways
that we can improve the safety of our transportation system,
but we need to acknowledge that the levy
isn't really going to address
most of the fundamental problems.
-Kirk, do you want to reply? Yeah.
-I would disagree this levy has a commitment
to fill potholes within 72 hours.
Not only is that going to make it a smoother ride
for people around our city and respond to complaints
that residents have,
but if you're on a bike,
you're getting around and you have to swerve around a pothole,
that is, can be concerning
and this is going to pave over those,
make it safer to get around our city
in whatever way that you get around.
And it's an urgent need and this levy meets the moment.
-Yeah. And I guess, Charles,
I just wanted to touch on one more piece here
because we talked to a few disability rights activists
about what was going on here.
They're very much in support of this
because they're telling me a lot of these things.
We're talking about -- sidewalks, etc.
it's a matter of life or death in some cases there.
And I just wanted to make sure I incorporated
that vision part of it,
or that piece of it, too,
because I think that's a piece that can't be overlooked here.
-That's a very fair point.
And the city does need to do more.
Part of the reason that it's in the difficult situation
it is now is because it hasn't done enough
to maintain its sidewalks and crosswalks for decades.
-Okay.
And let me -- I just want to jump back to you.
Or did you have a point you wanted to make?
-Yeah, I mean, and that's why I'm so excited about this levy
and the coalition is so excited about this levy.
From the chamber to Seattle Neighborhood Greenways,
to Disability Rights Washington to MLK Labor
because it makes a generational investment in sidewalks.
Too much of our city doesn't have sidewalks
to connect it to business centers or to their neighbors.
And this is going to build over 250 blocks of sidewalks
in the first four years of this levy.
It takes what we had committed to building sidewalks
in the last levy
and front loads that to really meet this safety crisis.
-Okay, I'm going to imagine
that you're saying it's not going to do enough sidewalks
because I've heard that criticism, certainly.
-Sidewalks are nice,
but we need to remember that it's the roads
that have the biggest funding deficit
and that present the largest problem in terms of safety.
So again, it's a question of priorities,
how much you want to spend on each thing.
-All right. Charles, I want to talk with you, if I could,
about transportation funding options,
because that's really at the root
of what we're discussing here.
Former council member Alex Peterson says
instead of leaning so hard on property taxes,
the city should consider transportation impact fees.
Dozens of other cities in Washington use them --
Everett, Bellevue, Shoreline, to name a few.
This is where developers pay a fee
when they build with money going towards sidewalks,
roads, other infrastructure improvements.
Is that a funding model you support?
I just wanted to make sure I brought this up.
-It depends on how the impact fees are structured.
The Growth Management Act does empower cities
to impose impact fees.
The trick is to make sure that the funds that are raised
actually address the impacts
of the specific proposal that's being built.
-Okay.
And I guess maybe, Kirk, if I can draw you in here,
I think this really gets to one of
the fundamental critiques of Prop 1.
The higher you push property tax measures.
The more you pile onto our state's
infamous regressive tax structure here,
and I know the council has talked about these impact fees
for the past couple of years,
but has not moved on them.
Do you think the city should be looking for other ways
to fund its transportation priorities?
-I think, one, we've shown that over the last 18 years,
this levy and how it's funded can produce results.
I mean, just this year,
we've seen the RapidRide G Line open in the Madison neighborhood
that provides frequent bus service to folks.
We've seen projects throughout the city get delivered,
and this levy is doing that.
In the past, levies have done that.
This levy also has exemptions for people
who are struggling to pay their property tax bill.
And I'd encourage anyone to look into this.
And once again, this is the levy that has delivered, uh,
over the last 18 years.
And this is going to continue to do that.
-I just want to make sure I draw you in, Charles.
Have you seen these past levies deliver?
I wanted to ask that question.
-Well, it depends on who you ask.
Some of the projects were delayed,
came in over budget.
I wouldn't say they were batting a thousand on that
by any means.
As far as funding,
one of the things that this new levy would fund
is millions of dollars
for electric vehicle charging stations.
Well, there's a federal program, a $5 billion federal program
to pay for electric vehicle charging systems.
So why should Seattle city taxpayers
get stuck with that bill
when there's a federal program to pay for it?
Or at least 80% of the cost?
And there are other things in this,
this levy that they may be nice things for the city to do,
but I'm not sure that they belong in a transportation levy.
And I'm not sure that they justify the big increase
in property taxes.
-Can we touch on that EV part real quick?
Because I just want to make sure you answer that directly.
-Yeah, absolutely.
In Seattle,
over 60% of our greenhouse gas emissions
come from transportation.
The vast majority of that
is people driving alone in their cars.
We can provide ways for people to get around using transit --
walking through these new sidewalk connections,
biking through new bike connections,
that's going to provide a way for people to get around
without contributing to the climate crisis.
And this meets that need.
-Why not use the federal dollars, I think,
is Charles's point here.
Some thoughts about that?
-Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, the thing I'm the most excited about
is how this is going to help people
get around in a different way,
that generational investment in sidewalks,
the transit spot improvements
that are going to get our buses out of traffic
and jump the line to get bus riders where they need to go.
It's going to help make it easier to get around by walking,
biking, and transit in Seattle.
-Okay. You had something else.
-Well, one of the other things that this levy does
is it does spend a lot on transit improvements,
and there is room for improvement there.
But the question I would ask is --
we already have two transit agencies --
Sound Transit, that has a budget over $2 billion a year,
and King County Metro,
that has a budget of about a billion dollars a year.
Shouldn't they be paying for transit improvements
instead of sticking it to Seattle taxpayers?
-I know city and county kick into
these different issues sometimes.
Some thoughts about that?
Is this levy in some ways duplicative
of other investments that are being made locally?
-I think the city of Seattle,
we own our roadways that our buses run on,
and we saw when the West Seattle Bridge broke down,
what that meant for the West Seattle community
and West Seattle Transit riders.
We need to make sure that our bridges
and our roadways are working for our buses,
people on bikes, or ambulances, our workers getting around
and make sure that neighborhoods like West Seattle
never become an island again.
Imagine if the Ballard Bridge did close down,
what that would mean for RapidRide D riders,
or if the Fremont Bridge went down,
what that would mean for people biking across it.
-Yeah, both Charles and I are from West Seattle,
so we know it well. We know it well.
Kirk, I want to stick back to you and talk about
just who is supporting this measure
politically and financially.
Council Member Peterson brought up some concerns about this.
He points to a number of wealthy donors from outside Seattle,
donating to the Yes campaign.
Keep Seattle Moving, and trying to influence this race.
How do you respond to that critique
about who's supporting this campaign?
-Yeah, I'm proud of our coalition.
The organizations that have endorsed this,
not only Transportation Choices Coalition,
but we also have Disability Rights Washington,
Cascade Bike Club, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways,
the Downtown Seattle Association,
the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce,
350 Seattle, and the list goes on.
There's so many people who see this
as vital to making our city
a more accessible and inclusive place,
a place that addresses the climate crisis.
And that's why they've signed on to endorse this.
-Okay, Charles, I guess on the flip side here,
there really isn't a substantial,
organized No campaign.
We've heard a lot from council member Peterson,
former council member Peterson, for sure.
The coalition supporting Levy,
you've heard made up of a lot of different voices --
business, labor, environmental advocates, too.
What do you make of that broad support,
and why do you think there's no organized
No campaign for this measure?
-Well, as you know,
the political calendar has been kind of busy this year.
-[Callanan] True story. -And, you know,
a levy proposal isn't in the headlines.
And I don't think most people are really attuned
to how much it's going to cost them or what it's going to do.
So I hope they'll read the voters pamphlet
and give it serious consideration
and decide for themselves
whether the high cost is worth it,
and whether it delivers the benefits for them.
-You feel like it's going to get
lost in the shuffle a little bit here?
It's a long ballot we're going to have.
-Yeah. -Okay.
Any thoughts there?
-I encourage voters to start at the bottom.
-Yeah. Yeah.
-I also want to highlight that this levy funds about 30%
of the Seattle Department of Transportation's revenue.
And if we don't have that,
that is a huge chunk that we're going to be missing.
That makes our roads, our bridges, our bike lanes,
our transit system work.
-Some thoughts about that 30%?
I know this is something always brought up by the levy.
This makes up a big portion of SDOT's budget here,
and to take it away could have some really big impacts.
Any thoughts about that?
-Well it doesn't really take it away.
It's a question of how much it adds.
And we need to keep in mind
that the city of Seattle has a very large general fund budget
that they could use to fund many of these things.
And in fact, there's a good argument to be made
that they should be funding some of these things,
like the street trees and the electric vehicle charging
and some of the other kind of
ill-defined place making improvements,
lighting and so on, that are in the levy.
Those are things that
you shouldn't have to fund
through a transportation levy in a property tax.
They should be funded out of the city's general fund revenues.
-A quick thought on that about how the levy is being used here
and what Charles said?
-Yeah, I mean, I think Seattle voters
want to be able to get around by walking, biking,
they want easier ways to enjoy this beautiful city,
to see her waterfront,
to go watch the Kraken and the Mariners,
to be able to get to work without being stuck in traffic.
And they want to invest in this.
And since the last time we passed the levy,
over 100,000 new residents have joined our city.
It's going to be the first time
that they get to vote to speed up their bus,
get to vote to build a new bike lane,
get to vote to support the bridge they rely on everyday.
-[Callanan] Thank you for that.
Charles, I wanted to ask a question about this.
I know you've raised some concerns about
what a yes vote would mean.
Let's say that happens. How would that impact Seattle?
-Well, it's a good question.
It isn't obvious
that it's actually going to reduce congestion.
It will do some good things for street maintenance
and bridge maintenance and sidewalks.
Those are good things.
But at the end of the eight years,
the city streets are going to be in worse condition
than they are today.
And I think that's a serious problem.
-Okay, I'll flip the question to you, Kirk.
Let's say voters say no to Prop 1.
What does that do to the city?
-Like I said, it will cut 30%
of the Seattle Department of Transportation's budget.
It's going to leave us with bridges
that are going to be more vulnerable,
more potholes, and unsafe bike lanes and slower transit.
And as we welcome the world in 2026 for the World Cup,
this is a moment for us to be able to make sure
that our city works for our residents
and is a welcoming place for the world.
-Got it. And just briefly -- go ahead.
-Well, I certainly hope the city looks good
during the World Cup,
but most of the improvements wouldn't even get made in time
for that, so I'm not too worried about that.
It's really questionable
whether these improvements will improve transit
on time performance significantly.
So that shouldn't be the main determinant
in people voting on this.
-Uh, Kirk, a quick reply, please.
-I'd say ask a lot of the transit riders who are getting
to benefit from the new RapidRide G Line bus lanes
how that's changed how they get
from First Hill or Madison Valley around the city.
These are investments that work and speed people
to get to where they want to go.
-Okay. All right. We're just about time here,
or we just have about enough time
to get in a final statement here, if we could.
I wanted to get some final thoughts to voters
who are looking at this, the transportation levy Prop 1.
If you could keep it to about a minute or so,
Kirk, that'd be very helpful.
-Yeah, absolutely.
One, Seattle voters for 18 years
have invested in our streets,
trails. and our transit to build a more welcoming,
accessible, inclusive city.
And this is a moment to continue to do that,
to address the climate crisis,
to make it easier to access opportunity.
And this is a levy
that makes a generational investment in our sidewalks.
It makes a huge investment in our transit system
to connect us to our new light rail stations.
And I think voters are excited to do that.
And we have a huge coalition
from the Seattle Chamber of Commerce
to Martin Luther King Jr. Labor Council
to Seattle Neighborhood Greenways
and Disability Rights Washington,
who support this and want to get this done.
So I hope Seattle voters vote yes on this
and invest in our beautiful city.
-All right, Charles, I'll give you the last word.
If you could keep it to just about a minute,
that'd be helpful. -Sure.
The question I would pose to the city council
is if the voters turn this down,
can you go back to the drawing board
and come up with something that's better,
that focuses more on the highest priorities?
I think there's a lot of room for improvement there.
And I also am concerned about the impact
on housing costs and rents,
because that one and a half billion dollars
is going to fall on people
who own houses,
who run small businesses, and who pay rent every month.
-All right. A lot of concerns here brought up.
I appreciate both of your inputs here.
And we will be right back.
What are people saying on social media
about Seattle's transportation levy?
One person writes, "The SDOT transportation levy gets bigger
every time it comes up and our roads get worse and worse."
Another person comments --
"We are way behind on road maintenance.
$1.5 billion is nothing compared
to the inflationary cost of waiting."
We'd like to know what you think.
Send us an email at contact@seattlechannel.org
or find us on social media.
Great to have that feedback.
Kirk and Charles,
thank you very much for being here
and we will see you next time on "City Inside Out."
♪♪