Transportation 
  in 
  Seattle: 
   
  Where 
  Does 
  the 
  Money 
  Come 
  From, 
  Where 
  Does 
  
the 
  Money 
  Go 
  and 
  What’s 
  Heading 
  for 
  Taxpayers 
  in 
  Big 
  New 
  Tax 
  Packages. 
   
   
  
Douglas 
  B. 
  MacDonald * 
  
Seattle, 
  Washington 
  
 
  
September 
  2015 
  
∗

 
  
The 
  Purpose 
  of 
  this 
  Study 
  
This 
  study 
  looks 
  in 
  a 
  new 
  way 
  at 
  public 
  money 
  for 
  transportation 
  systems 
  used 
  by 
  
Seattle’s 
  citizens. 
   
  It 
  focuses 
  inquiry 
  from 
  the 
  vantage 
  point 
  of 
  the 
  consumer. 
   
   
  That 
  is, 
  the 
  
taxpayer 
  – 
  the 
  sole 
  source 
  of 
  the 
  myriad 
  revenue 
  streams 
  (taxes, 
  fees 
  and 
  various 
  user 
  
charges 
  like 
  fares 
  and 
  tolls) 
  that 
  flow 
  into 
  the 
  coffers 
  in 
  the 
  several 
  silos 
  of 
  transportation 
  
system 
  decision-­‐making 
  and 
  systems. 
   
   
  
If 
  you 
  are 
  a 
  taxpayer, 
  how 
  much 
  are 
  you 
  paying, 
  how 
  is 
  it 
  taken 
  from 
  your 
  wallet, 
  and 
  
where 
  does 
  it 
  go. 
   
  This 
  view 
  sharply 
  focuses 
  questions 
  such 
  as 
  who 
  is 
  deciding 
  how 
  to 
  
spend 
  your 
  money, 
  what 
  are 
  the 
  spenders 
  choosing 
  to 
  do 
  with 
  your 
  money, 
  (with 
  or 
  
without 
  coordination 
  with 
  one 
  another), 
  and 
  whether 
  the 
  results 
  are 
  making 
  sense 
  for 
  you 
  
as 
  the 
  user 
  of 
  transportation 
  systems 
  of 
  which 
  you 
  are 
  funding. 
   
  
This 
  is 
  different 
  from 
  the 
  usual 
  way 
  of 
  looking 
  at 
  the 
  money. 
   
  Not 
  all 
  the 
  attention 
  first 
  on 
  
one 
  agency, 
  then 
  another, 
  each 
  with 
  “decision-­‐makers” 
  and 
  “stakeholders” 
  largely 
  acting 
  
in 
  silos 
  to 
  work 
  out 
  their 
  agendas 
  with 
  your 
  money. 
   
  It 
  sets 
  aside 
  the 
  questions 
  that 
  too 
  
long 
  have 
  fragmented 
  the 
  transportation 
  discussion, 
  such 
  as: 
   
  what 
  is 
  the 
  federal 
  
government 
  doing 
  with 
  its 
  transportation 
  money, 
  or 
  the 
  state 
  government 
  with 
  its 
  
transportation 
  money, 
  or 
  the 
  city 
  with 
  its 
  transportation 
  money, 
  or 
  the 
  county 
  with 
  its 
  
transportation 
  money, 
  or 
  Sound 
  Transit 
  with 
  its 
  transportation 
  money. 
   
  The 
  new 
  question 
  
is: 
  What 
  are 
  they 
  all 
  doing 
  with 
  your 
  money. 
   
   
  
The 
  consumer-­‐focused 
  vantage 
  point 
  for 
  this 
  study 
  is 
  the 
  Typical 
  Seattle 
  Household. 
   
   
  
Now 
  is 
  a 
  particularly 
  important 
  time 
  to 
  look 
  at 
  transportation 
  funding 
  and 
  the 
  typical 
  
Seattle 
  household 
  because 
  Seattle 
  households 
  either 
  very 
  recently 
  or 
  in 
  the 
  very 
  near 
  
future 
  face 
  big 
  run-­‐ups, 
  over 
  a 
  40% 
  increase 
  all-­‐in-­‐all, 
  in 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household’s 
  
transportation 
  taxes, 
  fees, 
  and 
  user 
  charges. 
   
  Revenues 
  for 
  transportation 
  sometimes 
  pour 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
* 
  Former 
  Washington 
  State 
  Secretary 
  of 
  Transportation 
  (2001-­‐2007). 
   
  902 
  North 
  79th 
  Street, 
  Seattle, 
  WA 
  
98103. 
   
  Comments 
  and 
  questions, 
  please, 
  to 
  dbmacdonal@earthlink.net 
  . 
   
  Acknowledgements 
  and 
  
appreciation 
  to 
  a 
  large 
  number 
  of 
  colleagues 
  and 
  friends 
  in 
  and 
  out 
  of 
  the 
  transportation 
  establishment 
  who 
  
have 
  offered 
  insights 
  and 
  suggestions 
  but 
  have 
  not 
  spoken 
  in 
  their 
  official 
  capacities 
  or 
  with 
  the 
  intention 
  or 
  
expectation 
  of 
  putting 
  their 
  agencies 
  “on 
  record” 
   
  (and 
  they 
  therefore 
  shall 
  go 
  nameless) 
  or 
  provided 
  agency 
  
information 
  other 
  than 
  what 
  is 
  generally 
  available 
  to 
  the 
  public. 
   
   
  Mistakes 
  are 
  in 
  every 
  instance 
  the 
  
responsibility 
  of 
  the 
  author. 
   
  Suggestions 
  for 
  corrections 
  or 
  refinements 
  will 
  be 
  cheerfully 
  accepted 
  and 
  
shared. 
   
   
  

 
  
 
  

1 
  

 and 
  sometimes 
  trickle 
  out 
  of 
  taxpayers’ 
  wallets, 
  often 
  with 
  their 
  hardly 
  knowing 
  it. 
   
  These 
  
big 
  increases 
  at 
  hand 
  arrive 
  from 
  the 
  following: 
  
2015 
  Enacted 
  State 
  Transportation 
  Revenue/Spending 
  Package. 
   
  Fashioned 
  by 
  
the 
  state 
  Legislature 
  in 
  Olympia 
  in 
  2015, 
  the 
  program 
  includes 
  a 
  gas 
  tax 
  increase 
  
and 
  increases 
  in 
  other 
  licenses, 
  permits, 
  fees 
  and 
  user 
  charges 
  paid 
  by 
  taxpayers 
  to 
  
the 
  state 
  in 
  the 
  expectation 
  of 
  supporting 
  investment 
  of 
  billions 
  of 
  dollars 
  
stretching 
  out 
  to 
  2031 
  for 
  new 
  road 
  projects 
  around 
  the 
  state, 
  ferry 
  system 
  
investment, 
  and 
  about 
  8% 
  of 
  expected 
  spending 
  for 
  preservation 
  and 
  maintenance 
  
of 
  existing 
  transportation 
  assets.1 
   
  
2015 
  Proposed 
  City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  Move 
  Seattle 
  Transportation 
  Levy. 
   
  Replacing 
  and 
  
expanding 
  upon 
  the 
  2006 
  Bridging 
  the 
  Gap 
  levy 
  that 
  expires 
  in 
  2015 
  and 
  has 
  over 
  
the 
  last 
  eight 
  years 
  provided 
  about 
  25% 
  of 
  funding 
  for 
  the 
  Seattle 
  Department 
  of 
  
Transportation 
  (SDOT). 
   
  Move 
  Seattle, 
  if 
  approved 
  by 
  voters, 
  will 
  rely 
  on 
  a 
  
significant 
  property 
  tax 
  increase 
  beyond 
  the 
  level 
  of 
  Bridging 
  the 
  Gap 
  adding 
  up 
  to 
  
a 
  total 
  about 
  $930 
  million 
  in 
  taxes 
  over 
  the 
  ten 
  yeas. 
   
   
  Funds 
  will 
  be 
  spent 
  for 
  safety 
  
and 
  corridor 
  modernization 
  improvements 
  and 
  (to 
  the 
  extent 
  of 
  about 
  45% 
  of 
  the 
  
funding) 
  maintenance 
  and 
  repair 
  of 
  existing 
  assets 
  including 
  streets 
  and 
  bridges. 
  2 
  
2016 
  Proposed 
  Sound 
  Transit 
  3 
  Revenue/Spending 
  Proposal 
  chiefly 
  relying 
  on 
  
pushing 
  Seattle’s 
  sales 
  tax 
  rate 
  over 
  10% 
  together 
  with 
  property 
  tax 
  (increase 
  of 
  
up 
  to 
  $.25 
  for 
  $1000 
  assessed 
  value) 
  and 
  car 
  tab 
  increases.3 
   
  The 
  sum 
  of 
  the 
  taxes 
  
collected 
  over 
  the 
  years 
  to 
  2031 
  would 
  be 
  up 
  to 
  $15 
  billion 
  and 
  continuing 
  
thereafter. 
  The 
  largest 
  of 
  the 
  projects 
  now 
  under 
  consideration 
  for 
  inclusion 
  in 
  the 
  
proposal 
  are 
  light 
  rail 
  extensions 
  to 
  Tacoma 
  and 
  Everett 
  and 
  light 
  rail 
  additions 
  in 
  
Seattle 
  to 
  Ballard 
  and 
  West 
  Seattle, 
  all 
  probably 
  to 
  go 
  into 
  service 
  no 
  sooner 
  than 
  
2031.4 
   
  Virtually 
  no 
  investment 
  in 
  preservation 
  or 
  maintenance 
  of 
  existing 
  
transportation 
  infrastructure 
  is 
  included 
  in 
  these 
  Sound 
  Transit 
  program 
  
proposals. 
   
  
2014 
  Seattle 
  Proposition 
  1 
  adopted 
  by 
  voters 
  in 
  November 
  2014 
  raised 
  an 
  
existing 
  $20 
  annual 
  car 
  tab 
  (already 
  was 
  just 
  a 
  small 
  piece 
  of 
  the 
  cost 
  of 
  licensing 
  a 
  
car 
  when 
  state 
  and 
  Sound 
  Transit 
  car 
  tabs 
  and 
  other 
  fees 
  are 
  also 
  included) 
  to 
  $80 
  
– 
  and 
  lifted 
  sales 
  tax 
  rates 
  by 
  .1% 
  (1 
  cent 
  on 
  a 
  ten 
  dollar 
  purchase) 
  raising 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
1 
  Mike 
  Lindblom, 
  “Lawmakers release $16 billion transportation plan with 11.9-cent gas tax,” Seattle Times, June
29, 2015 http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-­news/transportation/lawmakers-­release-­16-­billion-­
transportation-­plan-­has-­119-­cent-­gas-­tax/ 
  
2 
  City 
  of 
  Seattle, 
  “Transportation 
  Levy 
  to 
  Move 
  Seattle, 
  June 
  3 
  2015 
  Fact 
  Sheet,” 
  accessed 
  at 
  

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/LevyFactSheet62915.pdf 
  

3 
  Sound 
  Transit, 
  “Sound 
  Transit 
  3 
  funding,” 
  accessed 
  at 
  

http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/2015_0810_ST3_funding_FS_0.pdf 
  

4 
  Mike 
  Lindblom, 
  Sound

Transit planning heats up for light-rail expansion and public vote,” Seattle Times, July 4,
2015,http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sound-transit-boosts-light-rail-expansion-plans/ 
  

 
  

2 
  

 approximately 
  $35 
  million 
  annually 
  for 
  investment 
  in 
  Metro 
  transit 
  services. 
   
  The 
  
money 
  is 
  intended 
  almost 
  entirely 
  to 
  be 
  used 
  to 
  support 
  transit 
  services.5 
  

What 
  This 
  Study 
  Tells 
  Us 
  
This 
  study 
  describes 
  the 
  situation 
  of 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  before 
  (2014) 
  and 
  after 
  
(2016-­‐17) 
  given 
  the 
  foregoing 
  transportation 
  funding 
  measures.6. 
   
  There 
  are 
  two 
  simple 
  
scenarios 
  cumulating 
  the 
  effects 
  of 
  28 
  discrete 
  revenue 
  streams 
  to 
  which 
  taxpayers 
  
contribute: 
   
   
  
First: 
   
  “What 
  Was?” 
   
  In 
  other 
  words, 
  before 
  the 
  four 
  revenue/spending 
  measures 
  above 
  
would 
  have 
  taken 
  effect. 
   
  Basically 
  this 
  is 
  presented 
  as 
  year 
  2014 
  dollar 
  amounts. 
  
Second, 
  “What 
  Will 
  [Would] 
  Be.” 
   
   
  In 
  other 
  words 
  after 
  the 
  four 
  new 
  revenue 
  steps 
  above 
  
have 
  added 
  new 
  tax 
  burdens 
  to 
  those 
  that 
  already 
  existed. 
   
  This 
  condition 
  (assuming 
  both 
  
Move 
  Seattle 
  and 
  Sound 
  Transit 
  3 
  are 
  approved 
  by 
  voters 
  as 
  currently 
  proposed 
  or 
  
publicly 
  under 
  review 
  by 
  the 
  officials 
  responsible 
  for 
  putting 
  those 
  proposals 
  to 
  voters) 
  is 
  
represented 
  as 
  dollar 
  levels 
  that 
  will 
  be 
  seen 
  in 
  2016/7. 
  
Figure 
  1 
  summarizes 
  the 
  comparison 
  from 
  before 
  to 
  after. 
   
  The 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  
household’s 
  burden 
  (or 
  contribution, 
  if 
  one 
  prefers) 
  will 
  rise 
  from 
  approximately 
  $1975 
  
in 
  2014 
  to 
  approximately 
  $2762 
  in 
  2016/17. 
   
  It 
  shows 
  this 
  in 
  aggregate 
  the 
  types 
  of 
  
taxes 
  that 
  are 
  broadly 
  involved 
  and 
  the 
  shares 
  they 
  take 
  of 
  the 
  overall 
  revenue 
  sums. 
   
  A 
  
40% 
  increase. 
  

 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
5 
  Mike 
  Lndblom, 
  “Metro bus service to get boost with passage of Prop. 1,” Seattle Times, Nov. 4, 2014 accessed
at http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/metro-bus-service-to-get-boost-with-passage-of-prop-1/
6 
  In 
  the 
  following 
  tables, 
  there 
  are 
  a 
  few 
  instances 
  in 
  which 
  minor 
  adjustments 
  other 
  than 
  from 
  the 
  four 
  

measures 
  described 
  above 
  are 
  also 
  made 
  to 
  reflect, 
  for 
  example, 
  small 
  toll 
  increases 
  over 
  the 
  span 
  of 
  the 
  
two 
  scenarios. 
   
  These 
  are 
  noted 
  where 
  applicable. 
   
   
  

 
  

3 
  

 Figure 
  2 
  shows 
  for 
  each 
  of 
  the 
  tax 
  recipient 
  jurisdictions 
  its 
  respective 
  positions 
  before 
  
(left 
  bar 
  in 
  each 
  pair) 
  and 
  after 
  (right 
  bar 
  in 
  each 
  pair) 
  and 
  each 
  jurisdiction’s 
  bars 
  in 
  
relation 
  to 
  the 
  bars 
  for 
  the 
  others 
  (each 
  pair 
  of 
  bars 
  compared 
  to 
  the 
  other 
  pairs). 
   
   
  
 
  

 
  
 
  
The 
  study 
  also 
  touches 
  on 
  two 
  other 
  topics. 
   
   
  
First, 
  the 
  further 
  burdens 
  borne 
  by 
  taxpayers 
  (based 
  on 
  two 
  useful 
  studies) 
  of 
  the 
  direct 
  
costs 
  on 
  private 
  automobile 
  wear 
  and 
  tear 
  from 
  bad 
  pavements 
  as 
  experienced 
  in 
  Seattle 
  
as 
  a 
  result 
  of 
  long 
  neglect 
  of 
  pavement 
  maintenance 
  and 
  replacement 
   
  – 
  for 
  the 
  typical 
  
Seattle 
  household, 
  probably 
  in 
  the 
  range 
  of 
  $500 
  -­‐ 
  $900 
  annually. 
   
   
  (Pages 
  15-­‐16). 
   
   
  
Second, 
  short 
  comments 
  on 
  the 
  need 
  for 
  performance 
  measures 
  for 
  how 
  new 
  spending 
  
from 
  several 
  agencies 
  can 
  be 
  evaluated 
  for 
  what 
  it 
  is 
  intended 
  to 
  achieve 
  as 
  a 
  whole 
  and 
  
whether 
  it 
  will 
  do 
  so. 
   
  The 
  topics 
  discussed 
  are 
  congestion, 
  greenhouse 
  gas 
  emissions, 
  
asset 
  stewardship 
  and 
  affordability 
  and 
  equity. 
   
  This, 
  unfortunately, 
  is 
  a 
  bleak 
  area 
  of 
  this 
  
study. 
   
  In 
  transportation 
  metaphor, 
  we 
  truly 
  must 
  ask 
  while 
  engaged 
  in 
  billions 
  of 
  dollars 
  
of 
  revenue-­‐raising, 
  why 
  the 
  roads 
  have 
  no 
  stripes, 
  the 
  traffic 
  signals 
  aren’t 
  synchronized, 
  
the 
  crosswalks 
  are 
  invisible, 
  the 
  bus 
  schedules 
  are 
  unprinted, 
  the 
  modes 
  are 
  not 
  
“seamlessly 
  integrated,” 
  and 
  only 
  Siri 
  is 
  there 
  to 
  ask 
  questions 
  but 
  she 
  answers 
  only 
  with 
  
static, 
  shrugs 
  or 
  riddles. 
   
   
  This 
  must 
  change. 
   
   
  (Pages 
  16 
  -­‐ 
  24). 
  

 
  

4 
  

 What 
  are 
  the 
  Characteristics 
  of 
  the 
  Typical 
  Seattle 
  Household? 
  
From 
  generally 
  available 
  demographic 
  and 
  economic 
  data 
  and 
  extrapolation 
  from 
  
available 
  data 
  and 
  averaging 
  across 
  all 
  households, 
  we 
  can 
  postulate 
  that 
  in 
  2014 
  the 
  
typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  operated 
  1.47 
  passenger 
  or 
  other 
  light 
  duty 
  motor 
  vehicles, 
  had 
  
a 
  median 
  annual 
  household 
  income 
  of 
  $72,277, 
  paid 
  property 
  taxes 
  on 
  a 
  residence 
  with 
  
an 
  assessed 
  value 
  of 
  $451,000, 
  paid 
  annual 
  aggregate 
  retail 
  sales 
  tax 
  of 
  about 
  $2,746, 
  and 
  
consumed 
  about 
  650 
  gallons 
  of 
  gasoline 
  to 
  fuel 
  its 
  passenger 
  vehicles. 
   
  In 
  2014 
  we 
  find 
  
there 
  were 
  about 
  298,000 
  households 
  in 
  Seattle 
  and 
  they 
  accounted 
  for 
  about 
  95% 
  of 
  
Seattle’s 
  total 
  population. 
   
   
   
  
These 
  characteristics 
  are 
  drawn 
  from 
  the 
  analysis 
  described 
  in 
  text 
  and 
  tables 
  in 
  the 
  
Appendix 
  beginning 
  on 
  page 
  24. 
   
   
  

Twenty-­eight 
  Revenue 
  Streams 
  and 
  Their 
  Before 
  and 
  After 
  Scenarios. 
  
This 
  study 
  identifies 
  and 
  assesses 
  28 
  separate 
  taxes, 
  fee 
  and 
  user 
  charges 
  through 
  which 
  
Seattle 
  taxpayers 
  support 
  the 
  public 
  costs 
  of 
  the 
  transportation 
  systems 
  they 
  use. 
   
  The 
  
smallest 
  may 
  hit 
  a 
  typical 
  household 
  only 
  as 
  a 
  dollar 
  a 
  year. 
   
  The 
  larger 
  run 
  to 
  hundreds 
  of 
  
dollars 
  a 
  year. 
   
  Some, 
  like 
  the 
  gas 
  tax, 
  are 
  frequently 
  discussed 
  and 
  commented 
  upon. 
   
  
Others, 
  including 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  largest, 
  are 
  little 
  known, 
  poorly 
  understood, 
  and 
  obscurely 
  
(if 
  ever) 
  presented. 
   
   
  This 
  study 
  seeks 
  to 
  put 
  them 
  all 
  equally 
  in 
  plain 
  view. 
   
  Here 
  they 
  are 
  
grouped 
  in 
  five 
  categories 
  regardless 
  of 
  the 
  agency 
  or 
  jurisdiction 
  that 
  collects 
  or 
  receives 
  
the 
  revenue 
  from 
  the 
  taxpayer. 
   
   
  
•

Motor 
  Vehicle 
  Fuel 
  Excise 
  Taxes 
  (Gas 
  Taxes) 
  and 
  General 
  and 
  Special 
  Sales 
  Taxes. 
   
   
  
Gas 
  taxes 
  and 
  general 
  sales 
  taxes 
  often 
  are 
  discussed 
  separately, 
  but 
  they 
  
are 
  very 
  similar 
  in 
  generating 
  revenue 
  from 
  the 
  taxpayer 
  at 
  the 
  point 
  of 
  
purchase 
  of 
  a 
  commodity 
  or 
  good. 
   
  They 
  also 
  should 
  be 
  shown 
  together 
  
because 
  high 
  gas 
  taxes 
  and 
  high 
  sales 
  taxes 
  share 
  the 
  feature 
  (a 
  troubling 
  
and 
  distinguishing 
  mark 
  of 
  taxation 
  in 
  Washington 
  State) 
  of 
  being 
  the 
  most 
  
regressive 
  arrows 
  in 
  the 
  tax 
  options 
  quiver. 
   
   
  

•

Licenses, 
  Permits 
  and 
  Fee 
  
This 
  is 
  a 
  bit 
  of 
  a 
  catchall, 
  including 
  everything 
  from 
  car 
  tabs 
  in 
  multiple 
  
forms 
  (the 
  largest 
  items 
  in 
  the 
  category), 
  to 
  vehicle 
  weight 
  fees, 
  to 
  drivers’ 
  
license 
  fees 
  and 
  many 
  other 
  transportation 
  related 
  charges 
  

•

Property 
  Taxes 
  
Levy 
  of 
  property 
  taxes 
  by 
  household 
  assessed 
  value 
  are 
  important 
  sources 
  
of 
  transportation 
  funding 
  received 
  by 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  jurisdictions 
  covered 
  in 
  
the 
  study. 
   
   
  

•

Fares, 
  Tolls 
  and 
  Other 
  User 
  Charges 
   
  
When 
  the 
  typical 
  household 
  is 
  defined 
  as 
  the 
  average 
  of 
  all 
  households, 
  user 
  
charges 
  become 
  an 
  important 
  transportation 
  funding 
  mechanism 
  that 
  can 
  

 
  

5 
  

 be 
  presented 
  in 
  terms 
  of 
  a 
  typical 
  household, 
  even 
  though 
  incidence 
  will 
  
vary 
  from 
  household 
  to 
  household 
  from 
  differing 
  usage 
  patterns. 
   
   
  This 
  
includes 
  transit 
  fares, 
  tolls, 
  and 
  even 
  parking 
  meter 
  revenues 
  that 
  actually 
  
represent 
  short-­‐term 
  rents 
  for 
  occupancy 
  of 
  prime 
  street 
  space 
  for 
  short-­‐
term 
  automobile 
  storage. 
   
   
  
Revenue 
  (annual 
  estimates) 
  from 
  taxpayers 
  in 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household, 
  grouped 
  into 
  
the 
  foregoing 
  categories 
  and 
  labeled 
  by 
  jurisdiction, 
  are 
  discussed 
  in 
  the 
  28 
  boxes 
  that 
  
follow 
  -­‐-­‐ 
  each 
  with 
  its 
  before 
  and 
  after 
  impacts 
  in 
  the 
  right-­‐hand 
  cells 
  of 
  each 
  box: 
  
Sales 
  Taxes 
  Including 
  Motor 
  Vehicle 
  Fuel 
  Excise 
  Taxes 
  (“Gas 
  Tax”) 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
Federal 
  Gas 
  Tax 
   
  
Current 
  federal 
  excise 
  tax 
  on 
  gasoline 
  is 
  18.4 
  
cents/gallon 
  (24.4 
  cents 
  on 
  diesel, 
  but 
  for 
  sake 
  of 
  
simplicity 
  and 
  conservatism, 
  we 
  treat 
  all 
  fuel 
  as 
  
gasoline). 
  Consumption 
  is 
  assumed 
  to 
  remain 
  steady 
  
at 
  the 
  level 
  at 
  650 
  gallons 
  (Table 
  5): 
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$124 
  

$124 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$244 
  

$321 
  

 
  
State 
  Gas 
  Tax 
  
The 
  state 
  gas 
  tax 
  in 
  2014 
  was 
  37.5 
  cents 
  per 
  gallon.* 
   
  
The 
  2015 
  State 
  Transportation 
  Package 
   
  increased 
  the 
  
rate 
  in 
  two 
  steps. 
   
  First, 
  in 
  July 
  2015, 
  to 
  44.5 
  
cents/gallon 
  and 
  then 
  again 
  in 
  2016 
  to 
  49.4 
  
cents/gallon. 
   
   
  At 
  650 
  gallons 
   
  (Table 
  5): 
  

 
  

 
  

*A 
  detail 
  of 
  the 
  state 
  gas 
  tax 
  is 
  that 
  of 
  the 
  37.5 
  cents 
  collected 
  by 
  the 
  state 
  in 
  2014 
  (and 
  earlier), 
  by 
  
statute 
  3 
  cents 
  has 
  mandatorily 
  been 
  returned 
  to 
  cities 
  (and 
  thus 
  is 
  eventually 
  shown 
  as 
  a 
  revenue 
  
in 
  SDOT’s 
  budget) 
  for 
  transportation 
  purposes. 
   
  In 
  2015 
  and 
  thereafter 
  the 
  arrangement 
  for 
  the 
  3 
  
cents 
  will 
  remain. 
   
  From 
  “new” 
  money 
  otherwise 
  raised 
  in 
  transportation 
  charges 
  by 
  the 
  state, 
  an 
  
additional 
  state 
  distribution 
  stream, 
  not 
  set 
  by 
  formula, 
  constituting 
  a 
  small 
  portion 
  of 
  the 
  2015 
  
State 
  Revenue 
  Package 
  increase 
  will 
  be 
  distributed 
  to 
  cities 
  and 
  counties. 
   
  These 
  details 
  are 
  not 
  
reflected 
  in 
  Figures 
  1 
  and 
  2 
  above. 
   
  If 
  they 
  were, 
  the 
  state 
  government’s 
  “What 
  Was” 
  bar” 
  would 
  be 
  
shortened 
  by 
  about 
  $20 
  and 
  the 
  SDOT 
  bar 
  would 
  be 
  commensurately 
  higher. 
   
  The 
  same 
  effect 
  
would 
  pertain 
  to 
  the 
  “What 
  Will 
  Be” 
  bars, 
  but 
  the 
  amount 
  to 
  which 
  the 
  effect 
  is 
  greater 
  than 
  about 
  
$20 
  is 
  not 
  calculable 
  until 
  the 
  legislature 
  makes 
  distributions. 
   
   
   
   
  

 
  
Sound 
  Transit 
  Sales 
  Tax 
  
The 
  general 
  retail 
  sales 
  tax 
  in 
  the 
  City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  in 
  
2014 
  was 
  9.5% 
  (95 
  cents 
  on 
  a 
  ten-­‐dollar 
  purchase). 
   
   
  
This 
  would 
  significantly 
  increase 
  under 
  the 
  Sound 
  
Transit 
  3 
  (ST3) 
  proposal. 
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Would 
  Be 
  

$267 
  

$428 
  

Sound 
  Transit 
  received 
  in 
  2014 
  a 
  portion 
  of 
  the 
  tax 
  at 
  0.9% 
  (9 
  cents 
  on 
  a 
  ten 
  dollar 
  purchase), 
  
which 
  was 
  9.47% 
  of 
  the 
  total 
  taxes 
  collected. 
   
  Effective 
  April 
  1, 
  2015, 
  0.1% 
  was 
  added 
  to 
  the 
  sales 
  
tax 
  rate 
  in 
  Seattle 
  by 
  approval 
  of 
  the 
  new 
  tax 
  for 
  the 
  Seattle 
  Transportation 
  Benefit 
  District 
  (see 
  
below), 
  raising 
  the 
  total 
  rate 
  to 
  9.6%. 
   
  The 
  ST3 
  ballot 
  measure 
  in 
  2016 
  would 
  propose 
  to 
  increase 
  
the 
  tax 
  for 
  Sound 
  Transit 
  by 
  up 
  to 
  .5% 
  to 
  a 
  total 
  of 
  1.4% 
  (increasing 
  the 
  total 
  sales 
  tax 
  rate 
  to 
  10.1% 
  
or 
  $1.01 
  on 
  a 
  ten-­‐dollar 
  purchase, 
  of 
  which 
  14 
  cents 
  or 
  13.9% 
  of 
  the 
  total 
  taxes 
  collected 
  would 
  go 
  

 
  

6 
  

 to 
  Sound 
  Transit. 
   
  Applying 
  these 
  percentages 
  to 
  aggregate 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  general 
  sales 
  
taxes 
  collected 
  in 
  the 
  years 
  2014 
  and 
  2017 
  (Table 
  7) 
  yields 
  the 
  results 
  shown: 
  

 
  
King 
  County 
  Metro 
  Sales 
  Tax 
  
King 
  County 
  Metro 
  receives 
  a 
  portion 
  of 
  the 
  sales 
  tax 
  
at 
  .9% 
  (9 
  cents 
  on 
  a 
  ten 
  dollar 
  purchase 
  which 
  is 
  
9.47% 
  of 
  the 
  total 
  taxes 
  collected 
  as 
  of 
  2014 
  (see 
  
discussion 
  above 
  and 
  below), 
  and 
  if 
  ST 
  3 
  (see 
  above) 
  
increases 
  the 
  overall 
  tax 
  rate, 
  will 
  be 
  8.91% 
  of 
  tax 
  
collections 
  in 
  2017 
  (see 
  Table 
  7): 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Would 
  Be 
  

$267 
  

$274 
  
 
  

 
  
Seattle 
  Sales 
  Tax 
  
Approved 
  by 
  votes 
  in 
  Proposition 
  1 
  in 
  November 
  
2014, 
  effective 
  April 
  1, 
  2015 
  Seattle 
  began 
  to 
  collect 
  a 
  
new 
  local 
  sales 
  tax 
  at 
  .1% 
  (one 
  cent 
  on 
  a 
  ten 
  dollar 
  
purchase) 
  which 
  increased 
  the 
  aggregate 
  sales 
  tax 
  
rate 
  in 
  Seattle 
  from 
  9.5% 
  in 
  2014 
  to 
  9.6% 
  in 
  2015. 
   
  If 
  
the 
  sales 
  tax 
  increase 
  for 
  ST 
  3 
  raises 
  the 
  aggregate 
  
sales 
  tax 
  rate 
  to 
  10.1% 
  by 
  2017, 
  the 
  Seattle 
  tax 
  will 
  
claim 
  .96% 
  of 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  aggregate 
  
sales 
  taxes 
  paid 
  (Table 
  7): 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Would 
  Be 
  

 
  

 
  $30 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$12 
  

$13 
  

 
  
State 
  Sales 
  Tax 
  on 
  Retail 
  Car 
  Sales 
  
The 
  State 
  collects 
  a 
  .3% 
  Sales 
  Tax 
  on 
  Retail 
  Car 
  Sales 
  
(i.e., 
  purchases) 
  of 
  new 
  and 
  used 
  vehicles; 
  also 
  leases; 
  
and 
  also 
  use 
  tax 
  on 
  vehicles 
  purchased 
  out-­‐of-­‐state). 
   
  

 
  

There 
  has 
  been 
  no 
  change 
  in 
  the 
  rate 
  since 
  the 
  tax 
  was 
  imposed 
  some 
  years 
  ago. 
   
  The 
  tax 
  
amount 
  collected 
  statewide 
  in 
  2014 
  is 
  $36.9 
  million 
  expected 
  to 
  increase 
  to 
  $40.4 
  million 
  
in 
  2016. 
  Assuming 
  that 
  Seattle 
  residents 
  pay 
  an 
  amount 
  of 
  this 
  total 
  that 
  is 
  proportional 
  
to 
  population 
  (probably 
  buying 
  fewer 
  cars 
  per 
  person 
  than 
  the 
  statewide 
  number 
  but 
  
more 
  expensive 
  vehicles), 
  Seattle 
  households 
  would 
  pay 
  about 
  10% 
  of 
  the 
  total, 
  which 
  
distributed 
  to 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  for 
  2014 
  and 
  2016 
  (see 
  Table 
  2) 
  is: 
  

 
  
City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  Real 
  Estate 
  Excise 
  Tax 
  
Seattle 
  collects 
  Real 
  Estate 
  Excise 
  Tax 
  on 
  residential, 
  
condo 
  and 
  commercial 
  real 
  estate 
  sales. 
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$65 
  

$38 
  

Receipts 
  are 
  distributed 
  to 
  a 
  variety 
  of 
  City 
  purposes. 
   
  Amounts 
  that 
  the 
  SDOT 
  budget 
  shows 
  will 
  be 
  
revenues 
  to 
  SDOT 
  are 
  about 
  $26 
  million 
  in 
  2014 
  and 
  expected 
  to 
  be 
  $16 
  million 
  in 
  2016. 
   
  About 
  
75% 
  of 
  REET 
  receipts 
  are 
  expected 
  to 
  derive 
  from 
  residential 
  and 
  condo 
  sales, 
  adjusting 
  the 
  
household 
  derived 
  amounts 
  above 
  to 
  $19 
  milling 
  in 
  2014 
  and 
  $12 
  million 
  in 
  2016, 
  averaged 
  to 
  
typical 
  Seattle 
  households 
  as 
  shown: 
  

 
  

7 
  

  
  
Licenses, 
  Permits 
  and 
  Certain 
  Fees 
   
  
State 
  Vehicle 
  License 
  Fee 
  (“Car 
  Tab”) 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$44 
  

$44 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$17 
  

$42 
  

State 
  Special 
  Fee 
  for 
  Certain 
  Electric 
  and 
  
Plug-­in 
  Hybrid 
  Vehicles 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

The 
  state 
  for 
  some 
  years 
  has 
  charged 
  a 
  special 
  annual 
  
$100 
  fee 
  for 
  all-­‐electric 
  vehicles. 
  The 
  2015 
  State 
  
Transportation 
  Package 
  raised 
  the 
  annual 
  fee 
  to 
  $150 
  
and 
  expanded 
  its 
  coverage 
  to 
  a 
  class 
  of 
  “plug-­‐in” 
  
hybrid 
  vehicles 
  such 
  as 
  the 
  Chevy 
  Volt 
  capable 
  of 
  
traveling 
  30 
  miles 
  between 
  charges. 
   
  

 
  

$1 
  

The 
  state 
  vehicle 
  license 
  fee 
  (“car 
  tab”) 
  was 
  set 
  by 
  the 
  
state 
  legislature 
  in 
  2000 
   
  (following 
  Initiative 
  695) 
  at 
  
$30 
  per 
  vehicle 
  and 
  has 
  been 
  unchanged 
  since 
  that 
  
time. 
   
  For 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  registering 
  
1.47 
  vehicles, 
  the 
  amount 
  is: 
  

 
  
State 
  Vehicle 
  Weight 
  Fee 
  
The 
  state 
  has 
  through 
  2015 
  collected 
  this 
  fee 
  (at 
  
vehicle 
  license 
  renewal) 
  at 
  the 
  rates 
  of 
  $10, 
  $20 
  or 
  
$30 
  depending 
  on 
  weight 
  class. 
   
   
  Under 
  the 
  2015 
  State 
  
Transportation 
  Package, 
  the 
  rates 
  in 
  2016 
  will 
  
increase 
  to 
  $25, 
  $45 
  and 
  $65. 
   
  Statewide 
  in 
  2013 
  the 
  
weighted 
  average 
  fee 
  was 
  $11.36. 
   
  Assuming 
  the 
  same 
  
distribution 
  of 
  vehicles 
  by 
  weight 
  class 
  for 
  Seattle 
  
both 
  in 
  2014 
  and 
  in 
  2016/7, 
  at 
  1.47 
  vehicles 
  per 
  
typical 
  household, 
  this 
  fee 
  burden 
  is: 
   
  

 
  

With 
  expanded 
  coverage 
  but 
  yet 
  only 
  about 
  2500 
  eligible 
  vehicles 
  in 
  Seattle, 
  only 
  a 
  few 
  
taxpayers 
  will 
  see 
  a 
  big 
  jump 
  in 
  this 
  fee 
  at 
  the 
  new 
  $150 
  level. 
   
  Across 
  all 
  households 
  the 
  
tax 
  is 
  virtually 
  de 
  minimis, 
  but 
  state 
  policies 
  encouraging 
  electric 
  vehicles 
  will 
  cause 
  the 
  
tax 
  to 
  grow 
  in 
  future 
  importance. 
   
   
  

 
  
State 
  License 
  Service 
  Fee 
  
The 
  state 
  collects 
  an 
  annual 
  License 
  Service 
  Fee 
  of 
  75 
  
cents/vehicle. 
   
  There 
  is 
  no 
  change 
  in 
  the 
  fee 
  level 
  
between 
  the 
  two 
  scenarios. 
   
  The 
  result 
  shown 
  is 
  for 
  a 
  
typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  with 
  1.47 
  vehicles. 
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$1 
  

$1 
  

 
  

 
  

8 
  

 King 
  County 
  Vehicle 
  Filing 
  Fee 
  
King 
  County 
  collects 
  an 
  annual 
  Vehicle 
  Filing 
  Fee 
  of 
  $3 
  
per 
  vehicle. 
   
   
  For 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  with 
  
1.47 
  vehicles: 
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$4 
  

$4 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Would 
  Be 
  

$45 
  

$168 
  

 
  
Sound 
  Transit 
  Motor 
  Vehicle 
  Excise 
  tax 
  
(“MVET” 
  or 
  “Car 
  Tab”) 
  
Sound 
  Transit 
  currently 
  each 
  year 
  collects 
  (at 
  license 
  
renewal) 
  an 
  MVET 
  at 
  0.3% 
  of 
  vehicle 
  value 
  ($30 
  on 
  
value 
  of 
  $10,000). 
   
  The 
  ST3 
  ballot 
  measure 
  would 
  
increase 
  this 
  by 
  .8% 
  ($80 
  on 
  value 
  of 
  $10,000) 
  to 
  a 
  
total 
  of 
  1.1% 
  ($110 
  on 
  value 
  of 
  $10,000). 
   
  

Sound 
  Transit 
  data 
  on 
  its 
  total 
  MVET 
  receipts 
  district-­‐wide 
  and 
  the 
  total 
  number 
  of 
  
vehicles 
  for 
  which 
  receipts 
  are 
  collected 
  suggests 
  that 
  the 
  average 
  fee 
  per 
  vehicle 
  (at 
  $30 
  
on 
  $10,000) 
  in 
  2014 
  was 
  $31.61 
  (compared 
  to 
  $29.40 
  in 
  2013 
  and 
  $29.75 
  in 
  20120). 
   
  We 
  
use 
  the 
  value 
  $31 
  as 
  the 
  average 
  and 
  assume 
  proportionate 
  increase 
  to 
  $114 
  under 
  ST3, 
  
and 
  then 
  apply 
  that 
  to 
  1.47 
  vehicles 
  per 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household: 
  

 
  
Seattle 
  Car 
  Tab 
  (Seattle 
  Transportation 
  
Benefit 
  District) 
  
The 
  Seattle 
  car 
  tab 
  of 
  $20 
  per 
  vehicle 
  was 
  imposed 
  in 
  
2011. 
   
  It 
  was 
  raised 
  by 
  an 
  additional 
  $60 
  by 
  passage 
  of 
  
Proposition 
  1 
  for 
  Seattle 
  in 
  November 
  2014 
  effective 
  
2015, 
  for 
  a 
  total 
  of 
  $80. 
   
  For 
  1.47 
  vehicles 
  per 
  typical 
  
Seattle 
  household: 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$29 
  

$116 
  

A 
  $20 
  low-­‐income 
  rebate 
  is 
  available 
  for 
  households 
  with 
  income 
  below 
  45% 
  of 
  area 
  median 
  
income, 
  or 
  for 
  a 
  2-­‐person 
  household, 
  $32,265. 
   
   
  About 
  12,000 
  people 
  in 
  Seattle 
  avail 
  themselves 
  of 
  
the 
  low-­‐income 
  discount. 
   
  If 
  each 
  discount 
  were 
  to 
  be 
  treated 
  as 
  representing 
  a 
  single 
  household, 
  
then 
  the 
  number 
  of 
  discounts 
  would 
  align 
  very 
  approximately 
  with 
  about 
  4% 
  of 
  Seattle 
  households. 
   
  
Because 
  the 
  rebate 
  is 
  only 
  for 
  a 
  quarter 
  of 
  the 
  fee, 
  the 
  effect 
  of 
  the 
  rebate 
  averaged 
  across 
  all 
  
households 
  is 
  virtually 
  de 
  minimis. 
   
  

 
  
State 
  Driver’s 
  License 
  Fee 
  
The 
  state 
  issues 
  a 
  six-­‐year 
  driver’s 
  license 
  for 
  $54, 
  
extendable 
  at 
  $9 
  per 
  year 
  for 
  periods 
  of 
  less 
  than 
  the 
  
full 
  term. 
   
   
  Assuming 
  that 
  there 
  area 
  little 
  over 
  two 
  
persons 
  per 
  household 
  in 
  Seattle 
  and 
  the 
  typical 
  
household 
  has 
  1.6 
  drivers 
  for 
  its 
  1.47 
  vehicles: 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$14 
  

$14 
  

 
  

 
  

 
  

 
  

9 
  

  
  

Property 
  Taxes 
  
Seattle 
  Move 
  Seattle 
  Property 
  Tax 
  Levy 
  
The 
  proposed 
  Move 
  Seattle 
  Transportation 
  Levy 
  on 
  the 
  
November 
  2015 
  ballot 
  is 
  for 
  a 
  property 
  tax 
  levy 
  
designed 
  for 
  2016 
  to 
  levy 
  on 
  a 
  median 
  value 
  property 
  
of 
  $451,000* 
  a 
  property 
  tax 
  of 
  $275. 
   
  According 
  to 
  
SDOT 
  this 
  compares 
  with 
  the 
  comparable 
  levy 
  under 
  
the 
  predecessor 
  Bridging 
  the 
  Gap 
  Levy 
  (passed 
  by 
  
Seattle 
  voters 
  in 
  2006) 
  of 
   
  $130: 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Would 
  Be 
  

$130 
  

$275 
  

(Under 
  
Bridging 
  the 
  
Gap) 
  

 
  

* 
  The 
  value 
  very 
  conveniently 
  supplied 
  by 
  SDOT 
  on 
  its 
  website 
  for 
  this 
  calculation, 
  and 
  adopted 
  for 
  
uniformity 
  throughout 
  this 
  study. 
   
  

 
  
Sound 
  Transit 
  Property 
  Tax 
  Levy 
  
Sound 
  Transit 
  is 
  considering 
  for 
  ST3 
  a 
  new 
  property 
  
tax 
  levy 
  of 
  $.25 
  per 
  $1,000 
  assessed 
  valuation. 
   
   
  If 
  
enacted 
  in 
  2016, 
  the 
  impact 
  in 
  2017 
  on 
  a 
  household 
  
with 
  a 
  median 
  assessed 
  value 
  home 
  of 
  $451,000:* 
   
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

 
  

$113 
  
 
  

* 
  Using 
  the 
  value 
  supplied 
  on 
  the 
  SDOT 
  website 
  (see 
  above) 
  for 
  median 
  household 
  value 
  and 
  
holding 
  it 
  steady 
  for 
  the 
  future 
  year 
  calculation 
  – 
  probably 
  a 
  very 
  conservative 
  assumption 
  given 
  
recent 
  and 
  perhaps 
  continuing 
  trends 
  in 
  rising 
  Seattle 
  housing 
  values 
  

 
  
Seattle 
  Property 
  Tax 
  Levy 
  – 
  Seawall 
  
Bonds 
  
Seattle 
  voters 
  in 
  2012 
  approved 
  the 
  Central 
  
Waterfront 
  and 
  Seawall 
  Improvement 
  Levy 
  to 
  support 
  
a 
  $290 
  million 
  bond 
  measure 
  for 
  this 
  SDOT 
  project. 
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

 
  

$36 
  
 
  

Bonds 
  have 
  been 
  and 
  in 
  coming 
  years 
  and 
  will 
  continue 
  to 
  be 
  issued 
  to 
  finance 
  project 
  
costs 
  as 
  they 
  are 
  incurred. 
   
  Debt 
  service 
  is 
  funded 
  via 
  an 
  excess 
  property 
  tax 
  that 
  for 
  
2015 
  will 
  be 
  about 
  $0.027 
  per 
  $1000 
  Assessed 
  Valuation 
  and 
  by 
  2016 
  is 
  expected 
  to 
  rise 
  
to 
  about 
  $0.08 
  per 
  $1000 
  Assessed 
  Valuation. 
   
  Assuming 
  a 
  $451,000 
  median 
  household 
  
value, 
  this 
  portion 
  of 
  the 
  tax 
  levy 
  was 
  de 
  minimis 
  in 
  2014 
  and 
  grows 
  to 
  $36 
  in 
  2016. 
   
  
Depending 
  on 
  the 
  schedule 
  and 
  terms 
  of 
  further 
  bond 
  financings, 
  this 
  amount 
  may 
  
further 
  increase 
  in 
  later 
  years 
  or 
  bonding 
  and 
  debt 
  service 
  may 
  be 
  also 
  provided 
  from 
  
other 
  sources. 
  

 
  
Seattle 
  General 
  Property 
  Tax 
  
The 
  source 
  of 
  a 
  transfer 
  from 
  the 
  General 
  Fund 
  
supports 
  SDOT’s 
  budget. 
   
  For 
  discussion 
  of 
  the 
  
derivation 
  of 
  burden 
  on 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household, 
  
see 
  below 
   
  

 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$52 
  

$60 
  

 
  

 
  

10 
  

 This 
  requires 
  a 
  bit 
  of 
  constructive 
  accounting 
  that 
  the 
  City 
  does 
  not 
  actually 
  (cont. 
  next 
  page) 
  
perform 
  and 
  cannot 
  be 
  adduced 
  from 
  City 
  budget 
  documents. 
   
  The 
  City 
  provides 
  for 
  the 
  SDOT 
  
budget 
  in 
  part 
  from 
  its 
  General 
  Fund. 
   
  The 
  level 
  of 
  that 
  support 
  in 
  2024 
  was 
  $41.3 
  million 
  in 
  2014 
  
and 
  is 
  expected 
  to 
  be 
  $45.2 
  million 
  in 
  2016. 
   
  Mingled 
  as 
  revenue 
  in 
  the 
  General 
  Fund 
  are 
  both 
  
parking 
  meter 
  revenues 
  (see 
  below; 
  distinctly 
  a 
  transportation 
  user 
  charge 
  that 
  is 
  used 
  from 
  the 
  
General 
  Fund 
  for 
  a 
  broad 
  spectrum 
  of 
  street 
  related 
  purposes 
  in 
  and 
  out 
  of 
  SDOT’s 
  budget 
  including 
  
traffic 
  enforcement 
  budget 
  at 
  the 
  Seattle 
  Police 
  Department. 
   
  For 
  purposes 
  in 
  this 
  study 
  of 
  showing 
  
that 
  both 
  parking 
  meter 
  revenues 
  and 
  levy 
  funded 
  amounts 
  hit 
  taxpayers 
  wallets 
  for 
  transportation 
  
purposes, 
  we 
  deem 
  that 
  half 
  the 
  parking 
  meter 
  revenues 
  end 
  up 
  in 
  the 
  SDOT 
  budget 
  while 
  the 
  other 
  
half 
  goes 
  to 
  transportation-­‐related 
  purposes 
  outside 
  the 
  SDOT 
  budget) 
  and 
  that 
  the 
  other 
  half 
  of 
  
the 
  General 
  Fund 
  contribution 
  to 
  SDOT 
  is 
  sourced 
  to 
  the 
  property 
  tax. 
   
   
  The 
  consequence 
  of 
  this 
  
revenue 
  attribution 
  is 
  to 
  assume 
  property 
  tax 
  revenues 
  to 
  SDOT 
  from 
  the 
  General 
  Fund 
  in 
  2014 
  of 
  
$21.8 
  million 
  and 
  in 
  2016 
  of 
  $25.2 
  million. 
   
  This 
  is 
  adjusted 
  to 
  $16.4 
  million 
  and 
  $18.9 
  million 
  on 
  
account 
  of 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  a 
  percentage 
  of 
  ad 
  valorem 
  property 
  taxes 
  are 
  levied 
  on 
  commercial 
  rather 
  
than 
  residential 
  property. 
   
  The 
  approximate 
  levy 
  rate 
  to 
  raise 
  $16.4 
  million 
  is 
  approximately 
  $.115 
  
per 
  $1000 
  assessed 
  value 
  and 
  for 
  $19.9 
  million 
  is 
  $.133 
  per 
  $1000 
  assessed 
  value, 
  resulting 
  in 
  the 
  
results 
  shown 
  for 
  a 
  $451,000 
  median 
  house 
  value. 
   
   
   
   
  

 
  
King 
  County 
  Property 
  Tax 
  Levy 
  -­ 
  Metro 
  
In 
  2010, 
  the 
  King 
  County 
  Council 
  shifted 
  existing 
  levy 
  
dedications 
  from 
  the 
  West 
  Seattle 
  Ferry 
  district 
  to 
  
King 
  County 
  Metro, 
  for 
  a 
  levy 
  that 
  for 
  2014 
  and 
  out 
  
years 
  varies 
  quite 
  closely 
  around 
  $.065 
  per 
  $1000 
  
assessed 
  value, 
  a 
  slightly 
  simplified 
  picture 
  of 
  the 
  levy 
  
rate 
  but 
  used 
  here 
  for 
  both 
  scenarios, 
  also 
  assuming 
  
median 
  household 
  value 
  of 
  $451,000. 
   
   
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$29 
  

$29 
  

 
  

 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$85 
  

$85 
  

 
  

 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$168 
  

$168 
  

 
  

 
  

 
  
Port 
  of 
  Seattle 
  Property 
  Tax 
  Levy 
  
The 
  Port 
  of 
  Seattle 
  is 
  recipient 
  of 
  a 
  portion 
  of 
  the 
  
property 
  tax 
  levy 
  collected 
  by 
  King 
  County 
  at 
  a 
  levy 
  
rate 
  (2015) 
  of 
  $0.189 
  for 
  $1,000 
  assessed 
  value. 
   
  For 
  
purposes 
  of 
  this 
  analysis 
  we 
  assume 
  this 
  as 
  a 
  constant 
  
both 
  looking 
  backward 
  and 
  forward 
  and 
  a 
  constant 
  
median 
  household 
  value 
  of 
  $451,000: 
  

 
  

Fares, 
  Tolls 
  and 
  Other 
  User 
  Charges 
  
King 
  County 
  Metro 
  -­ 
  Fares 
  
Seattle 
  residents 
  make 
  heavy 
  use 
  of 
  King 
  County 
  
Metro 
  bus 
  services. 
   
  The 
  calculation 
  of 
  household 
  fare 
  
contribution 
  is 
  somewhat 
  complicated. 
   
  

The 
  calculation 
  of 
  this 
  amount 
  is 
  problematic 
  and 
  inextricably 
  bound 
  up 
  with 
  the 
  complexity 
  of 
  
Metro’s 
  countywide 
  route 
  structure 
  and 
  ridership 
  patterns, 
  its 
  intricate 
  multi-­‐layered 
  fare 
  
structure, 
  and 
  the 
  importance 
  of 
  employer-­‐subsidy 
  in 
  supporting 
  riders’ 
  own 
  out-­‐of-­‐pocket 
  costs. 
   
  
Metro 
  understandably 
  does 
  not 
  account 
  for 
  fare 
  revenue 
  on 
  a 
  geographic 
  or 
  wallet-­‐of-­‐origin 
  basis. 
   
   
   
  
We 
  therefore 
  arrive 
  at 
  a 
  very 
  rough 
  number 
  for 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  as 
  follows: 
   
  Annual 
  
total 
  “fare 
  revenue” 
  for 
  Metro 
  is 
  taken 
  as 
  $150 
  million. 
   
  Metro’s 
  2014 
  Rider 
  Survey* 
  suggests 
  that 
  
Seattle 
  (with 
  about 
  33% 
  of 
  the 
  county’s 
  population) 
  has 
  about 
  double 
  the 
  level 
  of 
  regular 
  riders 
  as 
  
other 
  areas 
  – 
  translating 
  into 
  the 
  very 
  broad 
  conclusion 
  that 
  two-­‐thirds 
  of 
  fare 
  revenue 
  (say 
  $100 
  

 
  

11 
  

 million) 
  is 
  allocable 
  to 
  Seattle 
  riders, 
  overlooking 
  offsetting 
  but 
  difficult 
  to 
  quantify 
  refinements 
  to 
  
bump 
  up 
  that 
  share 
  up 
  for 
  higher 
  frequency 
  use 
  in 
  Seattle 
  among 
  the 
  frequency 
  cohorts, 
  used 
  in 
  the 
  
Rider/Non-­rider 
  Survey 
  and 
  bump 
  it 
  down 
  for 
  high 
  ratio 
  for 
  Seattle 
  riders 
  of 
  one-­‐zone 
  to 
  two-­‐zone 
  
fares). 
   
  But 
  to 
  convert 
  this 
  to 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  we 
  must 
  first 
  “buy 
  down” 
  the 
  total 
  by 
  the 
  
substantial 
  amount 
  that 
  Seattle 
  and 
  other 
  regional 
  employers 
  contribute 
  to 
  fare 
  revenue 
  by 
  
subsidizing 
  riders’ 
  own 
  out-­‐of-­‐pocket 
  costs 
  through 
  participating 
  in 
  the 
  ORCA 
  Passport 
  employer 
  
purchase 
  program 
  (yielding 
  about 
  $58 
  million 
  to 
  Metro’s 
  fare 
  revenue 
  in 
  2014) 
  and 
  the 
  ORCA 
  
Business 
  Choice 
  employer 
  support 
  program 
  that 
  offers 
  employees 
  discounted 
  fare 
  costs 
  (yielding 
  
about 
  $33 
  million 
  in 
  fare 
  revenue 
   
  to 
  Metro 
  in 
  2014 
  that 
  might 
  arbitrarily 
  be 
  assigned 
  a 
  50/50 
  split 
   
  
(variable 
  and 
  not 
  visible 
  to 
  Metro) 
  between 
  employer 
  and 
  employee 
  in 
  the 
  underlying 
  origination 
  
of 
  the 
  revenue; 
  thus 
  achieving 
  an 
  aggregate 
  employer 
  contribution 
  [$58 
  m 
  + 
  $17 
  m.] 
  of 
  $75 
  million, 
  
of 
  which 
  two-­‐thirds 
  ($50 
  million) 
   
  would 
  be 
  allocable 
  to 
  Seattle 
  riders.** 
   
  This 
  brings 
  the 
  out-­‐of-­‐
pocket 
  Metro 
  fare 
  costs 
  cost 
  to 
  Seattle 
  residents 
  from 
  $100 
  million 
  to 
  $50 
  million. 
   
  Averaged 
  across 
  
298,000 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  households. 
  

* 
  King 
  County 
  Metro 
  Transit, 
  “2014 
  Rider 
  Survey 
  Final 
  Report 
  Summary” 
  (April 
  2025) 
  
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/reports/2014/2014-­‐rider-­‐survey-­‐summary.pdf 
  
** 
  A 
  further 
  complexity 
  omitted 
  here 
  is 
  the 
  opportunity 
  for 
  income 
  tax 
  deductibility 
  that 
  may 
  

effectively 
  somewhat 
  lowers 
  both 
  employer 
  and 
  employee 
  true 
  effective 
  after-­‐tax 
  costs 
  of 
  their 
  
participation 
  in 
  these 
  ORCA 
  programs. 
   
   
  

 
  
Sound 
  Transit 
  -­ 
  Fares 
  
For 
  Sound 
  Transit, 
  Seattle 
  residents 
  pay 
  Link 
  Light 
  
Rail 
  fares. 
  Regional 
  Express 
  Bus 
  fares 
  and 
  Sounder 
  
Commuter 
  Rail 
  fares. 
   
  See 
  discussion. 
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$39 
  

$39 
  

Sound 
  Transit 
  has 
  a 
  lower 
  proportion 
  of 
  Seattle 
  riders 
  than 
  King 
  County 
  Metro. 
   
  Using 
  2014 
  fare 
  
revenues 
  by 
  line-­‐of-­‐business 
  and 
  applying 
  judgment-­‐based 
  percentages 
  to 
  roughly 
  describe 
  the 
  
volume 
  of 
  Seattle 
  riders 
  in 
  relation 
  to 
  total 
  riders, 
  the 
  fare 
  revenues 
  attributable 
  to 
  Seattle 
  
residents 
  seem 
  to 
  be 
  approximately: 
   
  Sounder 
  5% 
  of 
  $10.6 
  million 
  = 
  $.5 
  million; 
  Regional 
  Express 
  
Bus 
  30% 
  of 
  $33.8 
  million 
  = 
  $10.1 
  million; 
  Link 
  Light 
  Rail 
  55% 
  of 
  $15.8 
  million 
  = 
  $8.7 
  million. 
   
  Total 
  
is 
  $19.3 
  million. 
   
   
  To 
  this 
  the 
  employer 
  “buy 
  down” 
  (described 
  above 
  for 
  Metro) 
  is 
  applied. 
   
  
Percentage 
  of 
  fare 
  revenue 
  to 
  Sound 
  Transit 
  from 
  the 
  ORCA 
  employer-­‐subsidized 
  fare 
  products 
  
appears 
  to 
  be 
  slightly 
  lower 
  than 
  for 
  Metro, 
  such 
  that 
  the 
  rough 
  estimate 
  of 
  the 
  “employer 
  buy-­‐
down” 
  is 
  taken 
  to 
  be 
  40%. 
   
  This 
  yields 
  a 
  total 
  of 
   
  $11.6 
  million 
  to 
  be 
  distributed 
  by 
  averaging 
  across 
  
298,000 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  households. 
   
   
  The 
  value 
  has 
  not 
  been 
  adjusted 
  for 
  the 
  still 
  speculative 
  
ridership/fare 
  revenue 
  increases 
  of 
  the 
  expected 
  opening 
  of 
  Capital 
  Hill 
  and 
  Husky 
  Stadium 
  
stations. 
   
   
  
* 
  This 
  information 
  is 
  drawn 
  (and 
  sometimes 
  extended 
  by 
  judgment) 
  chiefly 
  from 
  Sound 
  Transit, 
  
2024 
  Fare 
  Report 
  (July 
  2015) 
  

 
  
Seattle 
  Streetcars 
  -­ 
  Fares 
  
Seattle 
  operates 
  (through 
  contract 
  with 
  Metro) 
  the 
  
South 
  Lake 
  Union 
  Trolley. 
  The 
  fare 
  revenue 
  picture 
  is 
  
complex, 
  based 
  on 
  ORCA 
  products 
  to 
  some 
  extent 
  and 
  
also 
  on 
  on-­‐board 
  ticket 
  vending 
  with 
  receipts 
  paid 
  
directly 
  to 
  the 
  City. 
   
  Ridership 
  is 
  modest. 
   
  It 
  appears 
  
that 
  a 
  fair 
  approximation 
  of 
  annual 
  revenue 
  would 
  be 
  
$1 
  million 
  to 
  which, 
  if 
  80% 
  were 
  attributable 
  to 
  
Seattle 
  residents, 
  the 
  annual 
  burden 
  would 
  roughly 
  
be: 
   
  

 
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$3 
  

$3 
  
 
  

12 
  

 This 
  South 
  Lake 
  Union 
  Trolley 
  revenue 
  consideration 
  is 
  so 
  small 
  and 
  derived 
  so 
  loosely 
  that 
  it 
  
hardly 
  seems 
  worth 
  including 
  except 
  for 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  by 
  2016 
  the 
  streetcar 
  system 
  of 
  the 
  City 
  of 
  
Seattle 
  will 
  significantly 
  expand 
  (not 
  counted 
  here, 
  but 
  discussed 
  below). 
   
  This 
  will, 
  therefore, 
  come 
  
to 
  be 
  an 
  increasing, 
  significant 
  and 
  one 
  hopes 
  easier-­‐to-­‐document 
  revenue 
  element. 
   
   
  

 
  
State 
  Ferry 
  System 
  (Washington 
  State 
  
Ferries) 
  -­ 
  Fares 
  
Seattle 
  riders 
  on 
  the 
  Washington 
  State 
  Ferries 
  pay 
  
fares 
  for 
  regular 
  weekday 
  travel 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  weekend 
  
or 
  vacation 
  travel. 
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$84 
  

$88 
  
 
  

Approximately 
  12.5% 
  of 
  surveyed 
  ferry 
  riders* 
  have 
  Seattle 
  zip 
  codes 
  but 
  their 
  ridership 
  is 
  
probably 
  somewhat 
  disproportionately 
  focused 
  on 
  higher 
  fare 
  routes 
  than, 
  for 
  example, 
  the 
  
Bainbridge 
  or 
  Whidbey 
  Island 
  routes 
  with 
  heavy 
  patronage 
  from 
  non-­‐Seattle 
  riders. 
   
  This 
  leads 
  to 
  
the 
  rough 
  assessment 
  that 
  15% 
  of 
  aggregate 
  WSF 
  fares 
  (approximately 
  $167 
  million 
  in 
  2014), 
  or 
  
$25 
  million 
  is 
  paid 
  by 
  Seattle 
  residents, 
  which 
  distributed 
  among 
  298,000 
  households 
  is 
  about 
  $84 
  
paid 
  by 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household. 
   
  Vehicle 
  fare 
  increases 
  of 
  2.5% 
  in 
  October 
  20115 
  and 
  2.5 
  % 
  in 
  
May 
  2016 
  have 
  been 
  approved 
  showing 
  an 
  impact 
  of 
  2.5% 
  compounded 
  out 
  two 
  years 
  to 
  “What 
  
Will 
  Be” 
  in 
  2016. 
   
   
  

* 
  From 
  2013 
  Origin/Destination 
  Survey 
  as 
  relayed 
  by 
  WSF. 
   
  Aggregate 
  fare 
  is 
  from 
  June 
  2015 
  State 
  
Transportation 
  Revenue 
  Forecast 
  cited 
  in 
  Appendix 
  B. 
   
   
  

 
  
State 
  SR 
  520 
  Bridge 
  -­-­ 
  Tolls 
  
Seattle 
  residents 
  traveling 
  to 
  and 
  from 
  the 
  eastside 
  
pay 
  the 
  state 
  SR 
  520 
  Bridge 
  Tolls 
  on 
  a 
  variable 
  scale 
  
based 
  on 
  time 
  of 
  day. 
   
  Total 
  toll 
  revenue 
  in 
  2014 
  was 
  
approximately 
  $62 
  million. 
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$100 
  

$103 
  
 
  

Traffic 
  analysis 
  (comparing 
  at 
  peak 
  a.m. 
  and 
  p.m. 
  periods 
  to 
  determine 
  the 
  balance 
  between 
  
eastbound 
  and 
  westbound 
  originating 
  traffic) 
  generally 
  suggests 
  that 
  about 
  55% 
  of 
  users 
  originate 
  
and 
  end 
  their 
  trips 
  on 
  the 
  Westside. 
   
  Adjusting 
  roughly 
  for 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  a 
  small 
  portion 
  of 
  this 
  
Westside 
  patronage 
  probably 
  comes 
  from 
  outside 
  Seattle, 
  it 
  is 
  a 
  reasonable 
  assumption 
  that 
  50% 
  of 
  
the 
  toll 
  revenue 
  on 
  the 
  bridge 
  originates 
  with 
  Seattle 
  residents. 
   
  Distributing 
  $31 
  million 
  of 
  revenue 
  
across 
  298,000 
  households 
  supports 
  the 
  conclusion 
  that 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  pays 
  $104 
  
each 
  year 
  in 
  SR 
  520 
  bridge 
  tolls, 
  say 
  $100 
  per 
  year 
  to 
  account 
  for 
  the 
  degree 
  of 
  extrapolation 
  
supporting 
  the 
  estimate. 
   
  Bridge 
  tolls 
  increased 
  2.5% 
  in 
  July 
  2015. 
  

 
  
City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  Parking 
  Meters 
  
Seattle 
  deposits 
  parking 
  meter 
  revenues 
  to 
  the 
  
General 
  Fund 
  for 
  use 
  covering 
  costs 
  of 
  operating, 
  
maintaining 
  and 
  regulating 
  streets 
  in 
  Seattle, 
  in 
  part 
  
through 
  SDOT 
  but 
  also 
  through 
  other 
  City 
  
departments 
  including 
  the 
  Seattle 
  Police 
  Department. 
   
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$78 
  

$81 
  

The 
  level 
  of 
  such 
  revenue 
  was 
  $39.0 
  million 
  in 
  2014 
  and 
  is 
  estimated 
  at 
  approximately 
  $ 
  40.1 
  
million 
  for 
  2016. 
   
  There 
  is 
  no 
  record-­‐keeping 
  or 
  survey 
  mechanism 
  at 
  the 
  City 
  to 
  determine 
  the 
  
extent 
  that 
  parking 
  revenues 
  originate 
  from 
  Seattle 
  residents 
  as 
  contrasted 
  with 
  out-­‐of-­‐city 
  
visitors.*. 
   
   
  Therefore, 
  for 
  purposes 
  of 
  this 
  study, 
  the 
  somewhat 
  arbitrary 
  assumption 
  is 
  made 
  that 
  
60% 
  of 
  revenues 
  originate 
  with 
  Seattle 
  residents 
  so 
  that 
  the 
  amounts 
  ($23.4 
  million 
  and 
  $24.1 
  

 
  

13 
  

 million) 
  distributed 
  across 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  households 
  would 
  be 
  approximately 
  as 
  shown: 
  

*One 
  could 
  examine 
  the 
  zip 
  codes 
  of 
  parking 
  violation 
  notices 
  as 
  a 
  survey 
  proxy, 
  but 
  apparently 
  

this 
  has 
  not 
  been 
  done 
  and 
  understandably 
  at 
  the 
  City 
  this 
  question 
  does 
  not 
  take 
  a 
  priority 
  in 
  
relation 
  to 
  a 
  myriad 
  of 
  other 
  issues 
  that 
  the 
  City 
  proactively 
  manages 
  in 
  parking 
  meter 
  rate, 
  hour 
  
and 
  location 
  policies. 
   
   
  

 
  
City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  Commercial 
  Parking 
  Excise 
  
Tax 
  
Seattle 
  collects 
  an 
  excise 
  tax 
  categorized 
  here 
  as 
  a 
  
user 
  charge) 
  of 
  12.5% 
  on 
  charges 
  at 
  commercial 
  
parking 
  facilities. 
   
   
   
  

What 
  Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  Be 
  

$65 
  

$65 
  

Revenue 
  generated 
  was 
  $39 
  million 
  in 
  2014 
  and 
  is 
  estimated 
  at 
   
  $$40 
  million 
  for 
  2015 
  and 
  2016 
  
(City 
  Budget 
  accounting 
  divides 
  these 
  numbers 
  between 
  the 
  tax 
  generally 
  and 
  a 
  portion 
  of 
  the 
  tax 
  
expected 
  to 
  be 
  made 
  available 
  for 
  the 
  Viaduct 
  Replacement 
  and 
  Waterfront 
  projects). 
   
   
  It 
  seems 
  
likely 
  (though 
  not 
  demonstrable 
  from 
  available 
  data) 
  that 
  out-­‐of-­‐city 
  visitors 
  more 
  than 
  Seattle 
  
residents 
  might 
  patronize 
  commercial 
  parking 
  facilities; 
  so 
  (somewhat 
  arbitrarily) 
  only 
  50% 
  of 
  
these 
  revenues 
  are 
  ascribed 
  to 
  Seattle 
  residents 
  (say 
  $20 
  million). 
   
  Accordingly, 
  distributed 
  across 
  
298,000 
  households: 
  

 
  
Taxes, 
  Fees 
  and 
  Charges 
  Not 
  Included 
  in 
  the 
  Study 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
Federal 
  Taxation 
  Other 
  Than 
  the 
  Gas 
  Tax. 
   
  Federal 
  taxes 
  that 
  support 
  the 
  general 
  fund 
  
contribute 
  to 
  making 
  up 
  of 
  the 
  big 
  deficits 
  in 
  the 
  federal 
  Highway 
  Trust 
  Fund 
  including 
  the 
  Mass 
  
Transit 
  Account 
  over 
  and 
  above 
  what 
  is 
  funded 
  by 
  federal 
  motor 
  vehicle 
  fuel 
  excise 
  taxes. 
   
  
Significant 
  highway 
  and 
  transit 
  and 
  other 
  transportation 
  funding 
  comes 
  to 
  Washington 
  State 
  and 
  
the 
  Seattle 
  area 
  from 
  these 
  trust 
  fund 
  sources. 
   
  In 
  2015, 
  the 
  Highway 
  Trust 
  Fund 
  (including 
  the 
  
Mass 
  Transit 
  Account) 
  revenue 
  and 
  interest 
  are 
  expected 
  to 
  take 
  in 
  about 
  $42 
  billion 
  and 
  require 
  
deficit 
  funding 
  from 
  the 
  general 
  fund 
  in 
  the 
  amount 
  of 
  about 
  $13 
  billion 
  to 
  meet 
  expenditures. 
   
  By 
  
2025 
  the 
  deficit 
  is 
  expected 
  to 
  grow 
  to 
  $22 
  billion. 
   
   
  
This 
  suggests 
  that 
  through 
  some 
  complicated 
  mix 
  of 
  mechanisms 
  including 
  but 
  not 
  limited 
  to 
  
individual 
  federal 
  income 
  taxes, 
  taxpayers 
  are 
  actually 
  incurring 
  impacts 
  about 
  24% 
  higher 
  than 
  
shown 
  above 
  (for 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household) 
  from 
  the 
  federal 
  gas 
  tax. 
   
  It 
  would 
  be 
  exceedingly 
  
complicated 
  to 
  make 
  a 
  meaningful 
  approach 
  to 
  brining 
  this 
  back 
  to 
  a 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household. 
   
  But 
  
the 
  amount 
  would 
  not 
  be 
  insubstantial. 
   
   
  
Highway 
  Tolling 
  Other 
  than 
  on 
  the 
  SR 
  520 
  Bridge. 
   
  Seattle 
  residents, 
  probably 
  in 
  small 
  numbers, 
  
undoubtedly 
  sometimes 
  pay 
  tolls 
  on 
  the 
  Tacoma 
  Narrows 
  Bridge 
  and 
  the 
  SR 
  167 
  Express 
  Toll 
  
Lanes. 
   
  With 
  the 
  opening 
  of 
  I-­‐405 
  Express 
  Toll 
  Lanes, 
  there 
  will 
  undoubtedly 
  be 
  a 
  few 
  Seattle 
  
residents 
  who 
  have 
  occasion 
  also 
  to 
  use 
  that 
  system. 
   
   
  For 
  now, 
  however, 
  these 
  situations 
  are 
  either 
  
too 
  remote, 
  too 
  speculative 
  or 
  likely 
  too 
  small 
  to 
  merit 
  recognizing 
  in 
  this 
  study. 
  
Rental 
  Car 
  Sales 
  Tax. 
   
   
  Rental 
  car 
  patrons 
  pay 
  regular 
  Seattle 
  sales 
  taxes 
  plus 
  special 
  sales 
  taxes 
  to 
  
state 
  and 
  local 
  government. 
   
  The 
  total 
  tax 
  on 
  a 
  Seattle 
  car 
  rental 
  is 
  about 
  18%. 
   
  Rental 
  car 
  sales 
  
taxes 
  have 
  been 
  widely 
  adopted 
  on 
  the 
  theory 
  that 
  they 
  derive 
  revenue 
  from 
  non-­residents. 
   
  
Increasingly, 
  though, 
  as 
  Seattle 
  residents 
  opt 
  not 
  to 
  own 
  their 
  own 
  cars, 
  their 
  sometime 
  car 
  rental 
  
practices 
  (whether 
  at 
  Hertz, 
  Avis 
  or 
  Zipcar) 
  expose 
  them 
  to 
  this 
  tax 
  even 
  though 
  they 
  live 
  in 
  the 
  
city. 
   
  The 
  size 
  of 
  this 
  tax 
  burden 
  today 
  on 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  would 
  be 
  hard 
  to 
  determine, 
  
but 
  it 
  is 
  likely 
  that 
  it 
  will 
  come 
  to 
  be 
  an 
  appreciable 
  tax 
  amount 
  in 
  future 
  for 
  many 
  Seattle 
  
households. 
   
   
  

 
  

14 
  

 License, 
  Permit 
  and 
  Fees 
  Related 
  to 
  Motorcycles, 
  Trailers 
  and 
  Motor 
  Homes. 
  There 
  are 
  about 
  
14,000 
  motorcycles 
  registered 
  in 
  Seattle, 
  about 
  one 
  motorcycle 
  for 
  every 
  15 
  passenger 
  cars. 
   
   
  Also 
  a 
  
number 
  of 
  trailers 
  and 
  motor 
  homes. 
   
   
  Vehicle 
  license 
  tabs 
  and 
  other 
  expenses 
  for 
  motorcycles 
  and 
  
these 
  other 
  vehicles 
  have 
  not 
  been 
  included 
  in 
  the 
  calculations 
  for 
  this 
  study. 
   
  If 
  included 
  (averaged 
  
across 
  all 
  households) 
  they 
  would 
  probably 
  lead 
  to 
  small 
  but 
  noticeable 
  increases 
  in 
  several 
  of 
  the 
  
categories. 
   
   
  
Licenses, 
  Permits 
  and 
  Fees 
  for 
  Special 
  Driving 
  Classifications. 
  There 
  are 
  additional 
  fees 
  that 
  are 
  
disregarded 
  for 
  this 
  study 
  because 
  of 
  their 
  very 
  limited 
  incidence 
  (except 
  perhaps 
  for 
  the 
  
Commercial 
  Driver’s 
  License 
  endorsement 
  that 
  is 
  required 
  for 
  many 
  residents’ 
  jobs) 
  and 
  the 
  
difficulty 
  of 
  gathering 
  or 
  extrapolating 
  data 
  for 
  Seattle. 
   
   
   
  These 
  include 
  the 
  Driver 
  Instruction 
  
Permit 
  ($35), 
  the 
  Driver’s 
  License 
  Examination 
  Fee 
  ($35), 
  and 
  the 
  Commercial 
  Drivers 
  License 
  
endorsement 
  required 
  for 
  many 
  jobs 
  ($85 
  every 
  five 
  years 
  and 
  $17.00 
  per 
  year 
  for 
  extension). 
   
   
  
Parking 
  Violation 
  Citations, 
  Traffic 
  Citations 
  and 
  School 
  Zone 
  Camera 
  Enforcement 
  Citations. 
   
  
These 
  revenue 
  sources 
  actually 
  provide 
  support 
  for 
  transportation 
  programs 
  and 
  in 
  that 
  regard 
  are 
  
not 
  fiscally 
  insignificant. 
   
  They 
  have 
  been 
  excluded 
  from 
  this 
  study, 
  however, 
  because 
  as 
  penalties 
  
they 
  are 
  distinct 
  from 
  revenue 
  generation 
  tools 
  of 
  a 
  taxing 
  character. 
   
   
  
Street 
  Use 
  and 
  Curb 
  Permits. 
   
  Another 
  not 
  insubstantial 
  revenue 
  source 
  for 
  transportation, 
  but 
  
hard 
  to 
  determine 
  how 
  to 
  split 
  out 
  a 
  relatively 
  small 
  burden 
  on 
  individuals 
  as 
  compared 
  to 
  a 
  larger 
  
share 
  borne 
  by 
  business. 
   
   
  
Additional 
  Transit 
  Fare 
  Revenues. 
   
   
  Sound 
  Transit 
  expects 
  to 
  open 
  University 
  Link 
  light 
  rail 
  in 
  
2016/7 
  and 
  Seattle 
  residents 
  will 
  contribute 
  new 
  Link 
  patronage 
  that 
  will 
  grow 
  their 
  contribution 
  
to 
  Link 
  Light 
  Rail 
  fares. 
   
  Also, 
  sometime 
  soon 
  an 
  announcement 
  is 
  expected 
  as 
  to 
  when 
  the 
  City 
  of 
  
Seattle 
  will 
  begin 
  operation 
  of 
  the 
  First 
  Hill 
  streetcar. 
   
   
  Until 
  ridership 
  and 
  revenue 
  experience 
  is 
  
gained, 
  fare 
  impacts 
  for 
  Seattle 
  residents 
  are 
  a 
  speculative 
  matter 
  not 
  included 
  in 
  the 
  study 
  
although 
  certainly 
  not 
  unimportant 
  as 
  a 
  future 
  funding 
  source 
  and 
  a 
  future 
  impact 
  on 
  taxpayers. 
   
   
  

The 
  Hidden 
  Tax 
  Not 
  Paid 
  Any 
  Government, 
  but 
  Poor 
  Transportation 
  
Facilities 
  Still 
  Take 
  From 
  Taxpayers’ 
  Wallet 
  
The 
  City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  has 
  long 
  had 
  a 
  policy 
  of 
  underfunding 
  road 
  and 
  bridge 
  maintenance 
  
with 
  the 
  well-­‐documented 
  effect 
  that 
  Seattle’s 
  roadway 
  conditions 
  are 
  not 
  very 
  good 
  and 
  
probably 
  (considering 
  arterials 
  and 
  non-­‐arterials 
  together) 
  getting 
  worse. 
  Neither 
  the 
  
Bridging 
  the 
  Gap 
  levy 
  successfully 
  put 
  to 
  voters 
  in 
  2006 
  or 
  the 
  Move 
  Seattle 
  levy 
  that 
  will 
  
go 
  to 
  voters 
  in 
  2015 
  denies 
  the 
  fact 
  of 
  or 
  promises 
  significantly 
  to 
  improve 
  on 
  the 
  
inadequacy 
  of 
  funding 
  for 
  street 
  maintenance 
  and 
  repairs 
  in 
  Seattle 
  to 
  keep 
  pace 
  with 
  
deterioration 
  of 
  streets 
  and 
  roadways 
  from 
  ordinary 
  aging, 
  wear 
  and 
  tear. 
   
   
  
 
  
In 
  Seattle, 
  both 
  the 
  total 
  lane 
  miles 
  of 
  bad 
  roads 
  and 
  the 
  total 
  unmet 
  funding 
  needs 
  to 
  set 
  
things 
  right 
  significantly 
  exceed 
  those 
  of 
  other 
  West 
  Coast 
  cities, 
  San 
  Francisco, 
  San 
  Jose, 
  
San 
  Diego 
  and 
  Portland. 
   
  Only 
  Los 
  Angeles, 
  a 
  much 
  larger 
  system, 
  exceeds 
  Seattle 
  in 
  the 
  

size 
  of 
  the 
  road 
  repair 
  and 
  preservation 
  problems 
  it 
  faces. 
  7. 
  
 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  

7 
  Mike 
  Fong 
  ands 
  Dan 
  Elder 
  (Council 
  Central 
  Staff) 
   
  “Seattle 
  Department 
  of 
  Transportation, 
  Funding 
  

Challenges 
  and 
  priorities 
  July 
  25, 
  2011), 
  Slides 
  24, 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2011/stbd20110725_1.pdf, 
  Slide 
  24 
  

 
   
  
 
  

15 
  

 Bad 
  roads 
  with 
  potholes 
  and 
  cracked 
  and 
  crumbling 
  pavements 
  damage 
  tires, 
  rims, 
  
suspension 
  systems 
  and 
  windshields. 
   
  (Not 
  to 
  mention 
  fraying 
  nerves, 
  slowing 
  
traffic 
  and 
  lowering 
  fuel 
  economy). 
   
   
  There 
  is 
  solid 
  research 
  support 
  to 
  set 
  the 
  high 
  
cost 
  of 
  this 
  effect 
  on 
  taxpayers 
  as 
  even 
  simply 
  regards 
  damages 
  to 
  their 
  vehicles: 
  
 
  

“Hidden 
  Tax” 
  of 
  Vehicle 
  Repair 
  and 
  Maintenance 
  Costs 
  and 
  
Lower 
  Fuel 
  Economy 
  from 
  Serious 
  Bad 
  Roads 
  

What 
  
Was 
  

What 
  Will 
  
Be 
  

Oregon 
  estimate 
  at 
  $380 
  for 
  a 
  medium 
  weight 
  sedan 
  per 
  year 
  – 
  but 
  
higher 
  in 
  Portland.* 
   
   
   
  AASHTO 
  estimate 
  of 
  $325 
  per 
  car 
  per 
  year 
  up 
  
to 
  $746 
  in 
  urban 
  areas 
  with 
  high 
  concentrations 
  of 
  bad 
  roads.** 
   
  At 
  
1.47 
  vehicles 
  and 
  range 
  for 
  $350 
  -­‐ 
  $600 
  per 
  vehicle, 
  ballpark 
  
estimate 
  for 
  Typical 
  Seattle 
  Household: 
  

$515 
  -­ 
  
$882 
  

Getting 
  
Worse 
  

 
  

 
  

* 
  Oregon 
  Department 
  of 
  Transportation, 
  “Rough 
  Roads 
  Ahead: 
  The 
  Cost 
  of 
  Poor 
  highway 
  Conditions 
  To 
  
Oregon’s 
  Economy 
  (2014) 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/Documents/RoughRoads2014.pdf 
  
**AASHTO, 
  “Rough 
  Roads 
  Ahead: 
   
  Fix 
  Them 
  Now 
  or 
  Pay 
  for 
  It 
  Later,” 
  (2010 
  , 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://www.ceaccounties.org/resources/1/Policy%20Areas/Transportation/Resources/AASHTO%20Ro
ugh%20Roads%205-­‐6.pdf 
  and 
  http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/092410highways.aspx/ 
   
  See 
  also 
   
  
TRIP, 
  Hold 
  the 
  Wheel 
  Steady: 
  American’s 
  Roughest 
  Rides 
  and 
  Strategies 
  to 
  Make 
  our 
  Roads 
  Smoother,” 
  
accessed 
  at 
  tripnet.org 
  

 
  
 
  

Fundamental 
  Metrics 
  For 
  Taxpayers’ 
  Evaluation 
  of 
  their 
  Transportation 
  
Systems’ 
  Funding 
  and 
  Performance 
   
  
 
  

Mode 
  Split: 
   
  Drive-­Alone 
  Driving 
  is 
  the 
  Single 
  Best 
  Indicator 
  of 
  Traffic 
  
Congestion, 
  Gridlock 
  and 
  Whether 
  Conditions 
  Will 
  Get 
  Better 
  or 
  Worse: 
  
 
  
At 
  root, 
  traffic 
  congestion 
  is 
  a 
  disarmingly 
  simple 
  problem. 
   
  Commute 
  hours 
  with 
  peaking 
  
traffic 
  demand 
  and 
  too 
  many 
  cars 
  carrying 
  too 
  few 
  people 
  for 
  the 
  pavement 
  bandwidth 
  
they 
  occupy 
  (sometimes 
  that 
  bandwidth 
  – 
  in 
  other 
  words, 
  lane 
  capacity—is 
  inefficiently 
  
used; 
  sometimes 
  there 
  simply 
  is 
  not 
  enough 
  of 
  it). 
   
  
 
  
The 
  cheapest, 
  most 
  productive 
  and 
  quickest 
  solutions 
  lie 
  in 
  reducing 
  the 
  number 
  of 
  
people 
  driving 
  alone 
  in 
  their 
  cars 
  and 
  better 
  managing 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  roads 
  and 
  transit 
  
systems 
  we 
  already 
  have 
  for 
  everyone’s 
  benefit. 
   
  Usually 
  that 
  will 
  hew 
  to 
  the 
  simple 
  rule 
  
of 
  providing 
  the 
  greatest 
  good 
  for 
  the 
  greatest 
  number 
  for 
  which 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  market 
  pricing 
  
is 
  a 
  prime 
  approach. 
  
 
  
Trends 
  in 
  mode 
  split 
  – 
  how 
  people 
  are 
  traveling 
  -­‐-­‐ 
  illustrate 
  how 
  difficult 
  a 
  problem 
  this 
  
presents, 
  especially 
  in 
  a 
  growing 
  city 
  like 
  Seattle, 
  even 
  where 
  the 
  predominant 
  drive-­‐
alone 
  share 
  of 
  commuting 
  is 
  very 
  slightly 
  dropping, 
  more 
  commuters 
  trying 
  to 
  get 
  to 
  jobs 
  
has 
  actually 
  increased 
  the 
  absolute 
  number 
  of 
  drive-­‐alone 
  drivers 
  (shown 
  in 
  the 
  chart 
  
below) 
  on 
  city 
  roadways 
  already 
  hugely 
  overburdened 
  at 
  peak 
  traffic 
  times. 
   
   
  Public 
  
transit 
  is 
  making 
  visible 
  gains 
  in 
  numbers 
  and 
  an 
  increase 
  in 
  share 
  – 
  the 
  chief 
  opportunity 
  
for 
  further 
  progress. 
   
  Walking 
  and 
  “Work 
  at 
  Home” 
  also 
  show 
  positive 
  direction, 
  but 
  very 
  
 
  

16 
  

 slowly. 
   
  “Other” 
  (including 
  cycling) 
  is 
  so 
  small 
  a 
  share 
  that 
  even 
  a 
  healthy 
  percentage 
  gain 
  
offers 
  very 
  little 
  change 
  to 
  the 
  big 
  picture. 
   
  
 
  

 
  
This 
  graphic 
  is 
  the 
  critical 
  outcome 
  measure 
  that 
  must 
  be 
  monitored 
  and, 
  more 
  
importantly, 
  changed. 
   
  The 
  key 
  to 
  change 
  is 
  to 
  increase 
  transit 
  share 
  – 
  probably 
  with 
  a 
  
much 
  more 
  flexible 
  understanding 
  of 
  transit 
  (including, 
  for 
  example, 
  the 
  Microsoft 
  
Connector 
  and 
  its 
  current 
  and 
  future 
  clones 
  and 
  variants). 
   
  And 
  the 
  key 
  to 
  tallying 
  and 
  
growing 
  transit 
  share 
  is 
  to 
  count 
  trips 
  (not 
  the 
  separate 
  and 
  misleading 
  counting 
  up 
  of 
  
boardings, 
  since 
  a 
  single 
  trip 
  on 
  transit 
  might 
  involve 
  one, 
  two 
  or 
  even 
  three 
  boardings). 
   
   
  
 
  
Hand 
  in 
  hand 
  with 
  vastly 
  expanding 
  transit 
  trips 
  goes 
  scarcity 
  roadway 
  and 
  parking 
  
pricing 
  to 
  shift 
  demand 
  and 
  promote 
  efficiency 
  and 
  rapid 
  adoption 
  of 
  technology 
  to 
  
expand 
  the 
  horizons 
  of 
  transportation 
  practices, 
  choices, 
  safety 
  and 
  convenience. 
   
   
   
  
Performance 
  targets 
  and 
  measures 
  in 
  relation 
  to 
  new 
  revenue 
  must 
  be 
  at 
  hand 
  on 
  these 
  
topics. 
   
   
  Currently, 
  they 
  are 
  not. 
   
   
  
 
  
Pavement 
  Condition 
  is 
  the 
  Most 
  Direct 
  Performance 
  Indicator 
  of 
  
Transportation 
  Asset 
  Stewardship 
  on 
  Behalf 
  of 
  Current 
  and 
  Future 
  System 
  
Users 
  and 
  Taxpayers 
  
 
  
Over 
  decades 
  taxpayers 
  have 
  made 
  a 
  huge 
  investment 
  in 
  the 
  City 
  of 
  Seattle’s 
  street, 
  
sidewalk 
  and 
  bridge 
  assets. 
   
  There 
  are 
  almost 
  4000 
  lane 
  miles 
  of 
  pavement 
  (1540 
  lane 
  
miles 
  of 
  arterials 
  and 
  2412 
  lane 
  miles 
  of 
  non-­‐arterials. 
   
  According 
  to 
  SDOT 
  asset 
  
management 
  inventory 
  (2013) 
  pavements 
  represent 
  48% 
  of 
  SDOT’s 
  assets 
  by 
  value, 
  with 
  
an 
  estimated 
  replacement 
  cost 
  of 
  $5.85 
  billion. 
   
  Sidewalks 
  are 
  the 
  second 
  largest 
  asset 
  
category, 
  at 
  22% 
  of 
  asset 
  value 
  and 
  an 
  estimated 
  replacement 
  value 
  of 
  $2.65 
  billion.8 
   
   
  

 
  

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
8 
  Talbot, 
  Korvola, 
  and 
  Warwick 
  LLP, 
   
  “Seattle 
  Department 
  of 
  Transportation 
  Operational, 
  Management 
  and 
  
Efficiency 
  Analysis 
  Phase 
  I 
  (Sept. 
  2013)(Office 
  of 
  City 
  Auditor), 
  19-­‐21. 
   
  
 
  

17 
  

  
  
Despite 
  spending 
  under 
  Bridging 
  the 
  Gap 
  and 
  other 
  funding, 
  we 
  are 
  way 
  behind 
  in 
  
keeping 
  basic 
  transportation 
  infrastructure 
  from 
  falling 
  apart. 
  In 
  July 
  2011, 
  City 
  Council 
  
staff 
  reported 
  to 
  the 
  Council 
  that 
  2010 
  spending 
  for 
  annual 
  maintenance 
  of 
  streets 
  was 
  
$22.3 
  million 
  versus 
  a 
  Bridging 
  the 
  Gap 
  estimate 
  of 
  $47.3 
  million 
  and 
  a 
  current 
  estimate 
  of 
  
$94.7 
  million. 
  From 
  2003-­‐04, 
  to 
  the 
  best 
  estimates 
  available 
  in 
  2011, 
  the 
  repair 
  and 
  
replacement 
  backlog 
  for 
  streets 
  – 
  not 
  including 
  non-­‐arterial 
  streets 
  – 
  grew 
  from 
  $235 
  
million 
  to 
  $575 
  million. 
   
  Over 
  the 
  same 
  period, 
  the 
  backlog 
  for 
  repair 
  and 
  replacement 
  for 
  
bridges 
  and 
  structures 
  grew 
  five-­‐fold 
  – 
  not 
  including 
  the 
  Magnolia 
  Bridge 
  and 
  other 
  
“major” 
  bridge 
  replacements 
  – 
  to 
  over 
  a 
  billion 
  dollars. 
   
  In 
  every 
  other 
  category 
  – 
  traffic 
  
facilities, 
  pedestrian 
  and 
  bicycle 
  facilities, 
  trees 
  and 
  landscapes 
  and 
  transit 
  facilities, 
  there 
  
were 
  equally 
  dramatic 
  shortfalls 
  between 
  2010 
  spending 
  and 
  current 
  estimates 
  of 
  annual 
  
spending 
  needs. 
  9 
  Updated 
  estimates 
  and 
  new 
  forecasts 
  have 
  not 
  been 
  made 
  readily 
  
available 
  to 
  taxpayers. 
   
   
  
 
  
Tools 
  we 
  have 
  should 
  be 
  better 
  used 
  for 
  helping 
  the 
  public 
  track 
  the 
  problem. 
   
  The 
  
StreetSaver 
  pavement 
  management 
  software 
  system 
  used 
  by 
  SDOT 
  supposedly 
  supports 
  
the 
  capture 
  of 
  SDOT’s 
  physical 
  tracking 
  of 
  arterial 
  pavement 
  conditions 
  and 
  the 
  
calculation 
  of 
  the 
  Pavement 
  Condition 
  Index 
  (PCI). 
   
   
  PCI 
  is 
  a 
  standardized 
  system 
  that 
  
linked 
  with 
  StreetSaver 
  and 
  other 
  pavement 
  management 
  information 
  can 
  help 
  prioritize 
  
cost-­‐effective 
  pavement 
  repair 
  and 
  rehabilitation 
  strategies. 
   
  It 
  can 
  also 
  forecast 
  how 
  
investment 
  levels 
  and 
  strategies 
  will 
  roll 
  forward 
  into 
  the 
  future 
  to 
  either 
  improve 
  or 
  
worsen 
  the 
  huge 
  cost 
  cornices 
  that 
  hang 
  over 
  future 
  taxpayers 
  who 
  will 
  have 
  to 
  rescue 
  
ruined 
  pavements 
  from 
  effects 
  of 
  deferred 
  maintenance 
  and 
  rehabilitation. 
   
   
  Others 
  are 
  
doing 
  better 
  at 
  daylighting 
  this 
  dark 
  information 
  corner. 
   
  The 
  work 
  over 
  many 
  years 
  of 
  
the 
  Metropolitan 
  Transportation 
  Commission 
  in 
  the 
  Bay 
  Area 
  to 
  develop 
  and 
  implement 
  
these 
  tools 
  now 
  should 
  provide 
  both 
  an 
  asset 
  management 
  model 
  and 
  a 
  framework 
  for 
  
systematic 
  benchmarking 
  of 
  Seattle 
  (and 
  the 
  region’s) 
  pavement 
  management 
  
programming,10 
  and 
  even 
  the 
  development 
  of 
  an 
  FHWA 
  promoted 
  performance 
  
measurement 
  and 
  management 
  tool, 
  the 
  Pavement 
  Sustainability 
  Index.11 
   
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
9 
  Mike 
  Fong 
  ands 
  Dan 
  Elder 
  (Council 
  Central 
  Staff) 
   
  “Seattle 
  Depart 
  rent 
  of 
  Transportation, 
  Funding 
  
Challenges 
  and 
  priorities 
  July 
  25, 
  2011), 
  Slides 
  22 
  and 
  23, 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2011/stbd20110725_1.pdf 
  
10 
  See 
  Puget 
  Sound 
  Regional 
  Council, 
   
  “Regional 
  Asset 
  Management 
  Programming 
  Peer 
  Review” 
  (May 
  2014) 
  

4-­‐7 
  and 
  Fig. 
  2 
  (an 
  excellent 
  illustration 
  of 
  scenario 
  assessment 
  modeling) 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://www.psrc.org/assets/11807/AssetManagementPeerReviewSummary2014May.pdf?processed=true 
  
Cost 
  effective 
  pavement 
  stewardship 
  includes 
  the 
  need 
  to 
  use 
  very 
  careful 
  approaches 
  to 
  pavement 
  
rehabilitation 
  investment 
  in 
  order 
  to 
  avoid 
  the 
  huge 
  run-­‐up 
  in 
  rehabilitation 
  costs 
  that 
  occur 
  when 
  
pavements 
  pass 
  mild 
  deterioration 
  that 
  can 
  be 
  addressed 
  with 
  routine 
  resurfacings 
  to 
  extreme 
  
deterioration 
  requiring 
  entire 
  roadbed 
  reconstruction. 
   
  Pavement 
  is 
  the 
  living 
  embodiment 
  on 
  the 
  old 
  
maxim, 
  “A 
  stitch 
  in 
  time 
  saves 
  nine.” 
  
11 
  U.S. 
  Department 
  of 
  Transportation/Federal 
  Highway 
  Administration, 
  “Asset 
  Sustainability 
  Index, 
  A 
  

Proposed 
  Measure 
  for 
  Long-­‐Term 
  Performance 
  “(2012) 
  accessed 
  at 
  
https://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/ASI_report/ASI_July9_FINAL_web.pdf 
  

 
  
 
  

18 
  

  
  
If 
  these 
  approaches 
  to 
  performance 
  metrics 
  in 
  asset 
  management 
  could 
  be 
  better 
  
employed 
  in 
  Seattle, 
  taxpayers 
  would 
  be 
  on 
  much 
  firmer 
  ground 
  both 
  for 
  appreciating 
  
past 
  progress 
  or 
  supporting 
  future 
  investment 
  than 
  can 
  be 
  gleaned 
  from 
  the 
  kind 
  of 
  data 
  
now 
  available. 
   
   
  Especially 
  as 
  to 
  the 
  enormous 
  backlog 
  in 
  Seattle 
  of 
  deferred 
  maintenance 
  
and 
  rehabilitation 
  of 
  pavements, 
  an 
  issue 
  that 
  equally 
  extends 
  to 
  even 
  larger 
  numbers 
  of 
  
bridges 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  other 
  transportation 
  assets. 
   
   
  Decision-­‐making 
  by 
  public 
  officials 
  or 
  
taxpayers 
  without 
  such 
  tools 
  is 
  no 
  more 
  than 
  faith-­‐based 
  management 
  that 
  can 
  never 
  be 
  
either 
  transparent 
  or 
  accountable. 
   
   
  
 
  
Pavement 
  Condition 
  Index 
  
(PCI) 
  Ratings 
  and 
  
Characterizations 
   
  

2010 
  PCI 
  Category 
  Shares 
  
for 
  Seattle 
   
  (arterials 
  only) 
  

 
  

 
  

0 
  -­ 
  25 
  

26-­40 
  

41-­55 
  

56-­70 
  

71-­85 
  

85-­
100 
  

Serious/ 
  
Failed 
  

Very 
  
Poor 
  

Poor 
  

Fair 
  

Satisfactory 
  

Good 
  

3.7% 
  

9.0% 
  

13.3% 
  

21.2% 
  

28.4% 
  

24.4% 
  

 
  
 
  

2007 
  

2008 
  

2009 
  

2010 
  

Seattle 
  Pavement 
  Condition 
  Index 
  
Rating: 
  Four 
  Year 
  Trend 
  to 
  2010 
  

67.5 
  

66.5 
  

68.3 
  

68.8 
  

 
  

Vehicle 
  Miles 
  Traveled 
  Reductions 
  Linked 
  to 
  and 
  Achieved 
  By 
  Congestion 
  
Pricing 
  Will 
  Be 
  Critical 
  to 
  Greenhouse 
  Gas 
  Emission 
  Reductions 
  Called 
  For 
  By 
  
Seattle’s 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Plan. 
  
 
  
Transportation 
  is 
  inextricably 
  related 
  to 
  climate 
  action 
  because 
  the 
  transportation 
  sector, 
  
especially 
  in 
  Washington 
  State 
  and 
  equally 
  in 
  Seattle, 
  is 
  responsible 
  for 
  such 
  a 
  large 
  
portion 
  of 
  overall 
  greenhouse 
  gas 
  emissions. 
  
 
  
Objectives 
  and 
  metrics 
  for 
  measuring 
  progress 
  towards 
  greenhouse 
  gas 
  emission 
  
reductions 
  and 
  related 
  transportation 
  goals 
  must 
  be 
  a 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  evaluation 
  and 
  
prioritization 
  framework 
  for 
  major 
  programs 
  of 
  transportation 
  investment. 
   
  Not 
  only 
  are 
  
we 
  not 
  using 
  such 
  measures 
  in 
  seeking 
  new 
  revenues 
  and 
  selecting 
  investments, 
  we 
  can’t 
  
even 
  tell 
  if 
  year-­‐to-­‐year 
  we 
  are 
  making 
  the 
  problem 
  bigger 
  or 
  smaller. 
   
   
  
 
  
The 
  City 
  began 
  to 
  enter 
  into 
  the 
  targeting 
  process 
  when 
  in 
  2010 
  the 
  City 
  Council 
  
undertook 
  to 
  develop 
  specific 
  milestones 
  and 
  steps 
  toward 
  Seattle’s 
  “carbon 
  neutral” 
  
goals, 
  including 
  promoting 
  VMT 
  reduction 
  in 
  the 
  City’s 
  Comprehensive 
  Plan.12 
  Eventually, 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
12 
  Seattle 
  City 
  Council 
  2011 
  Priorities, 
  accessed 
  at 
  

http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/council_priorities.htm 
  

 
  

19 
  

 preliminary 
  targets 
  were 
  established 
  of 
  achieving 
  a 
  14% 
  reduction 
  in 
  VMT 
  by 
  2020 
  and 
  a 
  
20% 
  reduction 
  by 
  2030, 
  each 
  linked 
  to 
  significant 
  payoffs 
  in 
  reducing 
  greenhouse 
  gas 
  
emissions.13 
  
 
  
As 
  the 
  City 
  worked 
  to 
  update 
  its 
  full 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Plan, 
  it 
  gained 
  the 
  benefit 
  of 
  a 
  work 
  
program 
  culminating 
  in 
  Technical 
  Advisory 
  Group 
  Recommendations 
  delivered 
  in 
  2012.14 
   
  
That 
  report 
  laid 
  out 
  the 
  huge 
  challenges 
  in 
  making 
  greenhouse 
  gas 
  emissions 
  reductions 
  
and 
  created 
  an 
  evaluative 
  framework 
  for 
  determining 
  among 
  various 
  strategies 
  their 
  
likely 
  relative 
  importance 
  in 
  attaining 
  big 
  goals.15 
   
  
 
  
Categories 
  of 
  50 
  Recommended 
  Strategies 
  and 
  Their 
  Estimated 
  Potential 
  to 
  
Reduce 
  GHG 
  Emissions 
  from 
  Passenger 
  Transportation 
  by 
  2050 
  
Pedestrian 
  Facilities 
  and 
  Services. 
   
  Increase 
  Completeness 
  and 
  
Quality 
  of 
  Pedestrian 
  Network 
  
Bicycle 
  Facilities 
  and 
  Services. 
   
  Increase 
  the 
  extent, 
  completeness, 
  
quality 
  and 
  priority 
  of 
  citywide 
  bicycle 
  
networks, 
  parking 
  and 
  supportive 
  services 
  to 
  provide 
  safe 
  and 
  direct 
  
bicycle 
  access 
  and 
  mobility 
  for 
  users 
  of 
  all 
  ages 
  and 
  abilities. 
  
Transit 
  Facilities 
  and 
  Services. 
   
  Invest 
  in 
  transit 
  facilities 
  and 
  new 
  
service 
  to 
  improve 
  frequency, 
  reliability, 
  and 
  user 
  experience 
  
Investments 
  in 
  a 
  comprehensive 
  citywide 
  network 
  
Transportation 
  Demand 
  Management, 
  Marketing 
  & 
  Education. 
   
  
Use 
  pricing, 
  policies, 
  outreach, 
  and 
  incentives 
  to 
  shift 
  trips 
  to 
  
walking, 
  cycling, 
  transit, 
  and 
  other 
  shared 
  transport 
  modes 
  
Parking 
  Pricing 
  and 
  Management. 
   
  Manage 
  parking 
  to 
  maximize 
  
access 
  and 
  reduce 
  unnecessary 
  travel 
  
The 
  most 
  important 
  use 
  of 
  on-­‐street 
  and 
  public 
  off-­‐street. 
  
Congestion 
  Pricing 
  and 
  other 
  Auto 
  User 
  Fees 
  
Advocate 
  for 
  regional 
  authority 
  to 
  implement 
  variable 
  congestion 
  
pricing 
  and 
  other 
  road 
  user 
  fees 
  with 
  a 
  portion 
  of 
  revenue 
  dedicated 
  
to 
  multimodal 
  transportation. 
  Variable 
  pricing 
  of 
  all 
  limited-­‐access 
  
highways 
  
Transitioning 
  to 
  Clean 
  and 
  Efficient 
  Vehicle 
  Fuels 
  and 
  
Technologies. 
   
  Transition 
  to 
  Clean 
  Vehicle 
  Fuels 
  and 
  Technologies; 
  
Emissions-­‐Free 
  Electric 
  Power 
  

≈ 
  1 
  – 
  2% 
  
≈ 
  4% 
  -­‐ 
  6% 
  

≈ 
  2 
  – 
  5% 
  
≈10 
  – 
  15% 
  
≈ 
  20 
  – 
  25% 
  

≈15 
  – 
  30% 
  
 
  

≈ 
  50% 
  

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
13 
  For 
  a 
  short 
  chronology 
  of 
  the 
  development 
  of 
  climate 
  strategy 
  in 
  Seattle 
  (with 
  helpful 
  links), 
  see 
  Seattle 
  
Climate 
  Action 
  Plan 
  Development 
  at 
  the 
  Seattle 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Plan 
  website 
  at 
  
http://www.seattle.gov/environment/climate-­‐change/climate-­‐action-­‐plan 
  . 
   
   
  But 
  some 
  early 
  stage 
  thinking 
  
in 
  retrospect 
  today 
  seems 
  deeply 
  out 
  of 
  touch 
  with 
  reality 
  then 
  or 
  now. 
   
  See, 
  for 
  example, 
  the 
  mode 
  share 
  
discussion 
  in 
  Getting 
  to 
  Zero: 
  A 
  Pathway 
  to 
  a 
  Carbon 
  Free 
  Seattle 
  (May/June 
  2011), 
  20-­‐23, 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/CN_Seattle_Report_May_2011.pd 
  
14 
  Nelson 
  Nygard, 
  “Technical 
  Advisory 
  Group 
  Recommendations 
  for 
  the 
  Seattle 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Plan 
  Update, 
  

Transportation 
  & 
  Land 
  Use 
  Sectors 
  Final 
  Summary 
  Report” 
  (City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  Office 
  of 
  Sustainability 
  & 
  
Environment 
  (April 
  2012), 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/TAG_Transp&LandUse_Report.pdf 
  
15 
  Id., 
  4-­‐6 
  to 
  4-­‐21. 
  

 
  

20 
  

  
  
All 
  in 
  all, 
  the 
  report 
  concluded: 
  
 
  
“Implemented 
  together, 
  the 
  full 
  package 
  of 
  recommended 
  transportation 
  and 
  land 
  
use 
  strategies 
  would 
  allow 
  the 
  City 
  to 
  make 
  substantial 
  progress 
  towards 
  its 
  
adopted 
  targets, 
  reducing 
  GHG 
  emissions 
  from 
  on-­‐road 
  passenger 
  transportation 
  
from 
  the 
  2008 
  baseline 
  by 
  up 
  to 
  35% 
  by 
  2020, 
  76% 
  by 
  2030, 
  and 
  96% 
  by 
  2050.”16 
  
 
  
Critical 
  to 
  strategic 
  assessment, 
  however, 
  was 
  that 
   
  
 
  
“[T]he 
  best 
  strategies 
  for 
  the 
  City 
  and 
  its 
  regional 
  partners 
  to 
  directly 
  reduce 
  GHG 
  
emissions 
  passenger 
  transportation 
  and 
  achieve 
  other 
  benefits 
  are 
  to 
  1. 
  Implement 
  
congestion 
  pricing 
  and 
  management 
  . 
  . 
  .. 
  [and] 
  3. 
  Implement 
  aggressive 
  
transportation 
  demand 
  management 
  programs 
  tat 
  can 
  provide 
  substantial 
  near-­‐
term 
  VMT 
  and 
  GHG 
  reductions”.17 
  
 
  
To 
  repeat 
  and 
  underscore: 
   
  “Congestion 
  pricing 
  is 
  the 
  most 
  essential 
  strategy 
  over 
  the 
  
long-­‐term 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  “ 
   
  But 
  the 
  report 
  also 
  cautioned: 
  
 
  
“Many 
  of 
  these 
  strategies 
  will 
  cost 
  several 
  orders 
  of 
  magnitude 
  more 
  than 
  the 
  
public 
  resources 
  currently 
  available. 
   
  Achieving 
  the 
  GHG 
  emissions 
  reduction 
  
potential 
  of 
  these 
  straggles 
  will 
  only 
  be 
  possible 
  with 
  substantial 
  new 
  funding 
  
strategies 
  at 
  the 
  local 
  and 
  regional 
  levels. 
   
  Of 
  particular 
  importance 
  are 
   
  . 
  . 
  .funding 
  
and 
  financing 
  strategies 
  such 
  as 
  congestion 
  pricing, 
  Vehicle 
  Miles 
  Traveled 
  (VMT) 
  
fees 
  and 
  non-­‐residential 
  parking 
  taxes 
  . 
  . 
  .” 
  18 
  
 
  
In 
  2013, 
  the 
  Seattle 
  City 
  Council 
  adopted 
  the 
  updated 
  Seattle 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Plan, 
  
including 
  a 
  target 
  indicator 
  that 
  there 
  would 
  be 
  a 
  30% 
  reduction 
  in 
  VMT 
  by 
  2030. 
   
   
  On 
  the 
  
matter 
  of 
  money, 
  compare 
  the 
  admonition 
  of 
  the 
  adopted 
  plan 
  with 
  the 
  TAG 
  caution 
  
above, 
  an 
  almost 
  verbatim 
  adoption 
  (minus, 
  curiously, 
  the 
  most 
  salient 
  specific 
  
recommendations 
  made 
  by 
  the 
  Technical 
  Advisory 
  Group): 
   
  
“Additionally, many of these strategies, most notably in the transportation sector, will
require several orders of magnitude more public resources than are currently available.
Realizing the full GHG emissions reduction potential of these strategies will only be
possible with new and sustained funding sources at the local, regional, and state
levels.”19
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
16 
  Id., 
  ES-­4. 
   
   
  
17 
  Id., 
  ES-­‐5 
  
18 
  Id., 
  ES-­‐5 
  
19 
  Seattle 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Plan 
  (June 
  2013), 
  6, 
  accessed 
  at 
  

http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/2013_CAP_20130612.pdf 
  

 
  

21 
  

 The 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Plan 
  adopted 
  by 
  the 
  Council 
  also 
  noted 
  another 
  big 
  hurdle 
  – 
  this 
  
specifically 
  to 
  the 
  question 
  of 
  assessing 
  data 
  and 
  measuring 
  progress 
  either 
  in 
  yearly 
  
reporting 
  “or 
  as 
  data 
  is 
  available.” 
   
  
 
  
“There 
  are 
  several 
  challenging 
  gaps 
  in 
  data. 
   
  Specifically, 
  the 
  lack 
  of 
  a 
  City 
  of 
  
Transportation 
  model 
  providing 
  city-­‐specific 
  travel 
  data 
  is 
  significant 
  barrier 
  to 
  
accessing 
  transportation 
  related 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Outcome 
  indicators 
  and 
  GHG 
  
information.”20 
  
 
  
None 
  of 
  this 
  stood 
  in 
  the 
  way, 
  however, 
  of 
  the 
  Council’s 
  adoption 
  of 
  specific 
  
implementation 
  actions 
  by 
  2015. 
   
  These 
  prominently 
  included: 
  
“Work 
  with 
  regional 
  and 
  state 
  partners 
  to 
  adopt 
  a 
  funding 
  strategy 
  to 
  meet 
  current 
  
and 
  future 
  transportation 
  needs.“21 
  
 
  
Where 
  is 
  that 
  funding 
  strategy 
  called 
  for 
  by 
  2015 
  that 
  is 
  absolutely 
  central 
  to 
  the 
  climate 
  
action 
  program? 
   
   
  
 
  
The 
  answer 
  is 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  mired 
  in 
  process 
  pronouncements 
  and 
  unanswered 
  rhetorical 
  
questions 
  in 
  a 
  2013 
  implementation 
  strategy 
  document 
  with 
  no 
  normative 
  outcome 
  
expectations 
  outlined.22 
  A 
  2015 
  implementation 
  “progress 
  report” 
  states 
  that 
  this 
  strategy 
  
is 
  “on 
  track,” 
  with 
  the 
  key 
  update 
  that 
  the 
  Mayor 
  is 
  invited 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  the 
  PSRC 
  
Transportation 
  Futures 
  Task 
  Force 
  looking 
  at 
  long 
  range 
  regional 
  transportation 
  and 
  
policy 
  issues.23 
  A 
  highly 
  unlikely 
  vehicle 
  for 
  focusing 
  attention 
  of 
  the 
  funding 
  and 
  needs 
  
issues 
  as 
  legislators, 
  local 
  officials 
  and 
  voters 
  are 
  now 
  considering 
  the 
  tens 
  of 
  billions 
  of 
  
dollars 
  heading 
  into 
  the 
  pipeline 
  as 
  new 
  revenue 
  for 
  new 
  spending. 
   
   
  “On 
  track” 
  (maybe) 
  is 
  
not 
  good 
  enough 
  and 
  (maybe) 
  not 
  even 
  accurate. 
  
 
  
As 
  for 
  the 
  critical 
  issue 
  of 
  developing 
  better 
  data 
  resources 
  to 
  understand 
  and 
  mark 
  
progress 
  on 
  transportation 
  issues 
  in 
  Seattle, 
  as 
  related 
  to 
  climate 
  action 
  or 
  otherwise? 
   
   
   
  
 
  
The 
  current 
  status 
  (February 
  2015) 
  is 
  “Not 
  Initiated.”24 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
20 
  Id., 
  7. 
  
21 
   
  Id., 
  9. 
  
22 
   
  Seattle 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Plan, 
  Implementation 
  Strategy 
  (October 
  2013) 
  – 
  see 
  section 
  headed 
  “Council 
  

Identified 
  Priority 
  Items,” 
  5-­‐6, 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/FinalCAPImplementationStrategy.pdf5 
  
23 
  Seattle 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Plan, 
  Implementation 
  Strategy 
  Progress 
  Report 
  (Feb. 
  2015), 
  26 
  of 
  28 
  [unnumbered] 
  

accessed 
  at 
  http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/CAPDetailedStatusReportFeb2015.pdf 
  

24 
  Id. 
  11 
  of 
  28. 
   
  There 
  is 
  some 
  discussion 
  that 
  the 
  need 
  may 
  be 
  met 
  by 
  consultants 
  engaged 
  for 
  the 
  on-­‐going 
  

Comprehensive 
  Plan 
  update 
  although 
  review 
  of 
  work 
  in 
  that 
  venue 
  does 
  not 
  bring 
  to 
  light 
  travel 
  and 
  
transportation 
  modeling 
  that 
  would 
  serve 
  to 
  illuminate 
  the 
  key 
  topics 
  and 
  targets 
  identified 
  in 
  the 
  Climate 
  
Action 
  Plan. 
   
   
  

 
  

22 
  

  
  
Frankly, 
  there 
  is 
  in 
  2015 
  a 
  major 
  breakdown 
  in 
  Seattle 
  (and 
  the 
  region) 
  between 
  climate 
  
action 
  planning 
  and 
  transportation 
  new 
  revenue/spending 
  planning 
  that 
  seeks 
  tens 
  of 
  
billions 
  of 
  new 
  dollars 
  from 
  taxpayers. 
   
  There 
  has 
  not 
  been 
  meaningful 
  work 
  among 
  city, 
  
regional 
  and 
  state 
  partners 
  for 
  a 
  “funding 
  strategy” 
  that 
  is 
  other 
  than 
  ad 
  hoc 
  and 
  that 
  
would 
  seem 
  to 
  address 
  such 
  prominently 
  identified 
  climate 
  action 
  imperatives 
  as 
  
congestion 
  pricing. 
   
  Or 
  furthers 
  technology 
  or 
  other 
  strategies 
  significantly 
  aimed 
  at 
  
reducing 
  Vehicle 
  Miles 
  Traveled, 
  never 
  mind 
  meeting 
  head-­‐on 
  such 
  pressing 
  
transportation 
  needs 
  as 
  asset 
  preservation 
  and 
  rehabilitation. 
   
  Drive-­‐along 
  commuting 
  is 
  
rising, 
  not 
  falling. 
   
  Financing 
  is 
  totally 
  inadequate 
  and 
  unaddressed 
  for 
  near-­‐term 
  major 
  
expansions 
  in 
  transit 
  trip-­‐making. 
   
  Data 
  collection 
  and 
  reporting 
  deficiencies 
  are 
  as 
  
glaring 
  now 
  as 
  they 
  were 
  in 
  2012 
  and 
  2013. 
   
  These 
  are 
  vey 
  troubling 
  facts 
  at 
  the 
  hugely 
  
important 
  intersections 
  where 
  climate 
  planning 
  and 
  transportation 
  planning 
  must 
  meet. 
  
 
  
Equity 
  and 
  Affordability 
  Questions 
  Can 
  Be 
  Tracked 
  Against 
  Peer 
  Cities 
  – 
  But 
  
This 
  Study 
  Does 
  Not 
  Reach 
  That 
  Information 
  
 
  
Affordability 
  judgments 
  about 
  public 
  utility 
  costs 
  are 
  often 
  informed 
  by 
  measuring 
  their 
  
scale 
  in 
  relation 
  to 
  a 
  community’s 
  median 
  household 
  income. 
   
  This 
  is 
  also 
  frequently 
  a 
  
useful 
  metric 
  for 
  comparing 
  such 
  costs 
  from 
  city 
  or 
  city. 
  
 
  
This 
  study 
  suggests 
  that 
  for 
  Seattle 
  in 
  2014, 
  the 
  sum 
  of 
  taxes, 
  fees 
  and 
  user 
  charges 
  for 
  the 
  
transportation 
  system 
  borne 
  by 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  for 
  the 
  before 
  scenarios 
  in 
  
2014 
  was 
  $1975 
  or 
  2.7% 
  of 
  median 
  household 
  income 
  of 
  $72,277. 
   
  In 
  the 
  after 
  scenarios 
  
looking 
  at 
  a 
  time 
  frame 
  2016/17 
  the 
  total 
  for 
  a 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  will 
  be 
  $2762 
  or 
  
approximately 
  3.5% 
  of 
  a 
  median 
  household 
  income 
  roughly 
  in 
  the 
  range 
  of 
  $77,500 
  
(based 
  on 
  recent 
  income 
  growth 
  trends).25 
  
 
  
Peer 
  comparisons 
  have 
  not 
  been 
  developed 
  for 
  this 
  study. 
   
  Some 
  cities 
  from 
  which 
  useful 
  
peer 
  comparisons 
  might 
  be 
  drawn 
  would 
  include 
  the 
  following, 
  all 
  with 
  median 
  
household 
  income 
  in 
  the 
  range 
  roughly 
  $50,000 
  to 
  $80,000 
  (Seattle 
  is 
  the 
  3rd 
  highest 
  
ranking 
  city 
  in 
  the 
  country 
  in 
  median 
  household 
  income, 
  trailing 
  only 
  San 
  Jose 
  CA 
  and 
  San 
  
Francisco 
  CA) 
  and 
  population 
  in 
  roughly 
  the 
  range 
  500,000 
  to 
  1,000,000 
  population. 
   
   
  
 
  

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
25 
  This 
  is, 
  of 
  course, 
  only 
  a 
  small 
  fraction 
  of 
  total 
  household 
  transportation 
  costs 
  when 
  the 
  expense 
  of 
  

depreciation 
  and 
  operating 
  expense 
  of 
  one 
  or 
  more 
  private 
  automobiles 
  enters 
  the 
  picture. 
   
   
   
  

 
  

23 
  

 San 
  Diego, 
  CA 
   
  
San 
  Jose, 
  CA, 
  
Austin, 
  TX 
   
  
San 
  Francisco, 
  CA 
   
  
Fort 
  Worth, 
  TX 
  
Denver, 
  CO 
   
  

Boston, 
  MA 
  
Portland, 
  OR 
  
Colorado 
  Springs, 
  CO 
  
Sacramento, 
  CA 
  
Minneapolis, 
  MN 
  

 
  
On 
  the 
  issue 
  of 
  equity, 
  questions 
  must 
  focus 
  of 
  course, 
  as 
  is 
  generally 
  the 
  case 
  in 
  tax 
  policy 
  
matters 
  in 
  Washington 
  State, 
  on 
  the 
  very 
  high 
  reliance 
  on 
  sales 
  taxes. 
   
  Tax 
  structure 
  is 
  as 
  
important 
  an 
  issue 
  as 
  overall 
  tax 
  burden 
  when, 
  as 
  so 
  often 
  is 
  the 
  case 
  in 
  Washington 
  State, 
  
the 
  structure 
  of 
  taxation 
  so 
  focused 
  on 
  the 
  sales 
  tax 
  disproportionately 
  places 
  tax 
  burden 
  
down 
  the 
  scale 
  of 
  personal 
  or 
  household 
  income. 
  26 
   
  
 
  
We 
  need 
  better 
  measures 
  and 
  broader 
  discussion 
  of 
  affordability 
  and 
  fairness 
  and 
  more 
  
information 
  on 
  how 
  our 
  situation, 
  our 
  efforts 
  and 
  our 
  expected 
  results 
  compare 
  with 
  
other 
  cities. 
   
   
  

 
  

* 
   
   
  * 
   
   
  * 
   
   
  * 
   
   
  * 
   
   
  * 
   
   
  * 
   
   
  * 
   
   
  * 
   
   
  * 
  

 
  

Appendices 
  

A. 
   
  Background 
  Tables 
  Supporting 
  Various 
  Calculations 
  
Population 
  of 
  Seattle: 
  
The 
  2010 
  U.S. 
  Decennial 
  Census 
  tallied 
  the 
  population 
  of 
  Seattle 
  as 
  608,660. 
   
  
The 
  2015 
  estimated 
  population 
  is 
  662,440. 
   
   
  
The 
  City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  estimate 
  is 
  drawn 
  from 
  the 
  estimated 
  populations 
  for 
  cities 
  and 
  
counties 
  prepared 
  by 
  the 
  Washington 
  State 
  Office 
  of 
  Financial 
  Management. 
   
  (OFM).27 
   
  
The 
  City 
  does 
  not 
  publish 
  estimates 
  for 
  2016 
  and 
  2017 
  but 
  a 
  straight-­‐line 
  extrapolation 
  
from 
  2010 
  to 
  2015 
  trend 
  estimated 
  by 
  OFM 
  yields 
  the 
  results 
  for 
  2026 
  and 
  2017shown 
  in 
  
the 
  table 
  below. 
   
   
  

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
26 
  Institute 
  of 
  Taxation 
  and 
  Economic 
  Policy, 
  “Who 
  Pays: 
  A 
  50-­‐State 
  Report: 
  Washington 
  State 
  & 
  Local 
  Taxes 
  
in 
  2015”, 
  accessed 
  at 
  http://www.itep.org/whopays/states/washington.php. 
   
  An 
  imponderable 
  
contingency 
  that 
  could 
  affects 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  results 
  in 
  this 
  study 
  is 
  that 
  voters 
  would 
  adopt 
  Initiative 
  732 
  that 
  
would 
  restructure 
  some 
  elements 
  of 
  the 
  sales 
  tax 
  (though 
  not 
  the 
  gas 
  tax). 
   
   
  
27 
  City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  Department 
  of 
  Planning 
  and 
  Development, 
  “About 
  Seattle, 
  Population 
  and 
  Households 
  

Quick 
  Statistics, 
  “ 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/cityplanning/populationdemographics/aboutseattle/population/default.htm 
  

 
  
 
  

24 
  

  
  
 
  
Table 1. Seattle Population 2010 - 2017

 
  
 
  

2010

 
  

Census

 
  
 
  

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

OFM Estimates

2016

2017

Extension for study

608,660

612,100

616,500

626,600

640,500

662,400

675,734

686,934

100

100.56

101.28

102.94

105.23

109.18

111.12

112.96

Households 
  in 
  Seattle 
  
The 
  2020 
  Decennial 
  Census 
  tallied 
  the 
  population 
  of 
  Seattle 
  living 
  in 
  households 
  as 
  
583,735 
  (96% 
  of 
  the 
  population). 
   
  The 
  number 
  of 
  households 
  was 
  283,510. 
   
  The 
  average 
  
household 
  size 
  was 
  2.06.28 
  
The 
  City 
  does 
  not 
  publish 
  household 
  estimates 
  subsequent 
  to 
  the 
  2010 
  Census. 
   
  Assuming 
  
that 
  the 
  number 
  of 
  households 
  has 
  grown 
  proportionately 
  to 
  the 
  OFM 
  estimates 
  of 
  
population 
  growth 
  through 
  2015 
  and 
  its 
  extension 
  (Table 
  1) 
  the 
  number 
  of 
  households 
  in 
  
Seattle 
  can 
  be 
  taken 
  by 
  a 
  straight-­‐line 
  extrapolation 
  from 
  the 
  2010 
  to 
  2015 
  trend 
  
population 
  estimated 
  by 
  OFM 
  to 
  yields 
  the 
  results 
  for 
  2026 
  and 
  2017shown 
  in 
  the 
  table 
  
below. 
  
Table 2. Seattle Population in Households and Number of Households 2010 - 2017
2010
Census

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Extrapolation from OFM Population Estimates (thru 2015) and Extension

100

100.56

101.28

102.94

105.23

109.18

111.12

112.96

583,735

587,003

591,207

600,897

614,264

637,322

648,646

659,385

283,510

285,098

287,139

294,933*

298,338

309,536

315,836

320,253 
  

* This 
  estimate 
  by 
  extrapolation 
  for 
  2013 
  correlates 
  within 
  1% 
  of 
  the 
  result 
  reported 
  for 
  2013 
  by 
  the 
  
American 
  Community 
  Survey 
  (297,920, 
  margin 
  of 
  error 
  +/-­‐ 
  5253), 
  
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/cityplanning/populationdemographics/acs/1year/default.htm

 
  

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
28 
  Id. 
   
  
 
  

25 
  

  
  
Non 
  commercial 
  vehicles 
  (except 
  motorcycles) 
  owned 
  by 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  
household 
   
  
Drawing 
  on 
  information 
  provided 
  to 
  it 
  by 
  the 
  state 
  Department 
  of 
  Licensing, 
  SDOT 
  has 
  
provided 
  the 
  following 
  information 
  regarding 
  the 
  number 
  of 
  non-­‐commercial 
  vehicles 
  
registered 
  to 
  Seattle 
  residents. 
   
  That 
  information 
  taken 
  together 
  with 
  the 
  estimate 
  of 
  the 
  
number 
  of 
  households 
  in 
  Seattle 
  allows 
  the 
  number 
  of 
  vehicles 
  owned 
  by 
  the 
  typical 
  
household 
  to 
  be 
  derived 
  as 
  shown 
  in 
  the 
  following 
  table. 
   
  Over 
  the 
  last 
  couple 
  of 
  years, 
  the 
  
trend 
  has 
  been 
  that 
  vehicle 
  registrations 
  in 
  Seattle 
  have 
  grown 
  slightly 
  faster 
  than 
  
population. 
   
   
  From 
  the 
  following 
  table 
  it 
  appears 
  that 
  a 
  conservative 
  constant 
  across 
  the 
  
time 
  span 
  under 
  consideration 
  will 
  be 
  to 
  treat 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  as 
  owning 
  
1.47 
  non-­‐commercial 
  light 
  duty 
  vehicles. 
   
  
Table 3. Non-commercial Vehicles Registered to Seattle Residents and Average Number
of Vehicles per Household 
  
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

417,748

420,096

417,101

427,398

445,060

227,294
(to June 30)

1.47 
  

1.47

1.45

1.45

1.49

2016

 
  

2017

 
  

Use 1.47 as constant all years

 
  
It 
  is 
  interesting 
  to 
  contrast 
  this 
  constant 
  (1.47 
  vehicles 
  per 
  typical 
  household) 
  with 
  the 
  
U.S. 
  DOT/FHWA, 
  Summary 
  of 
  Travel 
  Trends, 
  2009 
  National 
  Household 
  Travel 
  survey, 
  
showing 
  that 
  for 
  the 
  U.S 
  Western 
  region 
  as 
  a 
  whole 
  in 
  2009, 
  average 
  family 
  size 
  is 
  about 
  
26% 
  larger 
  than 
  family 
  size 
  in 
  Seattle 
  (2.65 
  for 
  the 
  west 
  region 
  compared 
  to 
  2.1 
  for 
  
Seattle) 
  and 
  the 
  number 
  of 
  vehicles 
  per 
  household 
  was 
  commensurately 
  larger 
  (1.96 
  for 
  
the 
  west 
  region 
  as 
  contrasted 
  with 
  1.47 
  for 
  Seattle). 
   
  Thus 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  1.47 
  vehicles 
  per 
  
typical 
  household 
  is 
  consistent 
  with 
  the 
  picture 
  of 
  Seattle 
  as 
  less 
  car-­‐centric 
  community 
  
than 
  the 
  West 
  as 
  a 
  whole, 
  and 
  also 
  gives 
  support 
  to 
  the 
  conservatism 
  of 
  the 
  financial 
  
estimates 
  that 
  follow 
  based 
  on 
  the 
  foregoing 
  picture 
  of 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  car 
  
ownership. 
   
   
  
Motor 
  Vehicle 
  Fuel 
  Consumption 
  for 
  the 
  Typical 
  Seattle 
  Household 
  
Federal 
  and 
  state 
  excise 
  tax 
  is 
  paid 
  on 
  purchases 
  of 
  gasoline 
  or 
  other 
  motor 
  vehicle 
  fuel 
  by 
  
the 
  gallon. 
   
   
   
  So 
  the 
  question 
  is, 
  how 
  many 
  gallons 
  of 
  motor 
  vehicle 
  fuel 
  does 
  the 
  typical 
  
Seattle 
  household 
  purchase? 
   
   
  
This 
  is 
  a 
  surprisingly 
  elusive 
  number. 
   
  Direct 
  measures 
  of 
  consumption 
  that 
  reach 
  the 
  
state 
  as 
  a 
  supporting 
  function 
  of 
  the 
  collection 
  of 
  motor 
  fuel 
  vehicle 
  excise 
  receipts 
  are 
  not 
  
tracked 
  geographically 
  and 
  not 
  tracked 
  by 
  vehicle 
  type 
  or 
  purpose. 
   
  What 
  can 
  be 
  learned 
  
from 
  the 
  state 
  Transportation 
  Revenue 
  Forecast 
  is 
  that 
  annual 
  per 
  capita 
  motor 
  vehicle 
  
fuel 
  consumption 
  around 
  the 
  state 
  is 
  about 
  456 
  gallons, 
  but 
  about 
  20% 
  of 
  that 
  amount 
  is 
  
 
  

26 
  

 diesel 
  that 
  one 
  reasonably 
  would 
  assume 
  is 
  heavily 
  directed 
  toward 
  commercial 
  rather 
  
than 
  personal 
  vehicles. 
   
  If 
  one 
  therefore 
  took 
  75% 
  of 
  the 
  total 
  consumption 
  as 
  
passenger/light 
  duty 
  fuel 
  (removing, 
  in 
  other 
  words, 
  all 
  the 
  diesel 
  and 
  about 
  6.25% 
  of 
  the 
  
remainder) 
  and 
  assumed 
  consistent 
  levels 
  of 
  consumption 
  around 
  the 
  state, 
  the 
  per 
  
household 
  consumption 
  in 
  Seattle 
  would 
  be 
  about 
  705 
  gallons 
  (456 
  gallons 
  x 
  .75 
  x 
  2.06 
  
persons 
  per 
  household; 
  at 
  fuel 
  efficiency 
  of 
  23.429 
  miles 
  per 
  gallon), 
  this 
  would 
  suggest 
  an 
  
annual 
  household 
  VMT 
  of 
  about 
  16,500 
  miles. 
   
   
   
  
Alternatively, 
  national 
  data 
  for 
  2013 
  (earlier 
  years’ 
  data 
  is 
  generally 
  very 
  consistent) 
  
provided 
  by 
  the 
  U.S. 
  Energy 
  Information 
  Administration 
  suggests 
  that 
  Light 
  Duty/Short 
  
Wheelbase 
  Vehicles 
  per 
  vehicle 
  VMT 
  of 
  11,247 
  miles 
  with 
  480 
  gallons 
  of 
  fuel 
  consumed 
  
which, 
  for 
  Seattle 
  at 
  1.47 
  vehicles 
  per 
  household 
  and 
  23.4 
  mpg 
  fuel 
  efficiency 
  would 
  
indicate 
  a 
  household 
  annual 
  VMT 
  of 
  about 
  16,500 
  and 
  total 
  household 
  consumption 
  of 
  
706 
  gallons 
  – 
  remarkably 
  close 
  to 
  the 
  rough 
  approximation 
  based 
  on 
  per 
  capita 
  usage 
  
derived 
  from 
  the 
  state 
  Transportation 
  Revenue 
  Forecast. 
  
Alternatively, 
  using 
  the 
  Bureau 
  of 
  Transportation 
  Statistics 
  2009 
  National 
  Transportation 
  
Survey 
  figure 
  for 
  Average 
  Household 
  VMT 
  of 
  19,850 
  (probably 
  high 
  for 
  Seattle) 
  and 
  a 
  fuel 
  
efficiency 
  of 
  23.4 
  mpg, 
  fuel 
  consumption 
  would 
  be 
  848 
  gallons. 
   
   
  
By 
  contrast, 
  the 
  2013 
  Seattle 
  Climate 
  Action 
  Plan 
  uses 
  a 
  PSRC 
  travel 
  model 
  that 
  calculates 
  
per 
  capita 
  VMT 
  of 
  about 
  6500, 
  yielding 
  a 
  household 
  VMT 
  of 
  bout 
  13,400 
  VMT 
  which 
  at 
  a 
  
fuel 
  efficiency 
  of 
  20.9 
  mpg 
  used 
  in 
  the 
  PSRC/Climate 
  Action 
  Plan 
  model 
  would 
  translate 
  to 
  
typical 
  household 
  consumption 
  of 
  about 
  641 
  gallons, 
  which 
  seems 
  quite 
  low 
  by 
  reference 
  
to 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  other 
  three 
  approaches 
  to 
  establishing 
  a 
  consumption 
  level, 
  reflecting 
  also 
  a 
  
lower 
  fuel 
  efficiency 
  factor 
  than 
  the 
  other 
  approaches 
  although 
  there 
  may 
  be 
  sense 
  in 
  that 
  
inasmuch 
  as 
  driving 
  in 
  Seattle 
  is 
  predominantly 
  urban 
  driving 
  and 
  much 
  of 
  it 
  in 
  
conditions 
  of 
  congestion 
  and 
  poor 
  streets, 
  major 
  factors 
  in 
  reducing 
  fuel 
  efficiency. 
  
Faced 
  with 
  this 
  data 
  array, 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  measure 
  of 
  arbitrariness 
  in 
  adopting 
  a 
  fuel 
  
consumption 
  factor 
  for 
  this 
  study, 
  the 
  consumption 
  level 
  has 
  been 
  conservatively 
  adopted 
  
as 
  650 
  gallons 
  for 
  the 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  and 
  has 
  been 
  used 
  for 
  simplicity’s 
  sake 
  for 
  
all 
  years 
  examined. 
  30 
  
Table 4. Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption for the Typical Seattle Household 
  
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

650 gallons -- All Years 
  

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
29 
  This 
  seems 
  the 
  most 
  reliable 
  current 
  fuel 
  efficiency 
  constant. 
  It 
  is 
  taken 
  from: 
  U.S. 
  Energy 
  Information 
  
Administration, 
  Monthly 
  Energy 
  Review 
  July 
  2015, 
  Motor 
  Vehicle 
  Mileage, 
  Fuel 
  Consumption 
  and 
  Fuel 
  
Economy 
  (Table 
  1.8), 
   
  accessed 
  at 
  http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/archive/00351507.pdf 
  
30 
  There 
  has 
  been 
  widespread 
  discussion 
  about 
  recent 
  trends 
  from 
  national 
  and 
  state 
  data 
  leading 
  to 
  new 
  

restraint 
  in 
  historic 
  estimations 
  of 
  the 
  growth 
  of 
  VMT. 
   
  The 
  trend 
  lines 
  suggest 
  different 
  answers 
  depending 
  
on 
  the 
  trend 
  periods 
  examined. 
   
  Under 
  all 
  understandings, 
  however, 
  change 
  in 
  VMT 
  from 
  year-­‐to-­‐year 
  has 
  
historically 
  been 
  quite 
  small 
  and 
  the 
  same 
  is 
  predicted 
  for 
  at 
  least 
  the 
  near 
  term 
  future. 
   
   
   
   
  

 
  

27 
  

 House 
  value 
  for 
  a 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  
For 
  several 
  years 
  house 
  values 
  have 
  risen 
  sharply 
  in 
  King 
  County 
  generally 
  and 
  in 
  Seattle. 
   
  
Information 
  from 
  real 
  estate 
  listing 
  services 
  looking 
  at 
  sales 
  transactions 
  indicates 
  median 
  
sale 
  prices 
  for 
  single-­‐family 
  houses 
  in 
  mid-­‐2015 
  have 
  topped 
  $500,000.31 
  The 
  view 
  from 
  
that 
  particular 
  escalation, 
  however, 
  is 
  difficult 
  to 
  translate 
  into 
  the 
  relevant 
  metric 
  for 
  this 
  
study, 
  which 
  turns 
  on 
  Assessed 
  Value 
  as 
  the 
  critical 
  driver 
  of 
  property 
  taxes 
  – 
  the 
  issue 
  at 
  
hand. 
   
   
   
  
The 
  City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  has 
  used 
  the 
  benchmark 
  of 
  median 
  Seattle 
  homeowner’s 
  assessed 
  
value 
  of 
  $451,000 
  to 
  calculate 
  the 
  likely 
  early 
  year 
  burden 
  of 
  the 
  Move 
  Seattle 
  proposed 
  
levy.32 
   
  There 
  is 
  simplicity 
  and 
  consistency 
  in 
  adopting 
  that 
  reference 
  of 
  value 
  as 
  the 
  
assessed 
  value 
  attributable 
  to 
  a 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  for 
  all 
  the 
  purposes 
  in 
  
calculating 
  the 
  burden 
  of 
  the 
  specific 
  property 
  tax 
  amounts 
  (not 
  just 
  for 
  the 
  Move 
  Seattle 
  
levy) 
  described 
  in 
  this 
  document. 
   
   
  
Table 5. Assessed value of the house of the typical Seattle household 
  
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Constant

$451,000

2016

2017

Constant 
  for 
  
conservatism 
  

 
  
Annual 
  Median 
  Household 
  Income 
  in 
  Seattle 
  
The 
  City 
  of 
  Seattle 
  currently 
  reports 
  annual 
  household 
  median 
  income 
  in 
  Seattle 
  as 
  
$67,100. 
  33 
   
  However, 
  the 
  American 
  Community 
  Survey 
  reports 
  that 
  the 
  2013 
  median 
  
household 
  income 
  in 
  Seattle 
  is 
   
  $70,17234 
  and 
  also 
  shows 
  four-­‐year 
  history 
  with 
  an 
  
average 
  of 
  5% 
  year 
  over 
  year 
  growth. 
   
   
   
  The 
  extrapolation 
  below 
  assumes 
  a 
  cautious 
  3% 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
31 
  Sanjay 
  Bhatt, 
   
  “Median 
  price 
  for 
  single-­‐family 
  homes 
  hits 
  $500,000 
  in 
  King 
  County,) 
  Seattle 
  Times, 
  July 
  6, 
  
2015 
  accessed 
  on 
  line 
  at 
  http://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-­estate/median-­price-­for-­single-­family-­
homes-­pushes-­past-­500000-­in-­king-­county/ 
  

Hui-­‐YongmYU, 
  “Seattle’s 
  Tech 
  boom 
  is 
  Driving 
  Up 
  Housing 
  Prices,” 
  Bloomberg 
  Business, 
  July 
  8, 
  2014 
  accessed 
  
on 
  line 
  at 
  http://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-­estate/median-­price-­for-­single-­family-­homes-­pushes-­
past-­500000-­in-­king-­county/ 
  
32 
  About 
  half 
  of 
  the 
  housing 
  units 
  in 
  Seattle 
  are 
  owner-­‐occupied. 
   
  This 
  study 
  assumes 
  that 
  non-­‐owner 
  

occupied 
  housing 
  absorbs 
  through 
  rent 
  that 
  cost 
  of 
  property 
  taxes 
  to 
  the 
  same 
  level 
  as 
  the 
  median 
  
household 
  value. 
   
   
  An 
  improvement 
  in 
  the 
  methodology 
  of 
  this 
  study 
  would 
  probably 
  alter 
  that 
  assumption, 
  
but 
  might 
  also 
  an 
  offset 
  in 
  higher 
  house 
  values 
  for 
  typical 
  owner 
  occupied 
  housing. 
   
   
  
33 
  See 
   
   
   
   
   
   
  

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cityplanning/populationdemographics/aboutseattle/prosperity/default.htm 
   
  
This 
  is 
  considerably 
  lower 
  than 
  annual 
  family 
  income 
  in 
  Seattle, 
  which 
  is 
  reported 
  to 
  be 
  $90. 
  279. 
   
   
  
34 
  American 
  Community 
  Survey 
  

ww.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpdd017164.pdf 
  

 
  

28 
  

 year 
  over 
  year 
  growth 
  to 
  reflect 
  what 
  appears 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  vibrant 
  Seattle 
  economy 
  that 
  will 
  
carry 
  through 
  the 
  relatively 
  short 
  time 
  frame 
  to 
  the 
  after 
  scenarios. 
  
Table 6. Annual median income of the typical Seattle household 
  
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

$60,212

$61,037

$64,073

$70.172

$72,277

2015

2016

2017

$74,445

$76,679 
  

$78,879 
  

 
  
Annual 
  All-­in 
  Typical 
  Seattle 
  Household 
  General 
  Sales 
  Tax 
  
 
  An 
  aggregate 
  sales 
  tax 
  estimate 
  can 
  be 
  prepared 
  based 
  on 
  the 
  Department 
  of 
  Revenue 
  
2002 
  Tax 
  Structure 
  Study 
  Report 
  that 
  calculated 
  state 
  retail 
  sales 
  tax 
  burden 
  for 
  the 
  
household 
  income 
  bracket 
  $60,000 
  -­‐$70,000 
  as 
  3.5% 
  and 
  bracket 
  $70,000 
  -­‐ 
  $80,000 
  at 
  
3.3% 
  at 
  a 
  time 
  (1999) 
  when 
  the 
  average 
  sales 
  tax 
  rate 
  across 
  the 
  state 
  (including 
  local 
  
rates 
  where 
  applicable) 
  ranged 
  from 
  7% 
  to 
  8.9%.35 
   
  The 
  sales 
  tax 
  rate 
  in 
  Seattle 
  (9.6% 
  as 
  
of 
  2014) 
  is 
  now 
  approximately 
  8% 
  higher 
  than 
  the 
  rate 
  when 
  the 
  Tax 
  Structure 
  Study 
  
Report 
  was 
  dated, 
  and 
  accordingly 
  the 
  bracket 
  values 
  have 
  been 
  adjusted 
  to 
  3.6% 
  and 
  
3.8%. 
   
  If 
  ST 
  3 
  adds 
  a 
  further 
  .5%, 
  by 
  2017 
  the 
  rate 
  will 
  be 
  approximately 
  13% 
  higher 
  than 
  
the 
  rate 
  when 
  the 
  Tax 
  Structure 
  Study 
  Report 
  was 
  dated 
  and 
  accordingly 
  the 
  2017 
  rate 
  has 
  
been 
  adjusted 
  to 
  3.9%. 
   
  Applying 
  these 
  burden 
  percentages 
  to 
  the 
  median 
  income 
  values 
  
in 
  Table 
  6 
  yields 
  typical 
  Seattle 
  household 
  overall 
  retail 
  sales 
  tax 
  burdens 
  as 
  shown 
  for 
  
the 
  respective 
  years 
  below. 
  
Table 7. Annual aggregate sales tax burden for the typical Seattle Household (see Table 6
for applicable medina household income levels*) 
  
2010
$2228

2011

2012

2013

2014

$2,258

$2,370

$2,737

$2,746

2015
$2,829

2016

2017

$2,913 
  

$3076 
  

* 
  See 
  median 
  household 
  income 
  levels 
  for 
  2014 
  and 
  thereafter 
  from 
  Table 
  6. 
   
  All 
  are 
  over 
  $70,000 
  so 
  only 
  the 
  higher 
  of 
  the 
  
parentage 
  rates 
  apply 
  from 
  extending 
  the 
  values 
  in 
  the 
  Tax 
  Structure 
  Report. 
   
  An 
  assumption 
  here 
  suggested 
  from 
  the 
  Carbon 
  
Washington 
  review 
  is 
  that 
  the 
  2012 
  update 
  of 
  the 
  2002 
  study 
  by 
  the 
  state 
  Department 
  of 
  Revenue 
  does 
  not 
  materially 
  alter 
  the 
  
base 
  percentage 
  rates 
  other 
  than 
  to 
  adjust 
  for 
  intervening 
  sales 
  tax 
  rate 
  increases. 
   
  

 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
35 
  Washington 
  State 
  Tax 
  Structure 
  Study 
  Committee 
  (William 
  H. 
  Gates, 
  Sr., 
  Chair), 
  Tax 
  Alternatives 
  for 
  
Washington 
  State 
  (2002), 
  at 
  12 
  and 
  Tables 
  9-­‐1 
  and 
  9-­‐2 
  at 
  100, 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports/wataxstudy/Volume_1.pdf. 
   
  Appreciation 
  to 
  
Yoram 
  Baumann 
  of 
  Carbon 
  Washington 
  for 
  providing 
  this 
  excellent 
  resource 
  that 
  is 
  used 
  as 
  the 
  basis 
  for 
  the 
  
household 
  tax 
  calculator 
  found 
  at 
  http://carbon.cs.washington.edu 
  

 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  

29 
  

  
  

B. 
   
  Useful 
  General 
  References 
  
 
  
U.S. 
  Census 
  Bureau, 
  2013 
  American 
  Community 
  Survey 
  Selected 
  Economic 
  Characteristics, 
  2013 
  American 
  
Community 
  Survey 
  1-­year 
  Estimates 
  – 
  Seattle. 
   
  See 
  https://www.census.gov/programs-­‐
surveys/acs/data.html 
  
Data 
  for 
  Seattle 
  is 
  conveniently 
  accessed 
  from 
  the 
  website 
  of 
  the 
  Seattle 
  Department 
  of 
  Planning 
  and 
  
Development 
  http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/cityplanning/populationdemographics/acs/intro/default.htm 
  
U.S. 
  Energy 
  Information 
  Administration, 
  Monthly 
  Energy 
  Review 
  July 
  2015), 
  Motor 
  Vehicle 
  Mileage, 
  Fuel 
  
Consumption 
  and 
  Fuel 
  Economy 
  (Table 
  1.8), 
  accessed 
  at 
  
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/archive/00351507.pdf 
  
U.S. 
  DOT/FHWA, 
  Summary 
  of 
  Travel 
  Trends, 
  2009 
  National 
  Household 
  Travel 
  Survey, 
  accessed 
  at: 
  
http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf 
  
Washington 
  State 
  Office 
  of 
  Financial 
  Management, 
  June 
  2015 
  Transportation 
  Revenue 
  Forecasts, 
  Summary 
  
(Vol. 
  1), 
   
  accessed 
  at 
  http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/info/June15transposummary.pdf 
   
  and 
  “Detailed 
  
Forecast 
  Tables 
  (Vol. 
  2)” 
  accessed 
  at 
  http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/info/June15transpovol2.pdf 
  . 
   
  The 
  
September 
  update 
  was 
  released 
  on 
  September 
  17 
  and 
  can 
  be 
  accessed 
  at 
  the 
  Revenue 
  Information 
  – 
  
Transportation 
  website 
  at 
  http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/info/transportationrevenue.asp 
  
 
  
[PDF] 
  
 
  
 
  

 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  

 
  

30