Just like they did with the 2015 Move Seattle Levy, the Seattle Times Editorial Board once again urged voters to reject the Seattle Transportation Levy. Seattle voters ignored them in 2015, approving the levy by a landslide 59–41. Let’s do it again in 2024.

Read our endorsement of Seattle’s Proposition 1 and see a breakdown of the proposed investments.

What caught my attention most in their editorial, however, was their accusation that the levy “is not an infrastructure plan as much as a political document.” Seattle is a democracy, so of course this levy is political. Every public budget and every public policy is passed by elected officials is influenced by advocates with stakes in the decision. It’s strange to hear this editorial board pretend that there was a non-political way to craft an initiative to send to voters.

Further, the politicians who crafted this levy were nearly all endorsed by the Seattle Times Editorial Board. Those politicians sought out support from important constituencies like the port, the Chamber of Commerce, major labor unions, transit boosters, and safe streets groups in an attempt to craft a levy that they would all support. That’s compromise, and it worked. All those groups representing Seattle residents and businesses are supporting the levy together, one of the few times you’ll see all these parties on the same side of a major issue. The transportation levy is an example of what the city can accomplish when everyone works together. It’s odd that the Times Editorial Board sees this unity as a bad thing.

This levy was very much not written by the big bad bicycle lobby, whose endorsed candidates did not fare well in last year’s City Council races. The Editorial Board tried to paint it that way regardless. They bemoaned that “the levy would spend $133.5 million on ‘Bicycle Safety,’” while spending “only $330 million for ‘arterial roadway maintenance’ and $67 million for pothole repairs.” The $133.5 million for bicycle safety will save lives while making up about 9% of the levy. It is a great investment that will do a lot to connect and protect bike routes across the city, but it’s not an oversized slice of the budget pie (see chart above). They also cite a survey in which 61% of respondents said Seattle was doing a good job, noting that “it’s the department’s highest score.” That’s great news. SDOT is doing something well and people have noticed it. That just confirms that our city’s bike investments are working. It makes no sense to say, “Let’s defund the things our city does well.” The Editorial Board members must not bike much if they think the city’s bike lane network is anywhere close to being complete. This same board once argued that “Seattle should be in the vanguard” of safe bike infrastructure. Well, Seattle needs the funding from this levy to get there.

Meanwhile, $397 million for paving work makes up more than a quarter of the levy and is vastly more than the city has invested in road maintenance in modern memory. It is more than the entire 2006 Bridging the Gap Levy. The paving total is more like $420 million when you add in freight projects that are also likely to be paving projects or ~$615 million when you add bridge maintenance or ~$770 million if you add together all the paving, bridge maintenance, traffic signals, freight mobility, and general road work planning.

The Editorial Board oscillates between calling the levy expensive and complaining that it does not include enough funding. They also accuse the levy of not having a plan, yet never once mention the 752-page Seattle Transportation Plan, an extensive document developed over several years incorporating tons of public feedback that is both the policy basis for the levy’s funding levels and the plan for how to invest it if voters approve it. Their editorial sounds like an essay by a student who didn’t to the reading.