You know the myth that the Seattle area is carrying the water for the rest of the state when it comes to tax revenues for transportation projects? Well the Seattle Times shot down that myth in a chart (not availible on-line):

Return per transportation tax dollar, Washington urban areas, 1984-2003

Thurston & Kitsap (why the Times grouped these two together doesn't make sense) - 1.08
King, Pierce, & Snohomish (Seattle, Tacoma, Everett) - .98
Benton & Franklin (Tri-Cities) - .89
Spokane - .74
Yakima - .74
Clark (Vancouver) - .74
Whatcom (Bellingham) - .61

Poor Sounder. Always trying to justify suburbs in an urban forum.

what are you talking about? The Seattle metro DOES create the most tax revenue, it is no myth. That 2% that those 3 counties are giving to other counties probably equals Clark, Whatcom, Yakima, Benton and maybe even Spokane combined in terms of revenue giving. Where are those numbers?

As well, the Puget sound has the most dire need of transportation fixes, and those projects are the most critical to the states economy. It's only fair that the metro Seattle gets 98% return on their dollar.

and what projects does yakima have dire need of right now? nothing, they don't have any bottlenecks and they had much of their projects paid for by the last tax hike(the Selah bridge and exits.)

you seem to forget all our major employers in this state are for this tax hike, I thought you were pro-business Sounder? But whatever, I don't know what your point is trying to persuade most of us on this website, we'll just disagree with you.


Or do you really want to have it that each county pays its own way for their projects? I mean, you coyly left out the likes of Okanogan county or Asotin county, or other rural counties, what was their return 200+%? And I bet most of Spokane's lost tax revenue went towards many of its surrounding counties, not to Seattle.

The fact is, the Seattle metro is still paying more money of all varieties to other counties than those counties are paying to the Seattle metro region, prove me wrong.

The fact is, the Seattle metro is still paying more money of all varieties to other counties than those counties are paying to the Seattle metro region, prove me wrong.

Spokane, Yakima, Tri-Cities, Vancouver, & Bellingham (the five largest population centers outside of the Seattle CMSA) get less money back per transportation tax dollar collected than the Seattle area does according to the Seattle Times. The Seattle area gets back 98 cents on the tax dollar collected while other urbans areas are getting less. Do I need to better articulate the above information?

The whole point of this thread was to shoot down another myth from the pro-inefficient/wasteful DOT & excessive tax crowd.


Just read this recent Stranger article for an idea:

The Western Strategy:
How to Stop Worrying and Defeat the Anti-Gas-Tax Crusade (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=22236)

First few sentences:

Let's get a few things straight: Eastern Washington does not run this state. The cities of the Puget Sound region run this state. This is not arrogance, this is simply a fact. Eastern Washington doesn't generate the majority of the state's jobs. Eastern Washington can't even pay for its own roads without sucking off the rich tit of our urban tax base.

You know the myth that the Seattle area is carrying the water for the rest of the state when it comes to tax revenues for transportation projects? Well the Seattle Times shot down that myth in a chart (not availible on-line):

Return per transportation tax dollar, Washington urban areas, 1984-2003

Thurston & Kitsap (why the Times grouped these two together doesn't make sense) - 1.08
King, Pierce, & Snohomish (Seattle, Tacoma, Everett) - .98
Benton & Franklin (Tri-Cities) - .89
Spokane - .74
Yakima - .74
Clark (Vancouver) - .74
Whatcom (Bellingham) - .61
LOL. Do you realize what you just showed? You just showed that Washington's metro areas get LESS money per dollar in transportation funding than the rest of the state!

That is, for every dollar King, Pierce and Snohomish county pay in gas taxes, they only get back 98 cents.

That the other metros get back even less is interesting, but as most of us have pointed out, rural areas get a NET INCREASE in funding for their roads. My proof is here:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/858BFCAB-6553-4D08-B547-266B9CCF7263/0/PlanningSymposium.pdf
^
Go to page 13. It shows that the non-metro areas get $1.52 in transportation funding for every dollar they pay! For 2004-2013, current plans show that that is to increase to $1.76 in transportation funding for every dollar they pay.

So, as we've often pointed out, it is true that the cities subsidize the rural areas.

Well, it makes sense, because rural areas have more miles of roads per capita than cities. You would expect fast-growing areas such as Benton, Franklin, Yakama, and Clark counties to get more per dollar than King.

Yet it is true that there is significant growth in some areas of the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma area, such as Isaquah-North Bend, Lynnwood, South Hill, Orting, etc.

LOL. Do you realize what you just showed? You just showed that Washington's metro areas get LESS money per dollar in transportation funding than the rest of the state!

Do you think the few thousand people in Adams & Lincoln County can pay for their share of I-90, or U.S. 2, or U.S. 395? Of course not! Are a majority of drivers on I-90, U.S. 2, & U.S. 395 in Adams & Lincoln County residents of those two counties? Of course not! It is mainly people & freight moving between populations centers. Those highways benefit the urban centers too.

It is time to burry this canard once & for all.

I just heard another myth from the pro-inefficient/wasteful DOT & excessive tax crowd: after the voters of this state soundly reject the excessive gas tax increase, that we lose $200,000,000 in federal viaduct funding. Patty Murray & Dave Reichert say that this is completely false.