Return per state gas tax dollar contributed by citizens within each county, fiscal years 2004-2017, pre-existing funds only. Credit: Source: Washington State Department of Transportation
Return per state gas tax dollar contributed by citizens within each county, fiscal years 2004-2017, including pre-existing funds, 2003 funding package and 2005 funding package.
  • Source: Washington State Department of Transportation
  • Return per state gas tax dollar contributed by citizens within each county, fiscal years 2004-2017, including pre-existing funds, 2003 funding package and 2005 funding package.

In all my posts on Slog, and in my article in The Stranger this week on rural Washington’s status as a “Welfare State,” I’ve only talked about state general fund revenue and expenditure. So just to be fair, I’ve posted the chart above from the Washington State Department of Transportation (PDF), illustrating the per county return on the dollar for gas tax revenues.

As you can see, this chart doesn’t paint nearly as clear a picture as the general fund monies, with donor and recipient counties scattered geographically throughout the state, and King County getting back a dollar-for-dollar return. (That said, far-right-leaning Ferry, Lincoln and Garfield counties continue to top the charts of the welfare rolls.) But that’s largely due to a more even distribution of projects in the highly charged nickel gas tax increase of 2003, and the nine and half cent increase that became the focus of I-912 in 2005. A quick glance solely at the “pre-existing funds” and you see a bit more familiar pattern:

Return per state gas tax dollar contributed by citizens within each county, fiscal years 2004-2017, pre-existing funds only.
  • Source: Washington State Department of Transportation
  • Return per state gas tax dollar contributed by citizens within each county, fiscal years 2004-2017, pre-existing funds only.

Once again, a picture in which a handful of donor counties subsidize the rest of the state, only this time with gas tax dollars. And though it’s not quite the same distribution as with general fund monies, the important number here is that for King County, which has for decades been exporting gas tax dollars to the rest of the state while its own infrastructure has slowly crumbled. The irony of course, is that with the bill for all this deferred, Puget Sound area road maintenance finally coming due, the rest of the state can’t stop bitching about the high cost of our floating bridge and our “gold-plated” tunnel.

12 replies on “Who’s Really Paying for Seattle’s “Gold-Plated” Tunnel?”

  1. Well, since it’s unfunded, isn’t it being paid for using Magic Fairy Dust?

    Or did they discover Gold down there?

    It’s not “our” floating bridge – how do you think the Red Welfare Counties get their goods to market? They use it.

  3. To make it fair, we’d need a Limousine Surtax.

    Especially since it can’t handle transit or freight.

    Make sure it’s a license fee, though, cause they’ll pretend it’s “Green” to ride in the tunnel even though the carbon emissions and particulate emissions for both construction and operation for the Tunnel are literally DOUBLE that of a rebuilt Viaduct or a Surface Plus Transit option.

    Or maybe a Chihulhy Surtax on Glass Art Not Made By The Artist …

  6. I’d like to see a breakdown of just how all these dollars get assigned to the counties they allegedly benefit.

    Are all state dollars to the UW, for example, assigned to King County, even though probably a majority of students at the UW are not from King County? Are all dollars for I-90 in Kittitas County assigned to Kittitas, even though a majority of motorists on that stretch of I-90 are not from that county?

    Much as I like to gang up in favor of King County, we need to be careful where we take these arguments. Remember the mess that “subarea equity” has created with public transit in the Puget Sound region. I’m not sure we want to repeat that on a statewide basis.

  7. Goldy, Something does not look right here. Spokane county is listed as only getting back .70 per dollar. They currently are building hiway 395 (US2 to Wandermere and the North Spokane Coridor) at a cost of over $500 for just two phases. Mostly with gas tax. I would check your numbers before you call Spokane County a net loser.

  9. @5: It’s not relevant. It might be if the point of these posts was, “They’re welfare counties and that’s bad.” That isn’t the point. It’s, “They’re welfare counties and they’re constantly voting against their own self-interest and the interest of the rest of the state.”

  11. “Long term dense urban cores are crumbling back into rural and suburban areas”

    The fuck does that have to do with Seattle, moron?

    Oh wait, you can’t find statistics that state this.

    Go back to masturbating to World News Daily.

  12. 10, Have you been to CHicago on the last decade or two? No I didn’t think so. And I don’t mean waiting in the airport for a connecting flight. The downtown core is growing and gentrifying. The major slums, the deep south side and west side are emptying and the people that used to live there who have means are moving to the suburbs. Chicago is not the typical large american city and would not be a good sample by itself.

Comments are closed.