I hear there’s an election today. This article will be updated as results come in. King County’s results will be on the county site or state site (other counties are also on the state site); the first batch usually comes around 8:15pm. The STB Election Committee made some endorsements on local transit and land use issues. Earlier today, the Urbanist reviewed what’s at stake in local and statewide elections. The Seattle Times has their live tracker running without paywall. KUOW is live-blogging as well.

What do you see happening or what do you think about the election?

8:15pm, 11/5:

First results have dropped in King County: 777,581 ballots counted of an forecasted turnout of about 1,168,000 voters (82% of the total 1,425,313 registered voters).

  • 43rd Leg. District Pos. 2: Shaun Scott (67.77%); Andrea Suarez (31.41%)
  • Seattle Council Pos. 8: Alexis Mercedes Rinck (57.32%); Tanya Woo (42.28%)
  • Prop 1 (Transportation Levy): Yes (66.82%); No (33.18%)

8:41pm, 11/5:

The four “Let’s Go Washington”-funded initiatives have ~57% of votes counted state-wide:

  • I-2066: Ban on Natural Gas Bans: Yes (1,269,813, 51.2%); No (1,212,471, 48.8%)
  • I-2117: Carbon Tax Credit Ban: Yes (956,395, 38.2%); No (1,549,070, 61.8%)
  • I-2109: Capital Gains Tax Repeal: Yes (921,835, 36.7%); No (1,592,015, 63.3%)
  • I-2124: WA Long-Term Care Opt-Out: Yes (1,102,740, 44.4%); No (1,380,209, 55.6%)

9:16pm, 11/5:

The statewide turnout summary shows the next ballot count will drop at 1pm tomorrow. As of 8:59pm, the 39 counties are estimating there are 793,865 ballots left to count. With 2,642,738 ballots counted plus the remaining ballots, the estimated statewide turnout is about 68.47% of the 5,018,747 registered voters.

38 Replies to “Election 2024”

  1. Andrew Villeneuve at the Northwest Progressive Institute is liveblogging the general election here: https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2024/11/liveblogging-general-election-day-2024-from-the-great-pacific-northwest.html

    Local/regional results will apparently be discussed here: https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2024/11/live-from-seattle-results-roll-in-for-electoral-contests-in-the-pacific-northwest.html

    Races to watch locally are the 43rd District seat in the Washington House of Representatives, where Shaun Scott and Andrea Suarez are fighting for Frank Chopp’s seat after he announced his retirement; and Seattle Position 8, which will see whether Tanya Woo can keep her appointment as the 2nd city-wide councilmember against challenger Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who has impressive progressive bonafides.

  2. As the time on the East Coast hits midnight, the New York Times forecast is showing an 89% chance of a Trump victory, including a win of the popular vote.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/results-president-forecast-needle.html

    Although the Other Washington seems far away, the major impacts of a Trump presidency on greater Seattle would be a severe reduction in federal transit grants, major impacts on construction labor following a crackdown on immigration, and the general antisocial agenda of Project 2025.

    1. You forgot to mention the massive recessions Republican administrations always cause.

    3. Agreed. Time to face up to no FTA grants for any of the Puget Sound agencies, and cancellation of any unspent Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Act revenue sharing.

      It also surely means no I-5 bridge unless Washington bonds toll revenues for thirty years. That’s probably on net a good thing for the environment. Clark County really can’t push many more commuters over the river on the two existing bridges without a big increase in bus share, so it might ease the pressure to plow up the remaining ag labd north of Vancouver.

  5. Speculation: ST will use the excuse of reduced federal funding to justify major delays to ST3.

    1. How about “major cancellations”? There’s nothing in ST3 that can’t be done for half the price and tons less concrete with nice buses.

      1. Perhaps we’ll see a 2nd ST3 realignment bring RapidRide C and D line upgrades back to the front of the line.

      3. Here’s an idea:

        How about getting the nation’s most progressive state legislature to help fund transit infrastructure projects, or at the very least, give local jurisdictions the ability to tax themselves more for funding transit?

        I’m talking about much more than just partially subsidizing various fares (that come nowhere close to covering the cost of service).

      4. If federal grants get zeroed out I expect ST won’t be able to build any of its large projects because they were always predicated on grants. I doubt ST could raise enough locally to replace it. If ST can only do a couple it would be Everett and Tacoma Dome because they’re part of the Spine. That’s what ST sees as its mandate and what the most boardmembers could agree on. It might have to drop Paine Field or terminate at Mariner. If ST pursues Everett and Tacoma Dome without DSTT2 or WS/BLE, it would have to address the issue of whether Tacoma Dome-Northgate is doable (or too long for drivers), and capacity issues in DSTT1.

        Issaquah and the three Stride lines are the next largest expenditure. I imagine East King is not that attached to Issaquah any more: it hasn’t said much about it since the mayor of Issaquah left the board and it got into ST3. It probably wants in the sense that “If Seattle gets West Seattle and Ballard, we should get Issaquah.” But if WS/BLE/DSTT2 go away, maybe support for Issaquah would collapse. We’ll know more about cross-lake ridership in two years; if that comes in low, that may depress interest in Issaquah.

        The three Stride lines fill in corridor gaps Link doesn’t address, but we’ve been disappointed in the design of all of them. So ST could just make the existing ST Express lines frequent (as it should have done long ago).

        North King could pursue RapidRide C and D improvements. It might argue to extend that to the H, 21, and 40, and potentially the 56 and something for north(ern) California. While those weren’t explicitly in ST3, Link was supposedly going to benefit them, and North King would have plenty of money for them.

        This all could lead to an imbalance in subarea equity. ST would have to figure out what to do about that if anything.

      5. The ST3 financial assumptions are here:

        https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/st3-system-plan-2016-appendix-a.pdf

        Federal funds are less than 10 percent for everything ($4.669B). Some of that has already been awarded for Link projects now wrapping up. The next ask was for West Seattle, the South OMF and maybe Tacoma Dome.

        So as far as Federal funds go, it’s a much smaller impact than the awful cost estimating that went into ST3 for some projects. The cost overruns lon West Seattle Link alone is already greater than the full amount of assumed Federal funds.

        I’ve had a sense of dread about New Starts funds ever since the candidate metro areas has shrunk to LA, San Jose, Seattle and maybe Austin and NYC.

      6. @Al

        > Federal funds are less than 10 percent for everything ($4.669B). Some of that has already been awarded for Link projects now wrapping up. The next ask was for West Seattle, the South OMF and maybe Tacoma Dome.

        Typically federal funds are around 50% of the capital cost. I’ll check the appendix pdf later (just have phone) as I assume it’s pretty large.

        For example https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-11/Public-CIG-Dashboard-11-01-2024.pdf the FTA dashboard most of the rail projects get around 40~50% funding

      7. Mike, Tacoma Dome-Northgate should take no more time than Tacoma Dome-Ballard. Yes, it’s about a mile longer to Northgate, and there is one more station from SoDo north to the two destinations. But The Spine north of Westlake has faster running and larger station separations than would BLE. Libe 1 will travel between SoDo and Westlake more quickly than will Line 3, because there would be two fewer stations and no squeal turn at Third and Pine. But north of there, BLE has much more frequent stations, so it will never reach “full speed” except possibly very briefly along the railroad yards.

        The net difference might be four minutes for the total one-way trip.

    2. The CIG program is typically nonpartisan. While there is no way to predict how a Trump-led FTA will manage the federal transit programs, there is always strong bipartisan support for the program, especially in the Senate. And that matters when budgets are being written. ST did very well during the Bush and first Trump administrations on CIG funding.

  6. From Ryan Packer’s Twitter (https://x.com/typewriteralley/status/1854058087117889831): with 140,000 ballots left to count in Pierce County (https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20241105/pierce/), the race is far from over but it’s looking like Ryan Mello (profiled by the Urbanist in February: https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/02/05/ryan-mello-has-a-clear-vision-for-pierce-county/) is headed to the Pierce County Executive office, which would put him and his progressive agenda at the helm of Pierce County and at the table of the ST Board.

    1. I’m not sure what bad things the current Pierce County Executive has done to Sound Transit. Pierce Transit, however, is in desperate need of funding to run an urban bus network.

  7. Is the natural gas initiative likely to hold up? I know for more local (Seattle) races, late ballots skew left, which would be ‘no’ on that initiative, but I’m honestly not sure how well that holds state-wide.

    1. It’s hard to say; historical turnout patterns might have also been skewed by the early-voting pushes from the presidential campaigns.

    2. Most news agencies are calling it a toss-up with the expectation that later ballots will skew towards “no”.

    3. How does current law impact Pierce Transit’s methane fleet? Do they get to continue using the fleet, but not do fleet replacement with methane-fueled buses?

      1. The current state law basically allows PSE and other utilities to wind down natural gas service. Large industrial companies and commercial users like Pierce Transit will end up having to negotiate how to pay inevitable increases in natural gas service prices as opposed to switching to other energy sources. If Pierce Transit wants to transition to net-zero while still using their CNG fleet, they could consider using biogas, assuming natural gas costs rise to meet or exceed biogas prices. Of course, they could also consider switching to diesel-hybrids with stricter emissions controls.

      2. Even if PSE is allowed to wind down gas service, I don’t see how they could in practice, as it’s going to be a long, long time before a non trivial number of neighborhoods to have changed out all the appliances in every home to allow for a shutoff.

        I suppose new buildings in the future can be electricity-only, but I don’t think Pierce Transit needs to be concerned about fueling infrastructure for its methane fleet anytime soon, and, by the time it does become an issue, hopefully battery buses will have become cheap enough to be the preferred option rather than diesel.

      3. Talking with someone at Pierce Transit yesterday, the net-zero transition is incredibly expensive for them, and they absolutely need new revenue for the absolute necessity of increased frequency and span. They are tapped out and need new revenue to just provide useable service.

        The honesty and understanding of needs and priorities was truly refreshing.

  9. Thinking more about the impacts of reduced federal funding for transit projects through 2028; are there any projects (other than ST’s WSLE) which were expected to earn significant federal grant funding before ~2029? Perhaps RapidRide R?

    Does anyone know the timeline of federal grant award vs. actual disbursement of funds for previous projects?

  10. I’m not doom and gloom yet. I’m holding off making predictions till I see who the DOT secretary is. Alongside where the house sits when the dust settles.

    I will say that in general, transit and Amtrak
    for that matter is still bipartisan and unlikely to see a gut but lowered funding isn’t great.

    1. Yeah, I think Amtrak support is bipartisan enough that it will remain. It doesn’t cost that much money, and if Republicans wanted to cut it, they would have already done so in 2017. I also have vague recollection of Republican senators from surprising places, such as North Dakota speaking out on the Senate floor in favor of Amtrak.

      1. States like ND have no major airports, so Amtrak is a mobility lifeline for a lot of people. Even a chronically-late train running once per day per direction is better than nothing, especially given Amtrak coach tickets are still cheaper than a flight into a tiny airport with no competition.

      2. Bismarck and Fargo have regular service to Denver & MSP plus holiday service by Allegiant, and Grand Forks also flies to MSP. North Dakota’s air service is very comparable to central & eastern Washington. It’s not clear to me how a 1 a day train is any better than a 1 a day plane if I’m trying to get somewhere that is not another small town served by Empire Builder. With zero freeway congestion, a daily bus is always going to be cheaper than a daily train.

        “Amtrak coach tickets are still cheaper than a flight into a tiny airport with no competition.” Both are directly subsidized by the Federal government. The Essential Air Service bankrolls direct flights from DEN to Devils Lake, Dickenson, and Jamestown; a direct flight to DEN creates far more access than an Empire Builder station.

      3. It depends on what you see as the purpose of any transportation system.
        Commute? Business?Pleasure?
        Also, which “subsidy” is more valid based on your transportation-religion?
        Buses travel on government subsidized highways, airlines rely on government subsidized airport (expansion and air traffic control), Amtrak is just another alternative, with the cost distribution flipped.
        Private companies build and maintain the infrastructure, Amtrak pays to access that infrastructure, opposite the way highways, airways, and waterways (nobody pays a fee to access the Ballard locks, for example) are constructed.

        Also, for the ‘flyover’ states, Amtrak does provide a function for the ‘land-cruise’ tourists.

        Understand this: a full train does pay for itself.
        It’s having to provide the service even when the ridership isn’t there that’s the costly part.

        Please, leave the word SUBSIDY out of the equation. It just clouds the issue.

      4. “It’s not clear to me how a 1 a day train is any better than a 1 a day plane if I’m trying to get somewhere that is not another small town served by Empire Builder. ”

        Thing to remember on corridors like Empire Builders that service is comparable to EAS or Essential Air Service. It’s a lifeline and link to the outside world that wouldn’t otherwise exist for the community it runs through for many small towms along the line. Often reaching places that even coach services don’t serve. And often most people are just going a few stops or part of the way to a big metro or another big town.

        Like someone from Malta, MT may take the Empire Builder to Seattle for healthcare services as Seattle has a lot of cutting edge medicine and clinics that you wouldn’t find out in Montana. We have Polyclinic, Harborview, UW Medical Center, Virginia Mason, Swedish, Fred Hutch, Seattle Children’s, etc.

        It’s why Alabama and Mississippi, very deep republican states, have been trying for years to revive Sunset Limited service from New Orleans to Orlando. They know how valuable it is to their community to have as a service and their local economies.

      5. “Bismarck and Fargo have regular service to Denver & MSP”

        That’s a bit like saying Seattle has regular air service to Los Angeles to someone in Wenatchee wanting to go to Sandpoint. It’s an hours long undertaking over a mountain pass that’s difficult in winter to get to somewhere that has connections to go where they don’t want to go in the first place.

        Greyhound served the interstate corridor, which in places along the Empire Builder route is quite far to the south.

    2. Amtrak has been making do with its crappy funding for so long, nothing would change dramatically.
      However, a lot of old heads have retired, so that much tribal knowledge is getting lost.
      What’s worrisome, since my Y2K contracts had me experience the government side along with years of pointy-haired management tricks in the private sector, is that lack of railroader experience is creating more poor/experimental decision making.
      Just what government and Amtrak don’t need.

Comments are closed.