Seattle City Council Sustainability & Transportation Committee 7/2/19

Good afternoon, everybody.

Welcome to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.

My name is Mike O'Brien.

I'm chair of the committee.

Today is July 2nd, 2019. It's 2.05 PM.

I'm being staffed today by Kelly from my office.

Thank you, Kelly, for being here.

I'll just walk over the agenda really quickly, and then I wanted to do a chair's report.

In today's meeting, we're going to consider an appointment to the Sweden Beverage Tax Advisory Board and also the Urban Forestry Commission.

We have a couple of ordinances related to accepting grant funding for transportation projects.

Then we have a presentation on commuter benefits and a presentation on congestion pricing.

Before we jump into that, I wanted to just share publicly a video of something that's continued to cause safety concerns up on 35th Avenue Northeast.

As folks may recall, a little over a month ago, after a redesign, there was a video shared that showed some concerns.

The design up here used to be a two-lane road.

They've eliminated parking to make it a three-lane road with the hopes that that would allow for, I understand, traffic to move more smoothly and, I guess, the more space to make it safer for folks that are bicycling.

And what we saw a few weeks ago was a video of a cyclist with multiple cars making illegal high-speed passes in the center turn lane.

My understanding is that SDOT has placed some barriers to that center turn lane to prevent people from passing in the center turn lane.

And what this video showed is someone making what also appears to be an illegal pass, and then switching back into the lane on a very close clip to the bicyclists to avoid those bollards.

And now I'm concerned that the attempt to make this safer has actually made it more dangerous.

And I'm considering, the committee wrote a letter to SDOT at the last time of this, and I will likely do something similar Because I feel like this is the second iteration of trying to make this safer, and it just keeps getting what appears to be less safe at each iteration.

And I'm not sure how much further we're going to go before we just go back to a design that has been proven to be safe in multiple corridors throughout the city and around the country, which is essentially making a protected bike lane for the bicyclists so that the car-bike conflicts are no longer an issue.

I wanted to share that just, it's not on the agenda today, but I wanted the public to know that we are tracking this and are aware of it.

And, well, I don't have any colleagues here at the table at the moment.

I know that some of my colleagues share those concerns.

So, with that, since I'm the only one here, I'm going to go ahead and move to approve the agenda.

And I will second that.

And I will vote yes on approving the agenda.

It's always a fun activity.

And with that, we're going to switch to public comment.

So Kelly, if you don't mind bringing me the sign-in sheet.

Folks will have up to two minutes to comment.

You can come to either microphone.

We have three folks signed up.

Megan Cruz is first, followed by Megan Murphy, and then Kelsey Mesher.

Great.

Good afternoon, Mike.

Hi, Megan.

Hi.

Hey.

Today, we're going to be talking about congestion pricing and overall just trying to solve traffic issues downtown and across the rest of the city.

But when we do that, we really need to look at all the elements, and we're not doing that right now.

We're looking just at SOVs, single occupancy vehicles.

Across the city, that might be a big problem, but downtown, it's not the fastest growing traffic problem.

SOVs only make up 23% of all the traffic downtown.

The biggest growing part of traffic downtown is delivery trucks and TNCs, better known as Ubers and Lyfts.

And right now, that's nowhere on anybody's radar, not with the county or the city.

And it's really got to be considered or we're not going to make a dent in this at all.

Just a few facts.

For every mile a single car and driver put on the road, a TNC, an Uber, Lyft puts 2.3 miles.

It doesn't matter if the ride is shared.

There are 17,000 daily rides of Ubers and Lyfts right in the 98101 zip code, and the increase is 30% annually.

So it's a problem.

With trucks and deliveries, the rate is going to double by 2022, and we're not even counting these trucks.

annual e-commerce deliveries are going up by 15% annually.

So again, the city has these stats, but it's grappling, it's not even discussing how to get this on the map, how to deal with it.

So my point is, if we're going to ration traffic or create disincentives or charges to vehicles, we need to include all the vehicles in this.

And specifically, I'd like this committee to address today where trucks and TNCs fit into the traffic planning for the city on a daily basis, and specifically, whether these modes are going to be considered in the congestion pricing proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

Megan, two Megans.

So yeah, it was really good to watch the ADUs pass yesterday and the DADAUs and or DADUs, but I don't it's not enough housing and I think I have a lot of compassion for people who are responsible for a vehicle here because I would not be able to, and I can understand when they have rage and they get angry because they're responsible for this thing that's really, I think you've called it like 4,000 pounds.

It's a lot to be responsible for, so I could only hope that we could develop more, like as a community, more public transportation, because it's, you can talk on the phone, you can do so much on public transportation plan, and it seems like people's identity are like, I want to go here now.

But if it was public transportation, it takes more planning.

And I just think it's better because global warming is getting really serious.

And there's so much oil going in the atmosphere.

And then I also wonder, where do cars go when people are done with them?

I don't know.

It's just crazy.

With housing, I was just looking at the Karl Marx Voss in Vienna.

It's like this big, huge structure that started a long time ago.

And people actually get more benefits of housing when they plan together as communities.

There are so many benefits to that living situation, because I saw a presentation about it.

And I could only hope that Seattle, just as everyone, could plan more together about communities to save resources.

And my mom has been seeing my son, and I only think, well, if I had my own place, they might even let him come stay with me.

But I just have to be patient and work really, really hard to get there.

And it seems I have some upward mobility, and it's getting harder to have upward mobility.

So thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

Kelsey.

Kelsey is the last one who signed up.

If there's anyone else in the audience who didn't sign up but would like to provide public comment, you can come forward when Kelsey is finished.

Hello, thanks.

Kelsey Mesher.

I'm with Transportation Choices Coalition here to speak in support of the work around congestion pricing.

We believe congestion pricing is the type of bold policy our city needs to implement to reach goals around health, sustainability, and opportunity.

We are continuing to grow, and we know that managing how our roads are used and heavily investing in non-driving options are the only proven way to keep us moving.

So we want to say thank you, Councilmember O'Brien, for funding the study you're going to hear about today, and as well as to Mayor Durkan for her vocal support in moving forward with policy development.

Here's what we want to see as you consider next steps.

First, an equitable engagement process with a broad coalition.

The only path to an equitable congestion pricing policy is an inclusive process, so we want to see best practices using the RET and reaching out to communities who will be most impacted by this policy.

We want to see robust transportation choices in place on day one.

To provide real alternatives to driving downtown, we need a richer set of regional transportation investments and services.

We want to see progressive pricing system.

So we want to not just mitigate harm, but really to design a pricing system and explore how revenue could be progressive and potentially replace other regressive forms of transportation funding.

And finally, we want to see that revenue reinvested in sustainable transportation.

That's biking, transit, and walking networks.

We know that initially pricing can be unpopular, but the true costs of a car-focused transportation system need to be made clear.

People who drive lose 138 hours to traffic every single year.

Collectively, we lose $5 billion in productivity to traffic congestion, and two-thirds of our city's greenhouse gas emissions come from road pollution.

We believe if done right, congestion pricing can help address all of these issues.

Thank you, Kelsey.

Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment?

All right, seeing none, we will close public comment and move into agenda item number one.

If presenters want to come on forward, and then I'll have Kelly read that into the record.

Yes, your agenda item one, sorry.

All right, appointment 01372, appointment of Tanika Thompson-Byrd as member of the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board for term to August 31st, 2023.

Welcome, and once you get settled, if you want to just do a quick introduction.

Great, thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Bridget Igoe with the Office of Sustainability and Environment, and I provide administrative support to the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board.

As you know very well, the board was established by the same ordinance that created the tax, and the role of the board is to develop recommendations for the mayor and city council on the programs and services to support with beverage tax revenue and that align with the ordinance.

The ordinance states that SBT revenue shall be used for healthy food access programs and programs and services that improve child health development and readiness for school.

And additionally, the intent of the ordinance is to benefit communities that experience the greatest health and education inequities.

The board consists of 11 members who are residents of the city of Seattle or work within the boundaries of city Seattle.

And today we're here for the confirmation hearing of Tanika Thompson for one of the board positions reserved for a community representative.

So it's my pleasure to introduce Tanika Thompson.

Ms. Thompson is a community organizer and activist who's lived in Seattle her whole life.

She's a food access organizer for Got Green, where she's a leader in a campaign and movement to close the food security gap.

so working families can put healthy food on the table.

Before joining Got Green, Ms. Thompson was a member organizer and executive board member at Union 775, which represents more than 45,000 long-term care workers.

She was a key supporter of the city of Seattle's efforts to pass the sweetened beverage tax, and she led a grassroots coalition to ensure that the beverage tax revenue is invested back in low-income communities and communities of color that are most impacted by health and education inequities.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I'll turn it over to you.

Tanika, nice to meet you.

Thanks for being here.

I was going to say, she probably needs no introduction.

So you've been spending a lot of time down at City Council in the last few weeks.

But it's nice that there's a potential for a formal role here.

So maybe you want to tell us a little bit about me and the public about your interest in the Sweetened Beverage Tax and being on the CAB and some of the things you hope to accomplish.

All right.

So when got green found out that the city council is going to or that the city of Seattle is going to pass a sugary beverage tax.

We thought well this is a wonderful opportunity to close the food security gap.

We were told that there were no funds to close the food security gap before.

So, of course, this was a good opportunity to take money.

Well, actually, we realized that communities of color and low-income communities would be impacted the most.

And we wanted to give that money back to those communities in a positive way.

There's no better way than giving them healthy food.

And so providing access to healthy food is just such a wonderful thing to do for my community.

It makes me feel really good.

They're so grateful and they're always so happy and it always seems like they make me feel like I've come to them right on time.

And they look for me every month to get their vouchers, their fresh books.

And it's just a wonderful thing to do for the community that I love so much.

We worked really hard with the city to put a plan together to make sure that the funds would go back to the community.

And we fought really hard.

We fought the American Beverage Association.

I did a lot of debates, trying to tell people the significance of the tax and that it wasn't such a regressive tax because the money was going to come back to them.

And I'd like to continue this fight by being on the Community Advisory Board and making decisions to ensure that the revenue gets to the right place, which is the communities, communities of color and low income.

I think you've been an amazing advocate and I've had the pleasure of working with you for a few years, so I'm thrilled that you're willing to serve on the Community Advisory Board.

I'm wondering if you would describe for the public and the camera just the food security gap and what that looks like in the communities you're working with.

OK, so the food security gap is made up of one hundred and twenty two thousand families in King County who are making what is considered a living wage.

But because the cost of living has gone up so high in Seattle lately, like rent is ridiculous and they cannot pay their rent, their bills and afford healthy food.

Healthy food is, you know, kind of pricey.

And so they're not eligible for EBT or SNAP benefits because they make too much money.

So these families are overlooked often and they really do need help.

They're struggling to put healthy food on the table.

And Seattle is the first city to address the food security gap.

That's great.

Well, it's an amazing program, and I know there's a lot of work to do to, I mean, it feels like we've taken some good steps into closing that gap, but I know there's a lot more demand to make sure everyone in our community has access to healthy and nutritious food, so.

Definitely.

Thanks for your work on that.

I'm really thrilled that you're going to serve, as I mentioned, and I look forward to your opportunity.

I know that this is a big commitment.

The Community Advisory Board has done some really amazing work.

Obviously, it's really important work.

Your recommendations I take very seriously on how to be investing the revenue from the sweetened beverage tax.

And so I know it's no small commitment.

So thank you for your willingness to serve on the board and do that too.

Thank you, and thank you for all of your work as well.

You're quite welcome.

So, I'm going to go ahead and move approval of appointment 01372, and I will second that also, and then I will vote yes on it.

So, just like that.

Thank you.

Thanks so much for your work.

This will go to the full council next Monday, but you can start work immediately.

All right.

Thank you.

Thanks, Tanika.

Thanks for your help.

Thanks.

All right, Kelly, do you want to read in agenda number two?

All right, so we have another appointment.

Appointment 01378. Appointment of Stephen Fry as a member of the Urban Forestry Commission for a term to March 31st, 2022.

Welcome folks.

Whenever you are ready, we can do quick introductions.

Great.

So I'll just go ahead.

Good afternoon.

Today is my pleasure to introduce Stephen Fry's appointment to the Urban Forestry Commission.

And a little bit of background, the commission was established to advise city council and the mayor on policies, plans, and regulations having to do with the urban forest.

The commission is comprised of 13 positions.

Six are appointed by the mayor, six by city council, and one is a position that is selected among the members.

The mayor is recommending Steven's appointment to position eight, development community or non-city utility representative.

Steven is the program's director for Seattle 2030 District, where he works with developers and facility managers to oversee programs focused on reducing energy and water use intensity, as well as transportation emissions in commercial buildings throughout Seattle and neighboring communities.

Steven's experience spanning the public, private, and non-profit sectors, his understanding of code requirements around development, specifically green factor, and his creative ideas on balancing development and tree preservation would be an asset to the Urban Forestry Commission.

He is being appointed to a three-year term ending March 31st of 2022.

Welcome, Steven.

Thanks for your service and thanks for your willingness to be on the Urban Forest Commission.

I want you to take a few minutes and tell us a little bit about your background and why this position is of interest to you and maybe what you hope to accomplish.

Yeah, thank you for having me.

I've spent the last year and a half focusing mainly on green stormwater issues within the city.

Trees are a huge proponent of that and I hope to really push forward the update to the tree ordinance, which has been kind of an ongoing effort for a number of years, as I'm sure you're aware.

Kind of what I hope to lend weight towards that discussion is natural capital accounting of trees, making sure that we're acknowledging the true benefits that they're providing to our communities, namely urban healing effect, air quality, habitat for species, and stormwater.

These are all things that contribute greatly to our communities that aren't necessarily factored into their value.

I also hope to push forward the true value of mature trees.

If you chop down a mature tree and replace it with a sapling, the effects aren't necessarily the same, and that's not really taken into account currently.

And then I also would like to prioritize green investment in neighborhoods that have traditionally not been recipients of it, and connected greenways that connect public spaces so people feel safe and comfortable to walk with these wayfinders, which trees can serve as a great example of that.

Wayfinder mean like go to the Douglas fir on the corner and turn left sir or more of like this is the path You know and if you have concrete trees in a row like people can follow the path You mentioned the update to the urban to the tree ordinance in the city, which is something that I through fits and starts we've kind of been working on, but without any really deliverables yet.

I know my colleague, Council Member Beg Shah, is, we both have about six months left on the Council, but she is working on that right now, and I know my goal is to work with her so that we can have some legislation, hopefully through the Council process before the end of the year.

Have you been involved in that process a little bit to date?

I have been aware of it and I have been engaged with the Urban Forestry Commission kind of in just an interested role.

So I've been familiar with kind of what the new ordinance is shaping up to look like.

And I have like read that through early, but I haven't been on the commission itself.

So I haven't really drafted the language yet.

Great.

Well, I appreciate your background and I appreciate your participation in this.

Look forward to your service.

Anything else you want to add?

Not today.

Well, thanks.

I know that this is also a commission that has a lot of work in front of us.

We are obviously a growing city.

There's a lot of pressure, development pressure, which too often results in us losing some of our cherished trees.

And I think we can do a better job of protecting those while still allowing to create more housing opportunities for people to live in our city too.

And so Someone with your background.

I think it'll be a great addition to the Commission.

So, thank you.

So I'm gonna go ahead and Move appointment 0 1 3 7 8 and I will second that and I will vote aye So you will be before the full council on Monday and but thanks again for showing up today.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you All right, tell you want to read agenda number three into the record.

I

Yes, we have Council Bill 119560, an ordinance accepting the gift of funds for design and purchase of plantings at four business nodes along Delridge Way Southwest as part of the Delridge Way Southwest RapidRide H line.

Bill, welcome, and when you get settled, go ahead and introduce yourself.

Thank you.

Let me actually get to the right presentation here.

I think it's, I got it.

Okay.

And I'm Bill Laborde from the Seattle Department of Transportation Director's Office.

Welcome.

Thank you.

So I guess, Bill, do you want to just jump right into the presentation?

Yeah.

So this is a bill that allows us to accept a gift of about $6,000, up to $6,632.52 for some plantings on the Dow Ridge Rapid Ride And this is a gift from the Delridge Neighborhood Development Association.

They've been working with OED for several years, Office of Economic Development for several years, on trying to better establish some small business nodes along the Delridge Corridor.

And these plantings are just a small part of their effort to provide some greater identity for those nodes.

The four locations for these nodes are Andover, Youngstown, Brandon, and Orchard.

And you can see in the 30% drawings up there the locations of the medians and curb bulbs where the plantings would go.

Another cross section on the lower left at Andover.

The kind of typical plantings are what you see on the right, and it was just to be more of a unique set of plantings that would be paid for by these dollars.

And so we're asking you to allow us to accept that gift.

So I'm curious, how did this come about?

Normally, I think the city would just be providing funding to do plantings on our own.

So we are doing plantings on our own, but these are a little bit a little bit more sort of custom plantings, I guess.

So above and beyond the kind of baseline we would do?

Yeah.

And so the community has said, we want a higher level of planting, and they've raised the money to do it?

They've raised the money to do it.

They've been doing this in collaboration with Office of Economic Development, the Only in Seattle program.

And they have hired a landscape architect to make sure that these plantings fit within our standards.

So they're a little bit I would say even more unique rather than even enhanced, but they fit our standards for how we maintain vegetation in the right of way.

Great, well I appreciate that and I assume even modest gifts we are required to approve, so all the way down to 52 cents, so I appreciate you getting the specifics there.

On a somewhat related question, and you may not know the answer for this bill, so feel free to direct me to someone else.

My understanding is that the design for the rapid right corridor, is it at 60% now?

Yeah, it's actually moving past 60%.

It's probably getting close to 100% at this point.

Okay, I'm curious.

I'd be interested in asking some questions about what the range of options we're considering for bike infrastructure along or adjacent to that corridor too.

And so, probably not here unless you have anything you want to comment on, but I'll.

Just at a very high level, there is protected bike lane in one direction for a good segment of it.

I think maybe in parts of the corridor, it's two-way.

And then in other segments, it relies more on the 26th Avenue.

Greenway, which is just a couple blocks to the east.

Okay, great.

West, I'm sorry.

As we move forward, I think it was a month or so ago we had a little bit of a presentation that showed some of that alignment.

I can't remember if that was here.

something I just read privately, but.

It was here, yeah.

Was it here?

Okay, thanks.

I am interested just to see if there's opportunities to make that corridor a little more robust when it comes to it and have less in and out, but I'll follow up with the folks on that team as it goes forward.

Yeah, and we could definitely have the PM brief you on the project, the correct state of design.

Great.

Anything else I need to know on this before I vote?

Just that this is the timeline for the project and we would be putting these plantings in along with the rest of the plantings probably near the end of the project in 2021. Okay, super.

Well, I'll go ahead and move council bill one one nine five six Oh, and I will second it and I will vote yes on it So that'll go to the full council on Monday.

Thanks for your work on that bill Thank you, and I think you're here for the next presentation, too All right, Kelly.

Do you want to read an agenda item number four?

Council Bill 119563, an ordinance relating to the grant funds from non-city sources authorizing the Director of Seattle Department of Transportation to accept a specified grant to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements for and on behalf of the city.

Amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 budget, including the 2019 to 2024 Capital Improvement Program.

changing the appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation, revising project allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2019 to 2024 CIP, and ratifying the confirming certain prior acts.

Great.

And for the record, we still have Bill Laborde from SDOT with us.

And Bill, if I recall correctly from my recent committee meeting at the Puget Sound Regional Council, at our last grant acceptance, we accepted a whole host of things and then contingently accepted an additional grant.

on, what is it, is it East Marginal?

It was East Marginal, yeah.

And sure enough, the Puget Sound Regional Council dipped into the contingency list, but dipped even further, and so this is an additional project that moved up into the funding phase, is that right?

That's exactly right, and this is for the Cowan Park seismic bridge in a project which is a levy-funded project.

We were already going forward on construction with it this summer, but this allows us to better meet our leveraging targets for the whole seismic bridge program.

This is one of 16 projects, I believe.

And I think most people are familiar with this bridge.

It connects on 15th Avenue between the U District and Ravenna, Cowan Park area.

It was built, I believe, in 1926, 36, excuse me.

And so this is, our seismic bridge program doesn't replace bridges.

It does a lot of things like wrapping beams in structural fiber, it reinforces support beams, and it's really just designed to make sure that that structure withstands an earthquake so that no one is severely hurt or killed, the bridge doesn't collapse.

Great.

Well, it's a good project that we've obviously, voters and all have supported in the past, and so the ability to leverage some Puget Sound Regional Council federal funding is great.

Anything else you need to know on this?

I think that's it.

We expect to be done with the project by the end of the year, so it's moving.

It's moving, yeah.

Yeah, I know that was one of the critical things with the Puget Sound Regional Council.

Yeah, and I should probably also add that for the Puget Sound Regional Council requirements, we do need to obligate the dollars by July 15th, and so we have a ratify and confirm clause in the ordinance.

Great.

I won't hold it up any longer.

I'm going to go ahead and move Council Bill 119563. I will also second that and vote aye on it.

So that goes to the full Council on Monday and allow this project to move forward quickly.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for your work, Bill.

All right.

Kelly, do you want to read agenda item number five?

A presentation on commuter benefits.

We'll invite presenters forward.

Got a long list of some challenging questions I'm going to throw their way.

All right, as you all get settled, why don't we start with a round of introductions?

My name's Nick Abel, I'm with Commute Seattle.

Ren Bailich with Commute Seattle.

Jasmine Marwaha with the Office of Labor Standards.

Sarah Spicer with SDOT.

Hello, everybody.

Who would like to start?

I can start.

Jump in, Sarah.

Sure.

Thank you.

So yeah, I'd just like to introduce the pre-tax work that we collectively at the table have been coordinating on.

We at SDOT have contracted with Commute Seattle about a year and a half ago.

to investigate the use of pre-tax transit benefits by employers throughout the city.

Their scope of work has included some research, outreach, and support to businesses around the city to understand the current use of pre-tax transportation benefits and understand what some of the barriers are to implementing those programs around the city.

And now that we have an ordinance on the books to require the use of pre-tax transit benefits, Commute Seattle is planning to continue in a supportive role and has been coordinating with both SDOT and Office of Labor Standards to continue that work.

So we're here today to offer you an update on their work.

And did we pass the ordinance in September of last year?

We did.

We passed an ordinance in fall of last year.

I can't remember the exact date.

The Community Benefits Ordinance requires employers to offer a pre-tax deduction from the employee's paycheck.

to cover transit and vanpool expenses.

Each year the Internal Revenue Service sets a total allowable amount that an employee can deduct and this year it's $265.

So the ordinance requires that that deduction be offered to an employee.

That's per month, I assume.

Sorry?

$265 per month?

Per month, sorry, yes.

Thank you for clarifying.

That's a pretty good transit pass.

Yeah, and covered employers can meet their obligation by either allowing this pre-tax deduction or by subsidizing all or part of the purchase of a transit pass, like the ORCA card, for example.

This ordinance applies to businesses who employ at least 20 employees worldwide.

That includes part-time or full-time, as long as they've worked an average of 10 hours a week in the previous month.

And this ordinance goes into effect in January 1st of 2020. And enforcement starts on January 1st of 2021. So what that essentially means is that for a year after it goes into effect, the businesses will not incur penalties for not complying with the law, but they'll be expected to comply essentially as their remedy.

Rules will be developed later this year and will maybe clarify a few things that are in the law.

For example, you know, what exactly will an employer need to do to be in compliance with the law if they subsidize their pass.

We've gotten some questions where we might need a little bit of clarification.

So we'll be developing rules for that.

And in the meantime, we are working with Commute Seattle on the outreach and education.

Commute Seattle, for now, is taking the lead on reaching out to specific businesses.

But the Office of Labor Standards, you know, in its ongoing work, as we reach out to businesses for all number of labor standards, this is going to be folded into our body of work, into our body of knowledge that we where we discuss with businesses.

And so, for example, we have the Business Outreach and Education Fund where we partner with business outreach organizations, particularly with an equity focus to reach out to businesses that may not have access to the full suite of resources to comply with the law.

Those partners help OLS do this outreach to make sure that folks can be in compliance.

And that those partnerships, you know, will be relying heavily on Commute Seattle for the first few months to make this education a success.

I'm going to turn it over to Wren.

I'll mention we've been joined by Council Member Pacheco.

Thank you for being here.

Just quickly, Jasmine, you mentioned the director's rules to help clarify how to be in compliance.

Is that something that you think that director's rules can cover, or will there be any need to amend the ordinance at all?

I think we're still looking into that.

So we'll have more information, I think, by the fall around that.

Well, happy to, if it needs to come back here, I'm happy to expedite that, so.

Thank you.

All right.

Community Seattle.

Thank you for being here today.

Thanks for all your amazing work in the city.

Thank you, thank you.

Yes, excited to be here.

I'm also joined by my colleague Nick, and I'm going to give a presentation on the outreach strategies in order to educate businesses about this new ordinance.

So I'm going to give a brief overview of the ordinance itself and its impact on employers.

Then I'm going to talk about the outreach methods and strategies, and then go into current metrics and where outreach is at today.

And just for some background, if people are unfamiliar with Commute Seattle, like Sarah had mentioned, we are a nonprofit that partners with transportation agencies.

We are housed within the Downtown Seattle Association and have a strong relationship with the business community.

So we're constantly working with the public and private sector to form relationships and solutions for different transportation problems and also overcome those barriers.

So the ordinance which Jasmine went over is capped at $265 per month that an employee can use for their transportation costs.

Very similar to a FSA or flexible spending account for health insurance.

You put aside a certain amount of money every month for these costs.

This is a great way for employers to offer a way for their employees get to work and then also reduce the burden of commuting costs.

Employees often can save about 30% a month on their transportation costs.

And employers can also save about $8 in FICA taxes with every $100 that an employee uses for their transportation costs.

And as Jazza mentioned, this is a federal tax credit that is being mandated into the city of Seattle starting in January 1st of next year.

And it will be required of all employers with 20 or more employees to provide some kind of way to comply.

But there are many ways to comply, which is my job to spread the information on that.

So our messaging at Commute Seattle and as my role as the outreach coordinator is that we work with businesses and budgets of every size.

Our outreach is a multimedia approach, so we hope to get people the information in whatever way works for them best.

And once we are talking to employers and all of our marketing material is in hopes that they will first be able to offer pre-tax commuter benefits, which is the most cost-neutral way, and like I said, also often saves the employer money, or give them information to start an ORCA business program.

And just in case anyone isn't familiar, ORCA is our regional transit pass.

And then also information on how to take part on the WashDOT, Washington Department of Transportation Small Business Subsidy.

And this is an incentive for all businesses with 100 and less employees to provide commuter benefits at a subsidized rate.

a 50% rebate for the amount that they subsidize.

So if they were to subsidize a 50% subsidy, the state would also rebate that amount through a short program survey before and after they begin.

And so this is open to anyone who has never provided a transportation incentive or subsidy in the past.

And is that WSDOT small business subsidy just for the first year, or is it ongoing?

It is ongoing.

It was extended into June of next year.

It is just for the first year of an ORCA program, though.

Got it.

And so is that built into the metro pricing you see on the first year pricing of the, I forget what the- It's contingent on them completing an agreement and conducting a pre and post survey.

So it can be built into certain contracts, but some of it is provided as a rebate.

So they'll present monthly receipts for the passes that they've ordered.

It's great.

It's a huge incentive.

Yeah, it's really exciting.

People love to hear that, free money.

So I'm going to go over the three different components of our outreach, one of which is a commuter benefits ordinance hotline, in-person outreach, as well as our digital and video collateral.

And then this is a brief timeline of the methods.

So beginning in February of last year, my colleague Nick began digital outreach as well as in-person outreach about the pre-tax commuter benefits.

And then the hotline became active just of April of this year.

So this has been added on to all marketing collateral.

And then we are doing in-person outreach.

Webinars will begin this month, and then we continue to do outreach post the effective date in coordination with the Office of Labor Standards and Office of Economic Development.

And then with all these outreach methods, we also have included equity elements, including creating neighborhood and industry-specific collateral so that when we're approaching, say, someone who works in the food service industry or if we're in the neighborhood of Eastlake, for example, we're already starting the conversation in an elevated way that it's individualized to their needs.

We are also targeting our initial outreach into underperforming neighborhoods.

This isn't to say that we won't work with the neighborhood of downtown, but as far as our in-person outreach, we are looking at neighborhoods that don't normally offer some kind of commuter benefit program.

Our marketing collateral has also been translated into seven different languages, and we will continue looking into translating our webinars as well, and then working with the Office of Labor Standards and Economic Development to get the word out through their channels.

On the underperforming areas, is there like a specific metric of like a mode split or is it really just everywhere but downtown?

We look at the amount of ORCA passes in neighborhoods and just looking at where the most are versus areas that generally don't have any kind or have a lot less than downtown.

Got it.

And you can get that data to track, you know, by business zip code or something?

Yeah, we're working with King County Metro to get that data.

Great.

So there's also the resource hotline and this goes directly to me, so I'll be there five days a week, eight hours a day, ready to directly answer any specifically related commuter benefit ordinance questions.

So generally people can find this on all of our marketing collateral, also through emails, and then we've also given this information to our partner organizations.

Generally, when people are calling me, they want to have a really specific individualized consultation of how to make a combination of a program or just to learn more about what their options are.

So these phone calls can last anywhere from three to 30 minutes, but it's nice people know that that resource is always available.

We're also creating an updated toolkit.

So this provides a simple three-step process that helps employers kind of get over the initial confusion of offering the benefits.

And I'm just going to quickly go into a little bit more detail on this because I feel like it's very essential to the program and to many conversations.

One is to survey their employees, understand how they're getting to and from work, and then also ask how much they are spending on their transportation costs each month.

As well as from that, they can decide on what offerings will work best for their organization based on budget and their employee's needs.

And then we help give them the templates to create these policies from everything like simple HR policies to how to get a card replacement to more in depth of like what their enrollment period will look like and how to administer that.

We've also begun informational tabling at WeWork centers, like co-working spaces, chamber events, as well as the convention center, and then have started going to neighborhoods.

Last month we worked in the neighborhood of Eastlake to provide them information on different commuter benefits.

I have a image here of a marketing collateral specifically for nonprofits.

And so we like to call out companies that are already providing this benefit and how it works for their organization and then just give employers and the neighborhood an idea of what's currently been offered.

So a neighborhood specific one would have the mode options in the neighborhood as well.

Our digital and video collateral will be created starting this month, and we'll have regularly scheduled webinars.

And what I have here is a screen grab of the business and occupation tax credit.

This was just an under two-minute video where we explained how to apply for this tax credit, who was eligible, and this ended up being very popular.

So we're learning as people have shorter attention spans or just are gravitated towards video that this is a really great way to get the word out and provide an option on social media also to share information.

So is the B&O tax credit, is that the WSDOT subsidy that you talked about, or are these separate things?

This is a separate thing.

This was for property managers and employers that already provide a commuter benefit, and they can apply for a tax credit.

And this was back in January of this year, was the deadline.

Great.

Okay, so some current metrics.

We have consulted well over 100 businesses.

We are currently working with these large chains represented like Bartel Drugstore, Rudy's Barbershop, and Sea Creatures Restaurant Group.

We also have had a lot of foot traffic on our webpage just in this year alone.

553 page views, 464 being unique, and I'm proud to say that people spend the most amount of time at the Commuter Seattle website on the Commuter Benefits Ordinance page, so it's just under three minutes, and I am really looking forward to having all of these things together, including the video that also boosts that.

So what are the conversations been like?

What are you hearing from folks as you have these conversations?

You all did a lot of outreach in advance of the legislation last year, but I'm curious if you're hearing similar messages.

Are people signing up?

Are they going to wait until the end of the enforcement starts?

Yes, people are really excited about that and having the extra push with the WashDOT subsidy gets people to think about this in a whole new light.

So it really feels that there is a paradigm shift and people want to offer commuter benefits and want to figure out how to do it.

And so it's just such a special time to start talking about these things.

And it's been very positive, particularly when I was in the East Lake neighborhood.

I was surprised by how little people understood about their transportation options and commuter benefits, and then how much they wanted to learn.

So we have all that information ready to go for them now.

So I'm making it as simple as possible for them to figure it out.

That's great.

Yes.

And so the legislation last year, the baseline was just a requirement that you offer this tax benefit, which is cost neutral or maybe slightly cost positive for businesses, depending on the scale.

But some of these tools where you get the washed out rebate and other things, are you seeing people that are going beyond just the conversation about pre-tax benefit and actually saying, actually, no, I'd love to subsidize my employees?

A lot of the small businesses that have reached out in regards to the ordinance have been directed over to the ORCA program and have been excited to find that they are qualified and have this opportunity.

And in so many cases, it makes sense for them to say, this is like a gym membership.

We're going to try one year where we pay 100%, the state reimburses 50%, and our employees get them for free.

going into it knowing that if in the second year we don't get this subsidy, we can switch over to something like pre-tax.

So in some cases, pre-tax isn't even the first conversation point.

That's great.

I just wanted to add that this really highlights the importance of the partnership with Commute Seattle to not only provide outreach, but I think what they're actually providing is consultation and technical assistance, which is something that OLS can't provide.

We can provide education on the mandate, but But we're happy to be able to refer to Commute Seattle for that technical assistance piece that is so key to making this a success.

That's outstanding.

Thank you.

And also just to talk a little bit about next steps.

As we just talked about, people really want to have this conversation and it's going to have a massive impact as every business with 20 or more employees will be impacted by this.

So we are continuing our work with the Office of Labor Standards and Office of Economic Development beyond and also plan to keep the hotline going beyond the effective date.

And here is all of the resources that I just talked about.

Please share this on all channels that you find necessary or important.

Thank you.

Well, thank you for the presentation.

That was outstanding.

And thanks for the ongoing work.

It's really exciting to hear that it sounds like at least it's having the desired effect.

You folks are getting beyond the traditional commute-trip reduction audience, which is typically the larger employers downtown and reaching out to smaller businesses, and it's great to hear that they continue to be really receptive to this idea.

I know that people, regardless of where you live and work, as our transit system becomes more and more robust, But this also can be a cost burden for folks to use.

Getting some employer assistance, even if it's just a tax subsidy, but even more subsidized is great, is an outstanding thing for our whole city, for our climate goals, for our congestion goals, all those things.

So thanks for that work.

Thank you, excited to be a part of it.

And I feel like we're always going to be this resource for employers and give them the like a completely free, very, I would say, non pressured way to learn about ways that they can help the city help their employees.

And that's exciting to be a part of.

Sorry, not to interrupt the feel good, but I do think we have to think about, and OLS will continue to think about the worker side of the outreach, because Commute Seattle is by its mission business driven more, but that's TBD.

And so specifically meaning making sure, you know, this is a right that all workers will have if they work at a place with 20 or more employees.

And so that they, as we move into the next phase of this, making sure that they, if they're not getting it, they have a number to call and who do I talk to and how do I get this offered.

Exactly.

Great.

I just wanted to add really quickly that this work has been a really great piece of SDOT's work to shift the needle in our mode split away from reliance on SOV and to connect people with different transportation options.

And so the ability for Commute Seattle to work on a business-to-business win-win situation like P-TECHS has been, it's a great addition to the rest of our business-to-business programming that we do in our transportation demand management work.

That's great.

Council Member Chico, any questions on this one?

Great.

Thanks for the update.

Thanks for your ongoing work.

And as you get through, as OLS gets through the rulemaking process or whatever, if there's additional legislation that we need to do to figure out how to better define things, that's great.

And I invite Community Seattle, if you hear, it seems like a fairly consistent message you're receiving right now, but if there's If you start to hear any themes that are different, we'd love to hear back from that, because we really want to be responsive to a program that is a win-win, which is the intent.

So thanks for that.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Kelly, would you like to read in what I believe is the last agenda item?

Yes.

All right.

We're having another presentation, this one on congestion pricing.

I'll invite the presenters forward.

So we have an hour left to talk about congestion pricing, so this is going to be great.

I can't imagine a better way to spend an hour in my afternoon.

I'm actually not being facetious.

We may not spend a full hour here, but I'm really excited about the opportunity before us.

This is an area where Mayor Durkin has been a really great leader from my perspective.

And we're seeing a little bit of action around the country and around the world on this.

And I think there's a huge opportunity, and frankly, there's a lot of challenges to figure this out.

So I'll turn it over to you all to introduce yourselves and start the presentation.

And we'll just ask questions as we go through that.

Great.

Good afternoon.

I'm Kristen Simpson with the Seattle Department of Transportation.

And I'm Jennifer Wieland with Nelson Nygaard.

Good to be here wearing different hats at different parts of my tenure here.

Welcome back, Jennifer.

So we like to take a moment at the start of our presentation to reflect on the reasons why we're here and the values that drive our work.

And today we're here to share information about some recent work we've done related to congestion pricing and to let you know what steps are coming up next.

Before we get into the results of our recent work, I wanted to start with a little bit of the broader context for that work.

It's no surprise to any of you that Seattle and the region are growing and that the infrastructure for moving goods and people is very constrained.

Climate change is a growing concern.

And as we heard in the comments, road transportation generates 66% of greenhouse gas emissions in Seattle.

Again, nothing surprising here.

Congestion is an ongoing concern, and we recognize that it has impacts at a large scale economically and also on the individuals who experience it.

Finally, inequities in the way that transportation costs are distributed, as well as related concerns about housing affordability, make it vital that we think about pricing in the context of improving overall equity outcomes.

So the initial- Go back to that last one.

I just want to ask a quick question on that.

The, is that saying that 15% of the average budget is going towards transportation?

Okay.

Yes.

When I see, the number seems smaller than what I often hear, but I see on the side it talks about for low income households, that can obviously be a little bit higher.

Yeah, that's just an average, so.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the initial pricing work that we recently completed, as you know, had its roots in the City Council interest and specifically in your interest, so we thank you for that.

It came into the public eye as part of Mayor Durkan's 2018 Climate Action Plan.

This initial work was intended to provide information in four main areas.

Lessons from other cities that either currently have pricing programs or are seriously considering them.

A review and initial evaluation of the different types of pricing tools available.

guidelines and tools for creating an equitable outreach process and an equitable pricing program, and an initial analysis of impacts and benefits using existing data, knowing that this would be a first pass and that we would have more detailed work to come.

So like I said, right now we're in the very earliest phases of this work.

There are many steps ahead.

And it's fitting that this graphic is not a straight line.

We know that we've heard from many cities who have pricing in place who are considering it that you really want to keep working on your plan so that you have something in place when the time is right.

And there are a number of steps to get there.

The specific timeline for implementing really depends on the community engagement process, which we'll be starting this fall.

We'll be designing that in partnership with the Department of Neighborhoods.

Our priority there is to make sure that any proposal that we put forward has its roots in community engagement and addresses potential externalities of a program, especially for lower wage workers.

So, at this point, I'm going to turn it over to Jennifer to go into some of the details of our findings so far, and then we'll go on from there.

Great.

Thank you.

And I'll just mention we've been joined by Council Member Swann.

Thanks for being here.

Thank you for letting me be here just for this item, feeling under the weather.

You bet.

Great, so as we dive into a few of the findings from this first phase of work, I thought we should start with just a quick reminder of what are we talking about when we use words like congestion pricing.

Congestion pricing is one of those topics that goes by many different names.

Some cities call it decongestion charging, others call it mobility pricing.

We're using the term congestion pricing in Seattle, but what it is is ultimately a strategy to help address congestion and emissions.

And it is really at its nature about pricing city streets to encourage alternatives to driving alone, to increase reliability, and to reduce travel times while improving safety.

Right now, the cities with congestion pricing programs in place are all outside of North America, but I think it's fair to say that there is a race on along the West Coast to figure out who might be first.

New York is a little bit ahead of all these West Coast cities that are studying pricing, and we expect that New York will be the first U.S. city to fully implement a program, but remains to be seen who will come after them.

As we look across the cities who have implemented congestion pricing, there are a few key themes that really come into play, especially when we look at congestion or area pricing programs.

One of those is the importance of pairing implementation of a pricing program with some sort of transportation demand management that often comes in the form of additional transit service.

Certainly one of the purposes of pricing is to change behavior, but I don't think it's a surprise to anybody that a congestion pricing program can also generate revenue.

It is not the most efficient way to raise revenue.

And a lot like the way the city uses parking pricing, revenues are really a byproduct of managing a system to optimize supply and demand.

The revenues really across the board in all the cities we've looked at have been used to fund transportation enhancements.

So the five cities that are shown here, a couple of the highlights of what we see in terms of the benefits.

Across the board, we see a reduction in trips, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, an increase or an improvement in travel times.

And then as I mentioned, revenues are a byproduct, but they really do vary by city depending on the overall cost.

to operate and maintain the pricing program, as well as the size of the area that's being priced, the base charge, and a variety of factors like discounts and exemptions.

Sorry, on that, under Singapore it says 15% with new technology, 44% and 75%.

Is that two different baselines in?

So initially they saw a significant reduction.

Exactly.

So Singapore's program has gone through a lot of different iterations.

And when they initially implemented back in 1975, they saw a huge decrease in trip production.

That sort of leveled off after a period of time, which tends to happen in most cities that have implemented.

And so they did put new technology in place much more recently, and that led to another 15% decrease.

So a few more words about benefits.

What you're seeing on this slide, the chart on the right, is from London.

And what you see here is transit use, which is the line in red, steadily increasing over time.

And these are different phases of implementation of London's congestion pricing program.

At the same time, you see the line in yellow.

going down and that is private transport.

So people are driving less or private vehicle use is decreasing and transit use continues to increase.

Businesses in Stockholm and London both have seen economic benefits with the implementation of congestion pricing and it is a constant that programs have changed and evolved.

Another key piece, so an example of that is in London, when the percent of people driving plateaued, the charge was increased and that's similar to what we just talked about for Singapore as well.

When you mentioned that businesses have seen economic benefits, can you speak more to that?

Sure.

So if we use Stockholm as an example, businesses within the charged zone have seen an increase in sales of about 5%.

Some of the reason that they think that has happened is that Because drivers are required to pay both when they enter and exit the zone, a lot of folks are staying within the zone to do their shopping and are spending money locally.

London has also seen benefits to businesses within the priced area.

They have seen growth, I want to say about doubling if I remember correctly.

I'll have to get back on this specific number, but businesses within the price zone in London have also grown significantly faster than businesses outside the price zone.

Got it.

So that's fascinating.

It's actually consistent with some of the other transportation investments we make.

I imagine that when you want to put in a bike lane or a bus only lane or congestion pricing, I imagine a lot of businesses would have concern that this will impact.

And it sounds like there is an impact, but it's a positive one, which may be kind of counterintuitive.

I suspect that, I'm curious how freight is handled in various congestion pricing models too, because one of the places where it seems like there would be an obvious benefit is for folks that are moving goods around the city, and if congestion goes down, you know, when one of their trucks has to be on the road an hour less a day, that's a significant savings.

There may be a toll in charge, but if they can have, you know, a nine-truck fleet instead of a ten-truck fleet, that's a significant savings in both capital and operating costs.

Absolutely.

Another number from Stockholm that is very consistent with that is a lot of businesses have benefited because they have been able to make up to 25% more deliveries because of pricing and because of what that has meant in terms of reduced congestion.

Yeah, I guess it speaks to those high-priority trips that, again, I assume are most freight also paying the congestion price, but the offset to the increased price of a 25% more efficiency is significant, I imagine.

And a lot of programs will include a cap on what you're paying per day.

So if you are making multiple deliveries, you will hit a limit in terms of what you're paying.

It's not going to skyrocket astronomically.

So you're crossing in over the line repeatedly or whatever, however the system is set up.

A few other words about additional benefits.

So as I mentioned, it is pretty consistent that revenues are used to improve transit service and to provide infrastructure for active transportation.

One of the things that we've looked at in our early work is the potential to use revenues to support projects and programs that can really advance equity outcomes.

That can include providing more options for people, offering free transit passes.

There are a variety of different approaches that can be taken.

A few other notes from London, they have seen fewer crashes as a result of having fewer vehicles on the road and maybe a little bit less frustration by drivers.

They've also had some positive public health benefits as a result of reduced tailpipe emissions.

Well, the collision rate going down 40%, that is significant.

And it frankly surprises me because sometimes we think of, or I think of congestion as a traffic calming mechanism, you know, when there's I don't know if there's any

Yeah, one of the things that's important to note in London is that some folks will tell you that congestion itself has not decreased that much because a lot of the road space that has been freed up has been repurposed for dedicated transit lanes and for active transportation infrastructure.

So I think that reduction in collisions is a result of having safer dedicated facilities for people as well as having fewer cars on the road.

That's great.

Council Member Swan.

Could you send us, because I, and if you've already done that, and I'll check with my staff and I apologize, but the studies, I'm assuming these bullet points you have from studies conducted in London or Stockholm or wherever.

If you could send that to my office, I would really appreciate it and you the question in my mind is about causality and you sort of alluded to that but we're also talking about cities that have far far superior public transit and so I don't know what to make of this.

I mean, the way you're presenting it, it seems to suggest that congestion pricing is what has worked and maybe it has, maybe it hasn't, I don't know.

You're also, you're comparing apples to oranges.

I mean, the reason people don't drive in, the reason a lot of people are able to not drive in London is because they have far superior public transportation.

And I've been to many of the cities that you're talking about.

So I think that we should have that data as well and that will be useful to look at.

We are happy to provide those reports.

There are a lot of studies that have been done so far.

I mean, I think one of the important things to note is that as revenues have come in from congestion pricing programs across all of these cities, and even as the programs were initially being implemented, These cities are making investments in public transportation.

They're increasing the number of buses that are on the road.

They're increasing the amount of service that's available.

And so there is a very strong focus on providing those options for people at the same time you're disincentivizing driving.

So I think that that match is really critical.

But we are talking about entirely different dollar amounts, I'm assuming.

I mean, I don't know what your, maybe you have an estimate of how much some sort of congestion pricing model would generate in downtown.

I'm assuming that isn't going to be a fraction of what would be needed to expand public transit by the proportion that we would need in order to actually ensure that it works.

Because at this point, I mean, we know that even despite all the cuts to metro, ridership has gone up tremendously.

I don't think at this point it's a question of, oh, can we convince ordinary people that there is a climate catastrophe at our doorstep?

People get it.

Ordinary people get it, and people are making sacrifices for it.

I run into people all the time who say that I wish I could only rely on public transportation every single day, but I cannot because I simply cannot get through my day given how long it takes me to get from point A to point B changing buses or whatever, not having stops close by and all that.

So I think those points have to be taken into consideration.

Yeah, I think your point is well taken that we are very different from London and Stockholm and even from New York City and some of our North American counterparts.

So what we wanted to do is learn what we could about their experiences.

And then as we start to do community engagement and our own research about transit in Seattle, be able to look at the things we've learned from other cities, but really make sure we're understanding them in a Seattle context.

So moving on to talk a little bit about what we looked at for Seattle specifically.

When we talk about challenges like congestion, like climate change, there's clearly no silver bullet.

So as we started to look at pricing, we cast a very wide net and reviewed 11 potential tools.

These include some that are already used in Seattle or in the region, so for example, In Seattle, we do price parking both on street and off street.

Tools like arterial toll roads are similar to highway toll roads that we have in the region.

And then the state's pilot for a road user charge is something that we also have been following pretty closely.

So it's a broad set of tools that we started with.

One of the things that we didn't spend a lot of time on in this first phase was thinking about technology.

Technology is clearly going to be a vital part of implementing any pricing tools, but it is evolving incredibly rapidly, and it's a little bit too soon to be thinking specifically about what type of technology would be right for Seattle.

Interoperability, so that is being able to talk to different systems, and privacy are both going to be incredibly important considerations as we do begin that work.

So to narrow those 11 tools that I mentioned down to a smaller handful for further analysis, we did a quick screening of them based on their potential to improve equity, to reduce congestion, to improve climate and health, and for some implementation considerations.

Based on that initial screen, we selected cordon pricing, area pricing, fleet pricing, and road usage charging for further study.

As part of the outreach, we'll be starting in the fall, and Kristen will talk more about that in a little bit.

We expect that we will hear a lot from people about whether these are the right screening criteria, and we may want to revisit the tools that we are considering for further study.

So just a quick word about each of those four.

Cordon and area pricing are probably what most often comes to mind for people when you think about congestion charging.

They are very similar.

The biggest difference is that with cordon pricing, drivers pay only when they cross a specific boundary.

Whereas with area pricing, drivers pay when they cross the boundary, but also for the trips that they make within the boundary.

And so on area pricing, I imagine as technology changes in different cities, you do it a different way, but is the general concept like if you move within the zone, is it like every time a camera sees you, it charges more?

Or so the more you move, the more you pay?

Right.

That is the most common approach right now.

Certainly as road user charging advances a little bit more, there are opportunities to charge for the vehicle miles traveled.

There's also been some talk about being able to charge for dwell time within a zone.

That's a good ways off, but there are a lot of different ways to explore what types of trips and what is the metric that you use.

Is it time?

Is it distance?

What is that?

And I imagine that as this work advances, we'll be looking at both the technology that's evolving to see what tools are available, but then also trying to figure out what are the critical problems we're trying to address?

Are we concerned about people making the six block trip in their car around downtown?

Are we concerned about the long range commuters?

What's the biggest problem we're trying to solve?

Great.

A couple of the other tools then, so fleet pricing is an approach to congestion pricing that could be implemented as the first step of a cordon or area pricing program or could be a standalone.

Fleet pricing is typically a charge that is applied to certain types of vehicles.

That can be for hire vehicles like taxis and transportation network company vehicles, commercial fleet or delivery vehicles, high emission vehicles, or even autonomous vehicles as we move forward.

Road user charges then are, as I mentioned, the state of Washington did a pilot on this.

Essentially what road user charging does is charge people for the miles that they drive.

The state's pilot was really focused on road user charging as a potential replacement for the gas tax, but it is a tool and technique that could be used to manage congestion if you were charged by location or at a certain time of day, for example.

So as we started our work to do a little bit more evaluation of these tools and think a little bit about the potential impacts and benefits that we might see, we wanted to start with an understanding of the inequities in our current system and an analysis of the potential equity implications of pricing as well as the potential to use pricing to help advance equity.

The data that we had to work with in this first phase was limited.

We were using existing data.

We used data that's collected by the Census Bureau to look at people who drive from anywhere in our four-county region to downtown Seattle for work, as well as drivers who live downtown and drive elsewhere in the region for work.

We used that data to look at impacts by race and income to see if there were differences from the general population.

Our initial work was very focused on identifying areas for further study based on a pretty undefined program.

And as I mentioned, limited travel behavior data.

We do have additional work underway to develop a tool that will help us estimate much more specifically who might be impacted and benefited.

This is an area that when we, you know, initially put the money in the budget a year and a half ago that was really hoping to focus on and I recognize that getting good data here is challenging.

The reason why that was important to me was, you know, as we move forward designing a program, and frankly, I think along the lines of I think some of the questions that maybe Councilmember Sawant was asking earlier, for me, from an equity perspective, to understand who is currently driving downtown and why they're driving downtown is going to be really important.

We have a sense that, you know, what, around 20% of the commute trips to downtown are still in a single occupancy automobile.

And I imagine that some of those people are just like, I have a bunch of options and I want to drive.

And for those folks, you know, I feel more comfortable charging them.

I imagine there's some people that are driving downtown.

It's like it's already really expensive.

But I don't have any good alternatives because of time of day or location or whatever needs they are.

And understanding, you know, what part of that 20% is in the former camp versus the latter camp, and then there's probably, you know, dozens of other scenarios that are brought up is going to be really important for us to implement this.

So how, I'm curious, how do we get beyond the kind of high-level census data and really dig into, you know, are we doing intercept studies or surveys or what would that look like?

Yeah, we will talk about that a little bit more, but I do want to say that we shared your frustration that we weren't able to do more with the data that we have now.

We are developing a modeling tool that will help us get into some more finer grain analysis.

We're also participating in the third round of the Puget Sound Regional Council's Household Travel Survey, so that will provide some more samples that we'll be able to use.

And then I think it'll be also really important to balance the data that we are able to collect and analyze with the community engagement and outreach so that in addition to looking at the numbers, we're also hearing people's stories and understanding what it means to them, what their trip needs are, you know, from a personal level as well as from an aggregate level.

Yeah.

Yeah, well, I look forward to figuring out how we get that as soon as possible.

I think that's be critical.

And I think one of the hard things about this is without that data, I often hear people that I would put in that first camp of mine that I have a lot of great options, but I just prefer driving my own automobile downtown, will say, I don't like the idea of congestion pricing, I'm okay with it, but I'm really concerned about some other people that may, and understanding, you know, how many of those people, what are the challenges, how can we address those challenges, whether that's, there's no good transit options where they live, and they have to live where they live because of what they can afford, and we have to provide them some other financial support to get by.

Or whether it's we're going to invest in transit to some locations that really are popping up.

We see a certain chunk of the people driving downtown are coming from certain areas.

Let's make some more transit investments.

Or maybe it's time of day or things like that.

Yeah.

So that modeling work that we talked about will be happening over the summer.

And then the outreach and engagement will be starting later in the fall.

So it's not too far away that we'll be able to get farther into that work.

Great.

So a few highlights then of what we were able to identify with the data that we have available.

Of that data set, and again, it's data that comes through the census and we're looking at commute trips specifically.

So overall, about 13% of workers who drive in the region would be affected by a downtown pricing program.

And we used a pretty general downtown boundary for this.

We also assumed pricing 24-7, which is not a system that most anybody would ever put in place.

It's much more likely that we would look at some type of peak hour pricing and then it would be a weekday only.

But those details have not been developed in terms of a program design.

So we looked first at income, and when we break some of this data down by income, what we see is that a higher percentage of drivers with incomes over $75,000 per year would be affected by a potential downtown congestion pricing program.

And a lower percentage of drivers with incomes less than $50,000 per year would be affected.

But that is simply talking about being priced.

That doesn't tell us anything about the relative magnitude of impacts.

And Council Member O'Brien, as you were referring, we can assume that somebody with a higher income may have more ability to pay than somebody with a lower income.

Why are you saying it's so conditional?

It is decidedly going to be true that If you're talking about a flat rate, then a household with lower income, that's going to be a greater proportion of their income than for a household with a higher income.

So I'm not sure why you're not stating that definitively.

It's mathematically going to be true.

It's not a question.

There's no ambiguity in that.

Right?

Correct.

Mathematically, there's no ambiguity.

Correct.

I'm stating it that way only because we have not set a pricing rate.

We have not defined a program.

Yes, but if you have a low income household and high income household and talking about the same amount, then obviously a greater proportion of the lower income household's income is going to be used up in paying that tax or fee as opposed to a higher income household.

I mean, there's no ambiguity there.

I also want to know, I also don't I mean, just again, statistically speaking, I don't find this compelling for you to say, well, more households, a greater proportion of households that have, or commuters, I don't know how you're defining it as household income or individual income, regardless.

So it's 14.7% of the workers Is that what it means, 14.7% of what?

Maybe you should clarify that first before I speak.

So the data that we're looking at here has been normalized to reflect the differences in the number of people in different groups within the region.

So when we look at that 14.7%, It is 14.7% of the people who have incomes greater than $75,000 who are within that group who would be affected by a downtown pricing program.

And is the denominator there just anybody who drives anywhere in the region?

Our sample size that we're using here is the 13% of the region who would be affected by a downtown pricing program.

And so those are people from within the four county area who are 16 and over, who drive to work either downtown or who live downtown and drive to work.

So it's commute trips.

But the denominator for each bar is different because you're using that income group for each.

If we looked at the numbers of people within each income group, yes, which is why we normalize the data.

But again, but this is just looking at drivers.

So someone who takes transit in the region would almost certainly not be impacted by this, but it's not showing up in this study at all either.

Not in this particular analysis.

We wanted to understand who might pay of people who were driving.

Yeah.

Because the- I think we are assuming that if you're not driving, you're not going to be impacted.

Right.

I'm interested in how income levels affect transit ridership, and my suspicion is that lower income people are higher users of transit, so they would also be less impacted by this because they're more likely to be taking transit.

But it depends.

But that's what I don't find compelling.

I mean, by what we have here, this data says 14.7% of the commuters or workers who drive in the region, 14.7% of the households that make more than 75K.

Right, that's what you said.

Of the group of 13%.

Yeah, of the 13%, yes.

We are assuming that's the universe at this moment.

The universe is the 13% of the workers, not all the workers.

But out of that, 14.7% of the households that make 75 or greater, that's what you said, right?

Who drive.

Will be impacted, yeah.

by the congestion pricing.

13% of the workers drive in the region, but not all of them will be impacted by the pricing because they're not all driving into downtown.

No, that's not exactly correct.

So 13% of the workers in the region who drive into downtown would be affected by, so we're saying that approximately 13% of the workers who drive in the region would be affected.

And then when we normalize the data, that enables us to say that even though there are different numbers of people who fall within each of those groups, we would expect that approximately 14.7%, approximately 15% of the people who make over 75K, who are within that bucket of 13% of drivers,

Right, right.

That's what I meant.

That's correct.

So this 15% is 15% of the households that make more than 75K.

Let's not debate the universe of the data again.

You're very clear about that.

So that's what I don't find very compelling, first of all, because it says nearly 12% of those under 50K will be impacted, and nearly 15% of those over 75K will be impacted.

Do you know what I'm saying?

I mean, it's not like you're saying 2% of those under 50K will be impacted and 15% of those above 75K will be impacted.

I mean, there's a 3 percentage point difference between the two numbers and that's not very compelling.

Do you know what I mean?

It's not that different.

It's true.

It is not that different.

And I think that was one of the important findings as we looked at just this initial data set is that the range that we were seeing is much smaller than we would have expected.

We would have expected the differences to be much greater than this, but we're not seeing that in this initial data set.

Right.

One of the things that we'll be able to do with the model that we're developing is to turn different policy dials to see if we had a discount program or a cap or other ways of adjusting the program design, how would that affect different income groups.

So this analysis is just sort of charging everyone exactly the same, no caps, no exemptions, no time of day changes.

Just a very first cut at sort of a yes or no impact.

Next we'll be looking at both the magnitude of the impact, like Jennifer talked about, and at different ways we can adjust those impacts.

Okay.

I'm glad you mentioned that, but I just, I think this needs to be said.

I think that is important to look at because congestion pricing, as we understand it in general, is a regressive tax.

It's, you know, because you're talking about a flat amount and it is going- It's flat, yes.

If it's, yes, I know, but We haven't you haven't done that yet.

I mean you're saying it's coming and I welcome that but at this moment your slide says creating an equitable pricing program and All it says is of these drivers more higher income people would be affected.

I mean, I feel like you're trying to make more out of what you have in this data than there is because it's not that much different.

12% of the households less than 50% 50k for 15% of households over 77 75k I mean that's it's not very compelling and and then on the other hand I think for a slide that's titled equitable pricing program it should be noted there in you know you should have another bullet point that says well you know Normally, congestion pricing, people's understanding of congestion pricing is that it's across the board, and so by definition, it's regressive, and you cannot talk about equity if you don't recognize that, because even if these numbers were very different, like a much smaller proportion of households of lower income was impacted, and I agree with you, it's good to have this, benchmark, because we shouldn't lull ourselves into thinking that low-income households aren't driving into downtown.

Maybe they're being compelled to drive into downtown, and I'll come to that later, but I think aside from that, if you're going to title a slide with the word equitable, then you have to recognize that if we're talking about a flat tax then, or flat pricing, whatever, then it is inevitable that low-income households are going to be paying more, and that is not equitable by definition.

So I want us to get off on the right foot here and not call something equitable when it's fundamentally not equitable.

I believe we were stating our intent there rather than making a claim, but that's an excellent point, and we'll carry that forward.

Thank you.

I think it's better to spell it out.

Thank you.

I know when I first saw this, I had a, well, I think a similar takeaway, but a different reaction, Council Member Sawant, because when I saw this, I was surprised at the lack of difference, and I thought that's what this was telling me, was that there's not much variability here.

And so if we do want to, we can't start with the assumption as I think you were saying, Council Member Sawant, that simply the higher income people drive more.

I do have a question about this data.

Because each household is going to be impacted differently based on their income.

Because the baseline of this is people who drive in the region, not to downtown.

And of course, it's not looking at people who take transit.

And the data point that I think would be more useful for me from a policy perspective is, of all the people that come downtown during the day, It could be to work or to drop people off or to play.

I don't know what that subset is.

Then looking by income, who's going to be impacted?

Because that will start to capture, you know, do wealthier people more often drive alone than take transit?

Or maybe wealthier people live closer to transit, so they take transit more.

I mean, so that universe and seeing how it spreads out is going to be really important.

And is that data that we have and just didn't slice it that way?

Or is it like we really couldn't get to that with our data set?

So the challenge of using the census-based data is that it is commute trips, and it absolutely does not capture all of that other travel that is so important to be able to fully answer these questions.

We did start our work by looking at the Household Travel Behavior Survey data from Puget Sound Regional Council.

The challenge there is we tried to slice and dice it by income and race is that the sample sizes are very, very small.

And so that was part of what Kristen was mentioning in terms of being able to oversample a little bit and get some better data there because that data set includes all trip types, not just commute trips.

So as we move into the next phase, hopefully we'll have more robust data from there and then we can do some intercept surveys and some other primary data collection to support what we're hearing through the outreach and engagement to really build that much more robust story.

Actually, I was wondering myself also, are you planning to do any primary data collection?

Because it's, I don't know, it seems like we might need that.

We don't have specific plans, but based on the feedback we're hearing, and I'm sure we'll have additional feedback, yeah.

Yeah, I would say it's extremely important in this case, because we're starting out with what's not equitable, and I'm definitely not going to be supporting something that is inequitable to begin with.

And so if we're talking about a tax, which is in my view, not an ideal thing.

I mean, I appreciated that you have a slide, and obviously, these comments are not directed at you.

You know, you're obviously representing the executive here, and that's totally, you know, it's just that you happen to be sitting here, so I have to give you my feedback, but I mean, I appreciated you.

putting this slide in where it says centering equity and it highlights the deeply regressive tax context that we are in.

But then if we recognize that, it's kind of counterintuitive to then have all of this based on an idea that actually has been proven to be inequitable for the most part.

I don't know what Stockholm and London and others have done.

If you are going to tell me that they did it in an equitable way, I would be very interested to hear.

I will say, though, on one of the things that you mentioned, in terms of discounts and those types of things.

I would urge you, though, that if you're coming up with a model to make it equitable, then it should not rely on households having to fill out a form or take some steps themselves in order to get the discount, because data, as you know, shows overwhelmingly that opt-in programs are undersubscribed.

I think that getting around equity, and I believe this is at least what I've heard from the mayor's office too, is a top priority for them.

And I think just the reality of we're going to pass something here in Seattle, it's going to have to be deeply equitable.

In my conversations with folks from both Stockholm and London, in the past couple years about how they do it.

Stockholm was interesting because their society is so much more equitable to begin with that the range of incomes within that community is, you know, it's not much.

It works out pretty well because everyone seems to make about the same amount of money.

But it's so much more equitable than we are.

In London, the answers I heard was, well, lower income people take more transit.

We're investing in transit.

But I think that the reality, we need to really understand that assumption, I think, is an OK place to start.

But we need much more data, because there are plenty of people that can barely afford to drive today, are not driving because they have great choices.

And making it harder for them is going to be challenging.

Exactly.

Yeah, I think that the point about already the investment in public transit that these cities have done, plus the fact that they have far more progressive tax systems, and the two are linked.

Because they have progressive tax systems, they're able to fund public services in the way that the United States as a whole, but especially regressive cities, tax cities like Seattle have failed to do because we don't have the revenues.

And so we're also talking about cities where there not only is it you know much less unequal, the society overall is much less unequal as Council Member Bryan is saying, but also that because of the much more equitable tax system there's already By the time the congestion pricing policies put in place, there's already been investment in public transit, as opposed to telling people, working people who may need to drive.

I'm speaking speculatively, assuming that there are many who are forced to drive.

that, well, pay now and then we will generate revenues to fund public transit in a better way so that, you know, five years from now you can start using the bus.

You know, that's not fair.

It's completely different from saying, hey, we have done amazing investments in public transit, you can use it now.

So it's really up to you.

If you end up spending more on tolling, then that's your problem.

That's totally different.

And I think in London, if I recall correctly, I don't remember the exact number, but I think hundreds of millions of investment.

in transit in advance of the congestion pricing, which is a beautiful model where you would get hundreds of millions of dollars in advance of this pricing scheme is a question we would have to address.

But another thing I want to, I mean, you can see clearly that when we get into this, you were very clear at the beginning, we don't have a proposal.

We're not even anywhere near considering a range of things.

We, the public and policy makers, want to get into that and so I don't want to jump too far ahead, but I do want to just acknowledge that some of the concepts I've heard that could address some of the concerns is that the price would not be flat, but it could be based on the value of the vehicle.

So a more expensive vehicle would pay more than a less expensive vehicle.

You talked a little bit about the vehicles that pollute more.

So, you know, a Hummer would pay more than a Prius.

And so there are tools that we could use.

Again, it's premature to figure out how you would do that and what the impacts were.

But I think critically getting the baseline data, really understanding who's currently using our various systems and why they're using that.

And then how do we, my goal here is one, around climate, so we gotta reduce emissions, we need to get them to frankly zero.

And two, around congestion, we wanna make sure that people can get around our city.

And frankly, it's really saying, if you choose to take transit, or you choose to walk or bike, I wanna make that the easiest, safest way to get around.

And if you choose to drive, but you live in a world where you have lots of options, but that's a choice you take, then that's okay as long as it meets our goals.

But we want to really minimize that.

Thank you for all of those comments.

They tie really nicely to the way that we'll close out some of this initial research.

So similar to what we saw in terms of income, we also looked at race.

And the story is very similar.

that, and not the impacts, but the rate of people who might be impacted, whether they are people of color, white, or folks who didn't identify or who chose more than one race, pretty similar across the board.

So, again, this is a place where we don't know the magnitude of the impact still.

We don't have great data.

We don't have the finer grained analysis to break out people of color into different racial and ethnic categories.

So, looking at everybody as a single group, we know is just one quick glimpse at the start of this.

But tying to the strategies to advance an equity agenda.

So what you were both hitting on is exactly in line with what we believe is critical to be able to develop an equitable pricing program.

We're really focused on equity in three key areas.

One of them is outreach and engagement.

We have to hear from the people who would be most affected.

We have to be able to collect that primary data and understand how people are traveling.

Program design is the second of those, and that involves looking at different geographies.

It involves looking at pricing levels, times of day, and exemptions.

And then revenue reinvestment is another key piece.

Transit service, of course, would be a big part of that, but also things like free transit passes.

discount programs, more active transportation infrastructure, better mobility information.

Our goal is to design the program well for equity outcomes so that things like exemptions and mitigations are less necessary.

Couple words about potential benefits for public transit.

So in addition to the potential for investing revenues in transit service, reducing congestion also helps to free up transit service hours and reduces travel time for transit riders.

And as was suggested, King County Metro Transit riders are generally more likely than the general King County population to have lower incomes or to have a disability.

They're much more likely to live in a household that doesn't own a vehicle or to be over the age of 55. So while those are sample data, they do help to suggest that improving transit service could have positive equity outcomes.

And then finally, in terms of climate benefits, so again, we have not modeled yet, and we did some quick estimation of potential reductions in vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gases based on trip reductions.

So we essentially looked at how many trips might not be made by driving to develop these rough estimates.

The chart here shows a potential vehicle miles traveled reduction that ranges from 14 to 23% of the baseline, and that baseline is where we are today, to 22 to 30% in 2035, and that is against a control scenario for 2035. Greenhouse gas reduction estimates for those same scenarios are about 6 to 10 percent from the baseline and about 10 to 13 percent in 2035. So we could see some significant reductions in vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions potentially.

So that is a very quick summary of a few of the elements of our early work.

Kristen's going to talk a little bit more about what's next.

I think we've actually covered a lot of the material in these next slides during the question and answers we've had so far, but I'll just go through them quickly.

I wanted to emphasize, as we've been talking about, that as we move forward, we'll be very focused on equity, both in terms of the outreach process and in terms of designing a potential program.

The steps we'll be taking moving forward include more work on an equity strategy, starting the public engagement process in the fall, developing that modeling tool and doing additional analysis on potential impacts and benefits.

So a little bit more about the modeling tool.

That is going to let us adjust different policy levers and pricing levels to see the results of those changes on different populations.

It'll let us try different times of day, for example, different pricing levels, different fleet types.

Really any of the different things we want to try to adjust, we can see what different outcomes would be.

And that's work that we'll be doing over the summer.

And then this, just going back to our sort of where are we now slide, thinking about doing engagement over the fall, working with the Department of Neighborhoods to design that process so it's inclusive and comprehensive, especially given any potential equity impacts.

We really want to make sure that our engagement reaches the people who would be affected and takes their input into consideration as we move forward.

Just a few comments, some of them just to reiterate points that were made, but some additional.

Yeah, I would just reiterate that it seems to me, I mean, you obviously know better because you've been studying this issue very closely.

It seems to me that we do need to do a primary data collection in order to get real guidance on who's going to be impacted.

unless we find a workaround with existing data, which you'll let us know, of course.

I would also highlight that when we look at this, we also need to take into account the fact that Because of the affordable housing crisis, more and more lower income households, and at this point we're in, you know, it's middle class, households that used to think of themselves as middle class are now so adversely impacted.

The farther away you're pushed from your place of work, I'm assuming you have to come anywhere in the downtown vicinity, the more likely it is that probably, again, I don't know if there's data to show this, but I would assume that that more likely it is for you to be difficult to take public transit, you know, because maybe you don't have direct routes, it takes longer, and you can't afford that time.

I know of workers who come to UW, for example, you know, work at the UW campus, but definitely cannot afford to live anywhere close to that.

They live in, you know, Kent and so on.

And so, they do use the Sounder.

I'm sorry, what is it?

Sounder.

I thought I was saying it wrong.

But that has very limited frequency.

And if you don't go home at a certain time, and if you think you're going to have to stay late for work, then you have to drive in.

So those are real world problems that people face.

So the farther away you are commuting from, the more likely you will be impacted.

And that's, again, by income because of the housing crisis.

The other thing that I've heard a lot, which I would really urge you to take into consideration, is construction workers who come and work in many of these sites, they will tell you, if you talk to them, and I have to talk to many of them, they will tell you that often they are not driving is not an option for them because they travel with their tool, they commute with their tools, and they sometimes, not sometimes, they say often they have to go from job site to job site at short notice, and that it simply doesn't work out for them to depend on public transit, and they will directly be impacted, and they will also tell you that they are already paying through the nose to for-profit companies that own parking garages.

So already they are being, you know, they're being exploited in that way.

And then if you put a toll on them on top of that, it will be extremely burdensome and very unjust.

And the other point I'll make is that in terms of what What metric we use to decide if we are, you know, if you are, I mean, if the executive is genuinely committed to making this equitable, then you're going to have to use some measure, you know, to decide who pays more and who pays less.

I don't think the car car, make of the car, or the cost of the car.

I don't know how perfect, how good of an indicator that is.

I think a much better metric is income.

I don't know how you would do that.

I mean, as an economist, I can see the problems with data collection, which is why I don't support congestion pricing in general, because it seems to me, although it is politically difficult, as you have seen, From an economic standpoint, taxing big business and the wealthy households is the much better route.

In Stockholm, London, all these cities have done that.

And so if you're going to follow them on congestion pricing, why not follow them on something much more sensible?

But regardless, having said that and having recognized the data difficulties, income is a much better measure by which to decide equity.

Another point I'll make about the cars is that often Uber and Lyft drivers were deeply exploited right now by the Uber and Lyft corporations.

They have nice looking cars and newer cars because that's what that's a necessity for them for their business and if this kind of congestion pricing is going to fall on the drivers then that will be quite inequitable if there's such a word.

And I would just want to note of course for the record that I strongly am fighting for and advocating for a zero carbon goal by 2030. I think that there are far more that they're very, very equitable, very just and far more sensible measures like taxing big business to massively expand public transit.

And I just want to state my, all my reservations and concerns for the record with congestion pricing.

Thank you.

Councillor Pacheco.

Just two quick questions.

How does the mayor's office currently perceive public support for congestion pricing?

And I know you're not the mayor, but.

So we have been doing this initial analysis work sort of behind the scenes, and we'll be starting our community engagement in the fall, and I think that's when we'll really start to hear how the public feels about this.

And my second question is just going back to the other cities that have implemented congestion pricing.

Did those programs achieve their initial objectives?

Because as I understand it, when I look at the specific policy, to Council Member O'Brien's point, for me, it's to relieve congestion, to reduce single occupancy trips.

both to reduce CO2 emissions, and then lastly, to raise additional revenue for transportation investments, hopefully, not hopefully, with the objective that we're doing it in an equitable way or minimize impacts to communities of color.

So I'm just curious how those other cities that did implement it or implement these programs, how did they initially achieve those goals?

I mean, outside of the CO2 reductions that we saw, what other things that...

I would say that it's, I don't want to speak directly for any of them and say absolutely yes.

I think in conversations with them, what they would tell you is they did see movement in the right direction on their goals with the implementation of the program.

They were generating revenues that they were reinvesting.

They saw congestion go down.

They saw emissions go down.

So yes, but I think what's really important about all of those programs is that they've continued to adjust and make refinements.

None of these cities are still operating the exact same congestion pricing program that they put in place a decade ago.

And so it is really a continual process to meet those goals and to ensure that the benefits are being realized and reinvested in ways that are equitable.

And I think translating that to Seattle, it would be really important to be clear about what our goals and highest priorities are, because you might design a program differently if your highest priority was emissions versus street space and congestion versus any other goals that you might identify.

So that'll be part of the public conversation as well.

A couple things that I want to highlight.

First of all, colleagues, I really appreciate the engagement on this, and I appreciate your ongoing work on this.

There's going to need to be obviously lots of conversations in our community about this as we continue to work through this.

I think that As you mentioned, I think, Jennifer, you mentioned at the beginning that this isn't a terribly efficient way to collect revenue.

I mean, if we were just looking to collect revenue, we would probably do it a different way.

And I think to Council Member Swan's point, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if the goal is to build a much more robust transit system, And we want to raise revenue for it.

Congestion pricing would not be the tool we would use.

We would use something else.

And we probably need to do that.

And can you build on it?

That needs to be the goal.

Otherwise, yeah, zero carbon is not an option.

But we've also seen that for reducing congestion, and frankly, from my perspective at least, the various models I've seen, getting to our climate goals, it's hard to imagine how we can do that without a tool like congestion pricing to change behavior and use the automobile.

And doing that in an equitable way I think our values are pretty aligned here, but it's really hard until we know who's using it.

So I just want to reiterate that.

Right.

Yeah, exactly.

I think congestion pricing by itself versus congestion pricing combined with world-class mass transit, I think they're two totally different things we're talking about.

And so we put, I can't remember, two years ago when we put the money in the budget or whatever, a year and a half ago, 200,000, 250,000, I can't remember what the number was.

Then I know last year there was additional money in the budget, I think a million dollars for some work, and did that go, was this report the result of just the budget amount from a year and a half ago, or was it augmented from last year's budget?

That was slightly less than the budget amount, than the initial budget amount, so we've carried forward a little bit of the leftover to start the modeling work.

Okay.

And so is that million dollars that was in last year's budget, if I remember that correctly, is that being used, how is that being used in the umbrella of congestion pricing from here on forward?

So we'll use a little bit of that to finish the modeling work and then develop a work plan and budget for the outreach and engagement and for future analysis work going forward.

So it sounds like that's not all going to be spent this year.

We've been very frugal.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then we also won a Bloomberg award, which was a little complicated.

It was less about dollars and more about support, although it was termed in dollars worth of support.

Technical assistance.

Okay.

How has that, like, has that been helpful on the...

on the modeling work or have we figured out how to get the technical assistance as useful for us?

Are we still working through that?

We're working with them.

The award was for congestion pricing as well as for some building energy work.

So we're working with them on what the scope of both of those would look like.

Okay.

Yeah.

Great.

I'm really interested in how we can get as robust a data set as possible for the question that I've asked multiple times today.

And so it would be really helpful, if it's possible, prior to budget this year, getting a sense of what that modeling work is going to tell us.

And if it's an amazing model and we have all the inputs we need for the model and we're going to get great information, that's great.

I can imagine a scenario where we have a model, but we have don't have great data to put into the model, and if we need to be doing more robust survey work or intercept work or coming up with, you know, if it's whether it's piggybacking on PSRC's data, which it sounds like we're doing now, or we need to create our own thing, I would certainly love to at least be considering what the options are for getting a more robust data set as we go into budget this year as opposed to waiting another year.

I will reiterate that ask more formally, but would love to get some feedback maybe by September to see where we are so that can help inform some of our budget work going into the fall.

That seems like a reasonable timeline.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other, Council Member Swan?

One point I forgot, I thought it would be useful to mention.

Another constituency we have heard a lot of concerns from about any congestion pricing is disabled community members.

The ability to use metro access vehicles or any other options is limited, admittedly, at this point, and a lot of disabled community members are forced to drive.

So I think that has to be an important consideration as well.

Thanks for bringing that up.

So I guess I wasn't joking.

We did spend an hour talking about congestion pricing, so that was outstanding.

It's clearly an area of high interest and concern.

I'm excited about it and very concerned about it at the same time.

So I appreciate your ongoing work.

Look forward to the next conversation.

And colleagues, again, thanks for the engagement on this critical thing that we need to figure out.

Anything else for the good of the order?

then we will be adjourned.

Thanks so much.