An Instructive Win for Transit in Spokane

Downtown Spokane is really spectacular, by the way. Photo by William Jacobs vs Pexels.com

In many US cities, voters will soon be asked to invest in public transit operations, if only to sustain services as operating costs rise.  Depending on your social media circle, you may be hearing a lot of negative voices about transit generally, so it might be useful to look closely at the just-completed battle in a very “purple” place, i.e. a place with plenty of Democrats but also lots of Republicans.  What’s interesting is the specific arguments that the opposition made, some of which you can expect when this issue comes up in your community.

Spokane, Washington’s transit agency faced the voters on August 4 in a special election in order to renew their 0.2% sales tax.  This renewal does not let them expand the total quantity of service very much, but it does ensure that they can maintain the current level of service well into the future.  The measure looks like it has passed although the State of Washington takes a long time to confirm, but it was a nail-biter — currently 51.5% in favor.  (You can follow the results here.)

Again, the Spokane metro area is not an especially progressive place, although there are concentrations of progressives especially in the City of Spokane and the college town of Cheney.  It is in a safe Republican congressional seat.   Spokane County (85% of whose population is in the transit agency boundary) voted 50.6% for Donald Trump in 2024 and 54.6% for the Republican candidate for governor the same year.

Knowing that, it’s striking that the leading opponents of the measure all emphasized how much they support public transit.  You’ll see that in

• This public television debate between a prominent support and a prominent opponent.
• The Spokane Journal of Business editorial in opposition.
• The Downtown Spokane Partnership statement.
• The statement of the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce (representing a suburban area east of Spokane but within the transit district)

The Downtown Spokane Partnership statement gives the essence of these business-based arguments:

After careful consideration about fiscal priorities and timing, the DSP Board voted to oppose Proposition 1 on the August 2026 ballot. Consistent feedback from DSP members and the broader community indicates that the community’s highest priorities remain focused on addressing urgent public needs that affect safety, economic vitality, and quality of life. The DSP believes those priorities should remain the primary focus of new public revenue commitments at this time.

The’s DSP’s opposition to Prop. 1 is not a reflection of the value of public transit, or the quality of the services STA provides. Our position reflects the reality that taxpayers are being asked to fund a growing number of important public needs at a time when available resources are limited. In this environment, difficult choices must be made about which investments should take precedence.

None of the leading business arguments claim that transit is unimportant, or that it’s obsolete because we’ll soon have driverless cars.  Instead, they affirmed how much they support transit, and then gave these arguments, which we should expect in city after city:

• “There are other more urgent priorities.”  They emphasize other obvious needs — help with public safety, homelessness, etc.  This gives opponents the opportunity to give speeches about those problems as though the transit agency has anything to do with them.  This is going to be a common issue.  In city after city, transit seems to be everyone’s fifth priority.  Business leaders are going to keep saying “this isn’t the right time,” as though they would be more supportive at some other time.  Other urgent priorities are not going away, and at some point it’s going to be necessary to deal with this one even though those others are still urgent too.
• They think that the agency doesn’t need the money.  In some places you’ll hear opponents imply that transit agencies should just break their union and pay people less, even though the current salaries of bus drivers and mechanics are mostly market-driven and reflect the difficulty of hiring those positions.  In Spokane, where the agency has been managed carefully, the agency has a substantial reserve.  Opponents demanded that the agency spend down that reserve, moving the system closer to the real fiscal cliff that many agencies face.

What can we learn from this?  If you live in a progressive bubble, remember that even in your city, voters receptive to these arguments are likely to make the difference in a transit election.  Be ready with responses like the ones I’ve given above.  Above all, don’t talk about transit as though it were a progressive thing.  Don’t talk about free fares or structural racism or overthrowing capitalism when you’re trying to get people to vote for transit.  Emphasize instead the diversity (including political diversity) of the people who find it useful.

In most communities (yours may vary) the swing voter is politically moderate and often respectful of local business leadership.  In Spokane, this swing voter probably voted for Trump but cares about their community and is open to taxes that provide efficient investments that deliver outcomes they value.  In this election, Spokane Transit’s good management and a careful “yes” campaign appears to have won the day over very well-organized and well-funded opposition.  It will be a victory worth learning from.