A new poll on November's transportation ballot indicates the measure could go either way. It's an Elway poll, and as usual the internals aren't available which makes skepticism a very good choice, but it shows the public leaning toward the measure.
As one would expect and as other polling data has shown, support goes down when people hear the full household cost and those most likely to vote aren't thrilled with the package. That's pretty similar to the dynamics for I-912, whose outcome is instructive for this election.
Yes, there is a passionate core of opposition this year just as with the gas tax. Yet, the baseline appeal of a balanced roads-transit package to a majority of voters in the voting area for this election is real. If a similar campaign unfolds where the pro-transportation side targets its message community by community, highlighting the specific projects in the proposal that interest the individual voter - while the anti-tax side remains relatively disorganized - then the measure just might win.
That's a big if, but by all indications the specific campaign dynamics unfolding on the pro and con side of the issue look remarkably similar to the I-912 race. And that issue wasn't even close in the voting area making the decision this time around.
Or that ST plans to expand into Mount Vernon, but at least all of rural Snohomish County.
Posted by: swatter on June 28, 2007 08:12 AMIt is million$ of dollars. Each of the various jurisdictions was "promised" projects that were to be built in and services which were to be provided that would be of benefit to voters in those areas. This was an attempt to get the suckers to buy off on SoundMove.
The reason we see "subareas" is because the voters outside Seattle were skeptical, to say the least, that anything would be done that was not what Seattle wanted and Seattle wants light rail and couldn't give two hoots and a holler about what has to be done to get it.
ST is somewhat constrained by this subarea equity, however they have made attempts to "lend" money from the east and south subarea to impliment light rail in Seattle. Stopping this has also cost YOU millions because YOUR City's staff has had to be present at meetings gallore and has had to devote staff time (which should be spent working to improve your local jurisdiction) to fighting to get what was "promised" and to prevent YOUR money from being pissed down the light rail rat hole.
And let's not let them get tecnical, Stefan will have the original SoundMove documents and will be able to post what was presented to the public soon. This is what the public voted on, not bla bla 75, which was never widely circulated or even mentioned to the voters prior to the vote. In order to have been aware of it you would have had to have devoted your entire life to attending each and every meeting held prior to the vote and then probably have made endless PDR requests. They are in the mail on the way to him as I type, conspicuous is their absense from SDTs website and believe me this is by design. I had the foresight to recognize that there would come a day when these documents would come in handy and that when that day arrived that they would be hard to come by. 7 Years ago I PDF'd them for posterity's sake.
As to ST, I don't think the vote in question changes their boundary (essentially the I-5 and I-405 corridors from Everett south) much, if at all. Meanwhile and rural parts of the county won't even be voting on the roads part of the package either.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 28, 2007 08:28 AMEric, can you provide more detail on this? I had heard that parts of Pierce county might do this because of a dispute over what was included in the roads package - has that been decided?
I'm in a rural area of King County unincorporated, and I still pay ST taxes, even though it's highly unlikely that their light rail will ever work for me.
Posted by: Palouse on June 28, 2007 08:39 AMMy disdain for the commute is outweighed by the madness and taxes that govern King County.
Posted by: Andy on June 28, 2007 08:45 AMAnd frankly, I think Snohomish County and Pierce County aren't dense enough to be called "urban" yet, but hey, ST and the State call it "urban" enough for mass transit, so who am I to say.
The Herald today talked about part of the tri-County proposal being added to this year's vote instead of waiting.
Now, while evergreen rails might have been correct in calling me an idiot over the past few days, this transportation situation is confusing, to say the least.
And when something the government does is confusing, I run away from it with my battery powered Nikes. Like in the gooey detail of the immigration package.
I believe that all laws are good intentioned, but when and after they get passed, good intentions go out the window when attorneys get involved.
Posted by: swatter on June 28, 2007 08:53 AMWith polls like this, what the questions actually say is far more important than what the percentages of "agree" vs. "disagree" are.
There wasn't public money used to pay for this, was there? Renton Valley Hospital just got dinged by the PDC for doing that.
Posted by: Orting on June 28, 2007 09:36 AMYou know, like the 31% whack on promised projects AFTER the gas tax vote?
The problem for those remotely considering voting for this garbage is you really have no idea what you're going to get.
The only thing you have is a list of what they SAY you're going to get. But hey, didn't we have that with the gas tax?
I, for one, will be eternally grateful to all those rabid supporters of the gas tax we're going to get screwed on for the nex 29 years or so. I hope they're thrilled... especially since the project list will continue to shrink due to "unforeseen" cost increases.
Odd, isn't it? That the viaduct hasn't seemed to have fallen down by now? I was sure that it would have been a pile of rubble long ago based on what the pro-taxers were telling us.
HHhhmmmmmm.....
Posted by: Hinton on June 28, 2007 10:34 AMSure it might be legal. But if the sponsors of the measure are paying for the poll, then the questions asked would be designed by Elway to generate favorable responses.
It is all about what the questions really were, and how they are asked. Especially when nobody knows what is actually being promised by RTID and ST.
Posted by: Orting on June 28, 2007 10:46 AMStill, some cities are adopting the flex-taxi idea I proposed in 1993 to Metro:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/27/10408/3462/#1
"A story in the new Plenty magazine gives details on a cab company that's giving the late-night clubbing crowd of Liverpool great green service with the magic of text messages..."
Posted by: John Bailo on June 28, 2007 11:38 AMSo let's mention that FULL COST once again..
$18,333 per man woman and child (maybe even dog, if they vote)
How big is your family
If you are a yes vote why not write out the check and deposit it in the ballot box so even if loses they will have enough boondoggle cash to celebrate with a 300k party if they ever stop studying and actually get around to building anything.
Posted by: GS on June 28, 2007 10:11 PMFolks you were conned by the queen during the last transportation gas tax increase. Vote for it for the viaduct about to fall and the bridge. Give me a break. People voted for it and like suckers they don't have a clue why the things are not being built.
Now roads which we need are being lumped together with "mass" transit which we don't need. And we are expected to pay the piper for this boondoggle which will result in less roads and more trains and buses. Wonderful. Are you people nuts or what. Look at their track record and ask yourselves if you would trust them with anything? They are nothing more then corrupt politicians.
Care to talk about their relationships with the special interest groups that wash their backs. Maybe the unions or perhaps the sanctuaries for illegal aliens. I say it is time to stop this expensive madness. Vote NO for any new taxes. Transportation or otherwise. Wait for new management at the top.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 1, 2007 11:14 PM