September 17, 2007
The Roads & Transit Measure Defined
Updated with information on SurveyUSA poll below.
The poll mentioned in Stefan's broader post on November's transportation ballot measure raises an interesting point. It explicitly raises the scope of the tax increase in the language of the poll questions, in what are otherwise generic queries on the issues at hand. Obviously, when the question is all about costs and not about specific projects the measure is in trouble.
It seems fair to argue at this point that if the election for this measure becomes more about the messages contained in these ads and related direct mail, like that which worked against I-912, the measure may well pass. If the election becomes more about the raw price tag the measure will probably fail.
A couple wildcards with the poll: it says the questions were asked to registered voters "from King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties." For one, this is likely to be a relatively low-turnout general election so accurate polls need to have a quality likely-voter screen, not just a sampling of registered voters.
Two, if the voters weren't screened down to those actually living within the relevant boundaries then that's another problem. The election for this measure will be for voters living within the current Sound Transit district plus another universe of exurban Snohomish County residents (roughly Marysville, Lake Stevens, Snohomish, and Monroe) who will only vote on - and only potentially pay - the road tax. That's a rather different universe than a full sampling of registered voters across the entire tri-county area on both the roads and transit portions of the measure. Without such a screen to ensure the question actually gets asked to truly eligible voters the poll becomes somewhat worthless. If there was such a screen it has more value.
I've emailed SurveyUSA and Up Front to see if I can get any clarification on that last point since between the crosstabs and Robert Mak's brief intro of the poll for his story it's not clear. I'll post whatever I hear back.
UPDATE: The good folks at Survey USA did responded quickly in the spirit of the laudable transparency they employ for their work (note they always release crosstabs with their polls, unlike many of their peers). The poll was for the broader universe of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, not the more narrow, actual voting area that will decide the transportation measure in November. Thus, despite the general reliability of SurveyUSA's work, the value of this poll is minimal. The only real takeaway is that in a silo voters aren't thrilled about the price tag of the measure, which was probably a fair assumption to begin with.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 17, 2007
09:45 PM | Email This
1. Don't forget that I-912 also was a double negative: you had to vote yes to opposes the taxes. This one will be much simpler, just with a ridiculously long ballot title.
2. Robert Mak did a good job of reporting and asking tough questions to proponents of Prop. 1, to which they acted like deer hypnotized by headlights. The raw price tag needs to get publicized along with the ramifications on remaining infrastructure if this monster passes. Will concerned citizens win out over the collective apathy and the measure go down or will it be passed ? Clearly, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS !
For more details, see http://www.truthabouttraffic.org
3. If we vote yes to the RTID measure,we will set transportaion in our region back 40 years..more.
We can't possibly consider any other tax measure other than an original corridor tax measure that will focus on our aging bridge structure.
With the collapse of the Bridge in Minnesota,We should do the right thing and pull the measure off the ballot.
Our priorities need to be re-examined.
4. RTID / ST2 is the perfect storm of way too many construction lobbies that are seeing the $$$$ signs of huge rail projects, and anti-man Seattle Progressives that really believe that rail and bicycles are the answer to future transportation needs.
It's an obvious no vote. But, the Lobbyists, Constructions Firms and Progressives will do a lot of slick marketing to try and get this passed.
5. Dig a little deeper into the polling methodology. They use Random Digit Dailing and a pre-recorded voice to do their polling! People answering the phone are asked to "press 1" if they are registered to vote, and so forth. They don't even use the available phone numbers of real registered voters. This is Robo-Polling, the lazy-man's way (and the cheap way) to get some numbers to throw onto the screen during the newscast.
I received one of these calls once, and I just hung up. I figured if the polling company couldn't be bothered to hire a live body to talk to me, they weren't worth responding to.
6. come on, for just a few pennies an hour you could have the best light rail system north of Longview and south of BC
7. Hey, "R on Beacon Hill", thanks for joining the fray. rpence = Roger Pence? If so, we're tickled pink and delighted to get your comments, but it would be good form to identify yourself Sound Transit Community Outreach Coordinator.
8. No for RTID and yes to riding the S.L.U.T.
What's so funny is that this short stretch of Trolley is over budget and our "elected" leaders are saying that RTID won't. Yeah right.
9. RTID would/could be a great opportunity for theR and L to join together on the key issue of accountability. There seem to be no answers to critical questions on this issue and NO leadership at the rgional or state level.
So, isn't thsi exactly the palce Rossi ought to get off Guzzo's ass and show the leadership CG does not have?
He culd do hikmself a lot of goos, moreover, by taking a nuanced stands instead of the usual stupid "its taxes. stupid" stupidity of reactionaries.
Obviously we need a businesslike way, not special levies, for paying for maintenance of infrastructure. Why not stary by writing legislation that owld require an economic impact satement on any intitative that can effect taxes.
How about a law that prog=hibits use of bionds to pay for mainteneance?
The RTID ads say that locals will get the tax money spent locally. I call horse dung in this. It looks to me as if Seattle is being farked. Wouldn't is be sumpin if DR came out in favor of the Seattle taxpayer?
Being agin everything is stupid, the kind of thing that turns indies like me against Repricans. opposition to RTID should include a realistic alternative TOLL Roads!
10. What Jeff B and a lot of the other folks who commented on Stefan's last piece and believe that building more roads -not transit- is the answer to our region's congestion problems don't seem to get is that people move to and live in this region in great part because of the natural beauty. Along with concerns about air pollution and global warming, most Puget Sounders don't want to see the region paved over.
While many of the conservatives on this blog are pro-transit (they just want to see it planned, built and operated in an efficient manner) the ones who just whine about too much money invested in transit and not enough in pavement should learn to accept the fact that their values are quite a bit different than the majority of central Puget Sound voters. And, if they don't like it, why don't they just move to someplace like Idaho or Wyoming where their values are more the norm?
11. #10 - very few, if any, people here are AGAINST transit. Just rail transit, which is too expensive and ineffective. I am for roads and transit. Buses, Bus-Rapid-Transit, car services, ride sharing, car/van pools, etc. Just not trains. That's why my household is voting no on this boondoggle.
12. So let's all understand Bill's point. You as a concerned taxpayer must be willing to give up any realistic expectation of congestion relief and wastefully spend hundreds of Billions of Dollars (as proven from their previous projects) or you should leave the area immediately. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to get rid of the Democratic monopoly that has failed to perform for the last two and a half decades?
13. Huh @12:
No my point is that any idea of congestion relief that involves paving over the region - which we now know only begets more congestion in the long run- is a non-starter with the majority of voters. I don't agree with Palouse's distaste for rail transit, but at least all the other options he mentions @11 are more efficient and environmentally and esthetically reasonable than building more pavement to address congestion. And more effective, too!
14. Well then Bill, by your own logic mass transit should be roads based. While you disagree with Palouse on trains you then state "all of the other options he mentions @11 are more efficent and environmentally and esthetically reasonable than building more pavement to address congestion. And more effective, too!". Did you happen to notice that "the other options" he mentions are "Roads and Transit" "Buses" (which run on roads), "Bus-Rapid-Transit" (which run on roads), "car services" (which run on roads), "ride sharing" (roads), "car/van pools" (roads). So essentially Bill you agree that Roads and Road based options offer more opportunity for successful congestion relief that will be more "efficient, environmentally and esthetically reasonable and effective". Trains/ light rail can offer an "option" but by ST's own admission it will not be a solution to congestion.
15. Huh wrote it well in #14, but I'll just expand on the point regarding "paving over the region", which seems to be a red herring type argument from the rail folks. Expanding the major thoroughfares already in existence is not "paving over the region". The GMA would not be rescinded by expanding 167, 405 and 520. Development would still be regulated, and farms are not going to suddenly disappear.
They could make dedicated bus lanes, HOT lanes, and congestion pricing along with it. Any or all of those options are fine with me. Those things will actually do something to relieve congestion. Rail will not.
16. Rail is often a good choice for improving mobility on a given corridor because, much better than other transit choices, it helps spur nodes of development around the station areas, creating more walkable communities. That equals much reduced environmental impacts from the kinds of sprawl development driven by new highway lane miles. Also, by utilizing dedicated right of way, it's more dependable and head times are generally more frequent. BRT can have the same dependability, but only with dedicated right of way, and then it gets to be just about as expensive as rail, but with a wider footprint. But, don't get me wrong, BRT is a great choice in a lot of corridors (check out the Silver Line in Boston, where it only made sense to use dedicated ROW on part of the route). But, let's face it, people love trains and if a dedicated bus line is going to be just as expensive as a train, why not take advantage of the narrower footprint, better land-use impacts and higher ridership of rail.
17. I don't need to spur devlopment!,I need people to take an express service from where they live now.
Pave over the region!.
SR 900 IS THE SAME SINCE MY GRANDFATHER WAS ALIVE DRIVING THE WILLIS.
Let property owners take long term leases to the bank to spur development.
If we are dependant on Transportation funding to spur development something is wrong..like no profitable business concepts under long term lease to take to a bank.
18. Bill, Bill, Bill "But let's face it people love trains" no not true. "And IF a dedicated bus line is going to be just as expensive as a train" assuming facts not in evidence. "Why not take advantage of a narrower footprint, better land use impacts and higher ridership of rail." Because ST's own studies show the net effect will be the same congestion with Billions of dollars more in debt and a new government workforce. The overhead, retirement plans and unions to go with them. Does anyone remember what happened to NYC when the transit workers went on strike? Apparently you are still standing by the vote my way or leave the state stance, talk about your "narrow corridor".
19. BileL,
Original corridor investments are needed even if it were only High speed rail.
We cant move everyone into a high rise.
That is a cop out.
We are letting our original corridors crumble.
More local traffic belongs on the original corridors.
Spuring development and gentrification only leads to old bridges collapsing.
Snap out of it man.
That footprint stuff is something to get the greenies whoop whopp whooping.
Really you are just using sophisms to mask over the lack of profitable businesses under long term leases to take to the bank for loans to rebuild the intercities,and the intercities dependence on transportation dollars to achieve gentrification..
The intercities don't give a rats a$$ about a footprint.
the only footprint they care about is the footprints on the way to the bank with higher square footage rates,higher property taxes ....God I am sick of you greenie sob's
You make my stomach sick
20. Shark @ 7: Felt I had no need to ID myself as a Sound Transit employee. I was speaking only for myself; I am NOT an ST "spokesperson".
Besides, I was told by more than one that you would jump at the chance to "out" me to your group, and by golly, you came through as predicted
21. Well now Mr. sound transit on beacon hill,
You did not have the guts to tell us all up front who you were.
You thought you could come on the thread and appear to be a regular citizen with no ties.
Then you were caught,and now you blame Stephan for blowing your cover.
After what Geoff Simpson did you should have known better.
There is nothing worse than a paid mouthpiece trying to appear on a public forum as a regular joe.
Your actions epitomize the Gentrification,property tax happy Seattle centrics that lie like rugs.
How does it feel to be part of team mule skinner Mr.Pence.
Be a man,tell us who you are so Stephan doesn't have to.
Thanks Stephan.
22. Roger,
Nice try with the "victim" card, a classic bit of spin from someone with the hand in the cookie jar. Just a few questions now that you are here.
What (approximately) do you make as an outreach coordinator? Do you have budget authority for public outreach activites? Are you or is your organization actively visiting blogs and alternative media sources and spreading the Pro RTID/Pro ST /Pro prop 1 message? Are encouraging your staff/ co-workers to do so ? I don't mind an alternative point of view, but if I am essentially "paying" for the message, I want to know I am addressing a paid advocate from a government agency with skin in the game. I see you staffers acting as "concerned citizens" at meetings all of the time. You will stroll up during public comment periods, spout the company line and question the veracity or motivation of anyone with an opinion other than their own. Occasionally you folks get caught by someone who interacts with government all of the time, someone who recognizes a name from a report or maybe a face. I think it's a shame that ST's position is soo weak that it has to hide behind the persona of "joe citizen" in order to dialog with taxpayers about this Two Hundred-billion dollar mistake.
23. @21 abd @22 -- PLEASE go back and read my post @5. It was about the bogus KING5 polling process. Nothing else. Not about Sound Transit. Not about Roads & Transit. (I know, I know, sometimes it's more fun to just let those fingers run over that keyboard, rather than actually READ something and then THINK about what you're saying)