In addition to Stefan's coverage of the Elway Poll now out and about, the Yes on Roads and Transit has been out in the field too...about a week after Elway in this case.
Their findings were modestly higher than Elway's 54% level of support for the measure, starkly similar to their last poll over the summer. Of note, unlike Elway and that flawed SurveyUSA poll, pollster Tim Hibbitts is only sampling voters within the geographic boundary that will actually cast ballots on Proposition 1. Thus, his polling is excluding the exurban and rural voters being captured by the other two pollsters. No mystery that support for the measure goes up in the more urban demographics.
Also of note, while Elway has support for the measure going down slightly - to 54% from 57% (with a 5% margin of error) - he also found voters polled increasingly view the package as a positive step forward for transportation in the Puget Sound region and view it as having a "reasonable cost."
Most intriguingly, and which should raise red flags for the anti-light rail folks on one side of the opposition and the anti-roads zealots on the other: Elway has the proposition passing as a package, but each individual component of roads and transit fails as a stand-alone option when voters are given that choice. The balance - as touted in the Roads and Transit ads - it indeed a significant selling point of the proposal.
The down side of the Hibbitts poll is that it isn't being released in full so it has to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. For what it's worth, I'm told his polling pegged the I-912 results very well, falling just a couple points off on the conservative side. All that being said, future surveys on this topic that keep polling outside the proposition's boundaries are begging for skepticism of their results.
Long story short, support for the measure seems a little deeper than what public pollsters are capturing thanks to their flawed geographic samples. But it's still awfully close.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 25, 2007 09:52 PM | Email ThisFor a number of reasons I think that's what we're stuck with in the run-up to this election. Neither Survey USA nor Elway quite have their polling universes right for this issue so the resulting discussion of their results is flawed, even considering the fact their own results differ widely.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 26, 2007 07:40 AMAlong the I-5 and I-90 corridors, where further highway widening is problematic or impossible, the measure provides an alternative whose congestion is uncorrelated with the state of the highways. In other corridors (I-405, SR 520, SR 167), it increases highway capacity.
It is designed to facilitate massive overspending and corruption. There is an essentially unlimited taxing authority grant, of very regressive taxes. And that is coupled with no spending restrictions!
The board of Sound Transit is made up of political appointees only. They could overpay their political supporters wildly, and no better leaders could be elected onto that board for the duration. That would be exactly the situation that caused the Big Dig in Massachusetts to careen wildly out of control.
Why not have some reasonable oversight terms or cost control measures? How could that NOT be a huge, necessary improvement?
Nobody has any idea who would be appointed to that board to spend billions, and issue tens of billions of long-term debt. The scumbag Olson from Earling's neck of the woods who just resigned was vice chairman of ST - you trust him? That's the character of these people.
It is a black mark on our political leadership - of both parties - that they allowed this unaccountable, exceedingly risky measure to go to the ballot. All cost overruns would fall on individuals and families. This is designed to allow massive sales tax revenue bailouts - so there would be no incentive for the appointees on the boards to spend frugally.
This is the worst kind of government structure and taxing plan imaginable. We owe it to our neighbors to do all we can to reject it.
Instead of spending tax dollars on ways to facilitate greater distances between work and home, let congestion work to make those distances shrink.
Affordable housing will continue to exist out on the fringes where location can be traded against convenience.
Those neighborhoods, towns and cities that develop or retain walkable, mixed-use development patterns will be fine.
Those locations that need heavy public investment to support clearly unaffordable development patterns will either wither away, or change.
Why social engineer putting everyone in their cars all the time? Build no more new freeways or transit - let the market place do its job.
Posted by: BA on September 26, 2007 12:15 PMYeah, the problem is that there is WAY too much of something for 2% of the commuters.
Posted by: Palouse on September 26, 2007 01:11 PMGood job pointing on the difference between Elway and Hibbits. With Elway's small sample size, sampling the real district can make a big difference.
No one should be surprised the the YES numbers going down a tad. Tax measures generally decline in support over the course of a campaign. Getting people to vote yes on big tax votes like this is tough - and should be.
I'll call this one as too close to call at this stage, but leaning YES.
Posted by: redflag on September 26, 2007 04:52 PMMDH - no link to either poll is available. Elway keeps his work proprietary (only subscribers get a summary that does not include crosstabs) and the Hibbits poll isn't being released...standard fare for just about any campaign poll.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 26, 2007 06:49 PMDeep six this - Plan B will be better.
Posted by: Farfel on September 26, 2007 06:51 PM