The conventional wisdom - including from this author - has been this fall's planned RTID/Sound Transit ballot measure faced serious challenges in the wake of the Viaduct fiasco. Maybe that's not quite true.
Goldy first covered an interesting poll, then provided additional details, showing a Puget Sound populace largely embracing the admittedly pricey proposition. Josh Feit chimed in on Goldy's coverage as well.
I know, I know, Goldy and Feit aren't exactly trusted sources for many readers of Sound Politics, but the poll itself at the heart of the discussion is balanced and well-constructed. It's done by a combination of Evans McDonough (D) and Moore Information (R). The sample size is large (800), has a low margin of error (3.5%), and asks fair questions about both sides of the issue.
The findings showed surprisingly strong backing (60%+) for the ballot proposition; support that held even as respondents heard the costs and other details. Notably "Transportation" and "Traffic" were cited by 46% in an open-ended question on problems facing the Puget Sound region. The next nearest topic of import garnered only 7%. Perhaps there's a message there.
To the dismay of many a Sound Politics reader, transit and, ahem, light rail, poll incredibly well, with individual components capturing over 70% support in virtually every geographic area surveyed. Meanwhile, the favorability of all transit agencies was high. Sound Transit even had a + 43% positive rating.
Where I disagree intensely with Goldy and Feit is their ongoing anti-roads meme. Feit continues his long history of objecting to roads projects stating, "we're going to undo the benefits of voting for transit by simultaneously voting to expand roads." Goldy proclaims, "I'd prefer to see the transit components separated from the roads components so that I could vote for the former while douching the latter." This is the sort of thinking that would hamstring suburban Democrats if they ever joined their urban counterparts in supporting it.
Seattleites condemning roads to the glory of transit are giving the universal one-finger salute to all those outside their city's boundary. Even the most transit-oriented elected official in the suburbs knows full well the road projects in question are necessary and overdue. Some of them, such as the expansion of 405, were begun by the nickel and 9.5 cent gas tax increases. But from the beginning, the state refused to pay for such mega-projects in full because of their astronomical cost (itself created in part because Olympia took such an atrocious amount of time to be decisive...but I digress). Thus, these liberal bloggers are in a round-about-way advocating for Democratic legislators to hang the suburbs out to dry, refusing to finish the natural conclusion of the state's gas tax increases. That's an odd strategy to cement support in the legislative districts Democrats were so proud to have won in the last few election cycles.
In truth, even the roads projects poll well. They don't have the strength of transit, but that's mostly because people aren't excited about major roads projects in other parts of the Puget Sound away from their respective home communities. For example, Snohomish County residents aren't so enthused about road improvements in Pierce County, and vice versa.
However, relevant constituencies show tremendous support for key projects. 85% in East King County support a new 520 bridge, 73% in South King County and 78% in Pierce support linking Highway 167 between Puyallup and Tacoma, and 81% in Snohomish support work on Highway 2 near Everett.
There are weaknesses to the poll. It doesn't pose hard questions on the specific cost of light rail or the funding gap for the 520 bridge. Though the ballot measure polls well on the whole, the cost factor is clearly the most vulnerable point for the RTID/Sound Transit measure. The question is who would pay for a campaign to oppose the proposition and drive that message into voters' minds? If the defeat of I-912 is any indication, the business community won't be of any help, thus leaving opponents cash poor.
More importantly, the real lesson seems to be people in the Puget Sound area are immensely tired of waiting for transportation solutions, and they're willing to pay for them. In response to the message of "we've waited long enough. It's time to get started on reducing traffic congestion," 72% of respondents said it made them more likely to vote for the measure.
Looking back on the results of I-912 in the Puget Sound region also provides insight into the current mood of local voters. King County predictably crushed it with a 67% "no" vote. Yet 56% in Snohomish County also rejected it, as did 50.5% in Pierce County. Perhaps that shouldn't be a surprise when one considers even I-776 didn't do well in the Sound Transit taxing district.
To see how the populace has evolved, examine just Snohomish County, regarded by many as one of the state's true "swing" counties. Its voters said yes to I-695 and its car tab reductions in 1999 with nearly 61% in favor. Over 60% also rejected R-51 and its proposed transportation improvements in 2002. Yet, by 2005 those same voters decisively rejected I-912's repeal of the gas tax.
That trend as seen in Snohomish County coupled with the results of this recent poll shows a Puget Sound public in demand of balanced transportation solutions, and willing to pay for it. It reminds me of a quote Will at Horse's Ass dug up from national conservative guru Paul Weyrich, usually no friend of liberal ideas:
I have written [articles] making the conservative case for rail transit, including streetcars. It seems the public agrees with us because while in State after State conservatives have won ballot initiatives in many of these same States transit initiatives also have won. The libertarians have made the case that money for public transit is a waste. They want more roads. That is a form of subsidized transportation as well. But they don't see it that way because individuals can drive. However, in city after city which has adopted light rail an overflow crowd has elected to use it as opposed to driving.
There will always, of course, be opposition to light rail. Here, Stefan will no doubt present an impassioned and good faith argument against much of what will likely appear on the ballot this fall. In the meantime, I was going to make the point that Republicans should be very careful about how they approach the RTID/Sound Transit issue, especially in light of this polling. It would be a shame if it became simply another medium for cementing the notion in suburban voters' minds that the only thing Republicans stand for in transportation is "no" (at least on appearances). But then I remembered there's hardly any Republicans left standing in the suburbs after 2006. Maybe that should tell us something too.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 15, 2007 09:13 AM | Email ThisThese regional districts are the wave of the future. Eastern Washington's unwillingness to support investments in our infrastructure has forced them into existence. The funny thing is that it is the East that will suffer. The greater Seattle area has subsidized the east for years on transportation. Now that more and more transportation revenue is regionally based that is becoming less of the case. The Seattle area will be able to improve its infrastructure while the East's will deteriorate. The I-776 vote was the last straw. The fact that anti-taxers tried to overturn a tax they didn't even pay that enjoyed solid support was offensive.
Posted by: Giffy on April 15, 2007 09:34 AMIn that same meeting the SCA (Suburban Cities Association) received an update on the implementation of the "Transit Now" program funding approved last year. Apparently, the programs directors cannot point to any improvements to service or partnering with local jurisdictions for enhanced service. To add additional service to an existing route would require an additional "investment" by the local city of at least $100,000. To add an entirely new route a minimum of $200,000 and even if the community can come up with the funds, The system doesn't have the equipment to make the run a reality for up to 18 months because of the bus ordering process. These costs are on top of the previous sales tax increase and the most recent increase.
In summary the performance/service levels promised by the latest two transit tax increases have failed to live up to expectations. These folks can poll until they turn blue (Oh wait they already are blue), the facts are they over tax and under perform and have for the last two decades. Everybody is pointing their fingers at everyone else inthe process and nothing is getting done. But a whole lot of people are still getting paid, the only people being abused are the taxpayers.
Posted by: Smokie on April 15, 2007 09:47 AMThough, I guess I have problems with some of the priorities of the transit side of the package too.
But in general, I agree with Josh that we should not be forced to approve a roads package if want to develop transit. For decades we've been denied adequate transit development in this region because there just wasn't the popular support. Now that there is the popular support, it is being used to leverage support for additional roads development that would not otherwise be approved by voters.
There is an argument to be made for planning roads and transit together, but this is a politically dishonest means of forcing that on voters.
Posted by: Goldy on April 15, 2007 09:48 AMIt's my contention that the public has been brainwashed into thinking that "mass transit" is a synonym for "speedier transport"...no more, no less.
This is much the same for any of the unnecessary large scale public works projects that Sims and Nicols are about to bilk the public for.
Example: 520 bridge. Completely unnecessary. The current A. D. Rosellini Bridge (now the Evergreen) should be torn down. Its dangerous -- an accident waiting to happen. We already have a bridge that is more than adequate for Seattle-East side traffic: I-90. People can simply take the extra quarter mile south to get the I-90. The Evergreen needs to be torn down. A new bridge will make traffic worse.
Case in point: light rail. When the public thinks light rail, they imagine themselves walking to a station, a few hundred feet from their doorstep, and being whisked to work, again, a few hundred feet from that. Is that reality? My mental image is of an empty train, running from 11pm to 6am, over I-5 to Beacon Hill, endlessly -- it's florescent lights highlighting the complete vacuum of passengers.
Posted by: John Bailo on April 15, 2007 11:36 AMInteresting points, though I think you and Feit are both wrong on the degree to which voters don't approve of certain road projects.
That being said, I think the bigger argument is that the state should have paid for these road projects in full a longtime ago, starting say in the mid-90's when the demand was real even then, and inflation in construction of all kinds wasn't so brutal. But, they didn't, and now local taxpayers are on the hook for something that maybe everyone can't agree on, but in fairness is still entirely necessary...whether that's totally fair to ardent pro-transit supporters or not.
I understand your point and join you in criticizing the lack of transit currently available in the region, but as a pragmatic point it simply doesn't hold. The region has spent too much time not having a cohesive plan or system for transportation (ie, building both the monorail and light rail) for too long for the state to allow it to move forward with more answers in silo instead of a realistic combination of what is needed.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 15, 2007 11:46 AMI agree with you. The Demos want to turn the area into a New York environment. Collect the taxes from the drivers and use it for what they feel you need for. Light rail, buses, bicycle lanes, HOV lanes, bus ramps and dozens of committees to see how to spend the revenues with out fixing the roads. A no vote for any tax increase in August and November.
Posted by: George on April 15, 2007 04:35 PMMore proof rail and mass transit aren't simply the tool of elitist Seattle social engineering:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/southeastkingcountynews/2003666687_commute15s.html
For all the transit/rail/Sound Transit - haters here: please tell us what's wrong with the scenario of people ditching their cars for transit...every day of the week...and enjoying it.
Wait, maybe that's their primary infraction. Traffic and congestion are supposed to make us HATE government.
Posted by: Blondie on April 15, 2007 11:18 PMIt can work ok if there are connector buses coming around to pick you up. Are those included in Sound Transit currently?
As far as I know, the answer is 600 parking spaces at the Tukwila / 154th station, and zero elsewhere. I think the answer is zero for connector buses too.
Now will this change in ST2? Well, it is not mentioned as a use in the brochure I received at the open house in Des Moines a few weeks ago.
Again for a few people, light rail will be great. For most of us, it will be inconvenient to get to, too slow because of all the intermediate stops and also because of the time it takes to get there, or simply irrelevant because it doesn't go where we want to go.
Also frustrating: the lack of coordination between the various projects. Case in point is the recent news about the UW light rail station and the lack of proximity to a transfer point for buses. The focus of the story and the oped in the Seattle Times seemed to be on transfers of people coming from the eastside who would transfer to a rail line, or people on rail who wanted to transfer to a bus (presumably Eastside, but maybe also headed to Sand Point or even the north side of Cap Hill).
What was not discussed was the logistics for people of getting to the UW upper campus. Are they going to walk from the corner of Pacific and Montlake? Fine on a summer day, not so fine when it is rainy and windy and you're late for class. Or are there going to be shuttle buses? It doesn't sound like the connections for these shuttle buses are planned for, and again, who's going to pay for this?
Maybe someone knows the answers and can share them.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on April 15, 2007 11:55 PMYet *60%* of our transportation funds are spent on mass transit. Is it any wonder there are congestion problems? And that people resent putting even more money into transit?
Posted by: My Boaz's Ruth on April 16, 2007 08:02 AMDoug McDonald has said this plan won't fly for the State to issue bonds on it (for SR 520). Best to scrap it and get a plan together that deals with financial reality, rather than "vote yes and we'll raise other taxes later to take care of the problem."
The financing assumptions behind RTID and ST2 have not been released yet. It wasn't until the truth came out about monorail (50+ years of MVET vs. the 23 years the voters were told before that vote; taxes until 2050 that would rip $70 billion out of the economy; etc.) that it lost support.
Eric: care to hazard some guesses about the RTID and ST2 plan?
- In year of collection dollars, how much tax would be taken out of this economy if this thing is approved?
- When would the taxing stop, if this thing passes?
- Will ST and RTID be able to go back on the promises to the voters like ST is doing with Phase 1?
- What taxpayer protection features will be in ST2 and RTID that are an improvement over the SMP measure (if any)?
If you can't answer those basic questions, then my friend you are way, way out of line advocating for passage of this thing. In other words, anyone pushing for it now based on incomplete information is only kidding themselves about its value (or trying to get voters to buy a pig in a poke!).
This refrain we're hearing now of "start now because the price just goes up" is exactly the marketing pitch used for monorail.
Our share of this gas tax revenue is about $4.2 million a year. It has been around $4.2 million for about 8 years now. As gas prices go up, our revenue from the gas tax goes down or stays flat as people drive less or buy more efficient cars.
That is also a fact.
Of the 14.5 cents of gas tax increases approved by the Legislature in the last few years, cities received only .50 more. Counties also got .50. The 2.96 cents I mentioned above already includes our share of the tax. That is a fact.
As for Tacoma's 1060 fund. This is a budget account where ALL transportation funds are lumped for budget purposes. This includes gas tax, grants, tribal funds and everything but rail. For purposes of accounting, these revenues are broken out so LID's are paid from property taxes, roads paid with gas taxes, etc. The auditor watches this stuff closely and hasn't found us to be breaking the rules. Another fact.
Posted by: Tacoma's Paid Libiest on April 16, 2007 02:18 PMAt the time Tacoma was pushing a levy to fund residential street maintenence. They were doing this in order to allow politicians to continue to program the ~$23 per resident (the State gave me this number) per annum the City recieves from State Motior Vehicle Fuel Tax revenues to the benefit of themselves, their family members and their close bussiness associates. $23 X ~200,000 is pretty close to $4,600,000, more or less, that has been spent in the most irresponsible manor imaginable.
A decade and a half of "defferred maintenance" has left Tacoma's transportation infrastructure in a shambles. To continue diverting out State Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes to fund such things as beautification of and banners to hang in support of various council members' bussiness investments is a crock.
And this just scratches the surface.
Posted by: JDH on April 16, 2007 02:45 PMCity staff tell me you have made these charges many times and been given lots of this information again and again. Venting here can be fun but won't change a single policy. You ought to bring your case to one of those multitude of public hearings I mentioned before.
Posted by: Tacoma's paid libiest on April 16, 2007 10:34 PMAs for how the TNT reported the $800,000 figure, here is the paragraph that included that figure: "Council members are "very interested, because the city has had no new transportation revenue except the gas tax since 1990," Lewis said. Tacoma receives about $800,000 a year as its share of the 9.5-cent gas tax increase approved by the Legislature in 2005. But the city used to collect $3.5 million a year before I-776 repealed the $15 local fee, he said." It is pretty clear that I said the $800,000 was from the increae in the gas tax. I was not saying that is all we receive from the gas tax. There is an error in this paragraph though. I told the reporter we received $3.5 million from the old $15 vehicle fee that was repealed by I-776. I was using a two-year budget figure, he reported it as an annual figure. It was $3.5 million biannually, $1.7 annual.
Posted by: Tacoma's paid libiest on April 17, 2007 08:33 AM