I’m a little suspect of the polls right now in the wake of the national conventions, but as Lee just pointed out, the latest KING5/SurveyUSA poll on Prop. 1 is sure to dishearten the anti-rail crowd that maniacally trolls HA’s comment threads.
When asked about Sound Transit’s proposal to expand rail and bus service, 49% of respondents said that they were certain to vote yes, while only 16% said they were certain to vote no. And when the uncertain respondents were asked whether they lean toward one side or the other, Prop. 1’s advantage expanded to a whopping 65% to 20% margin.
But perhaps more interesting…
Among those who describe themselves as conservatives, those voting or leaning “no” slightly outnumber those voting or leaning “yes.” Among those who identify themselves as Republicans, “yes” slightly outnumbers “no.” Among all other groups, the measure passes by no fewer than 31 points.
So Prop. 1 seems to have pretty damn broad support, even within the constituencies where you would expect the strongest opposition, a finding that is consistent with some internal polling numbers I heard whispered about a few weeks back. Of course, unlike the actual ballot language, the SurveyUSA question didn’t include the $17.9 billion estimated cost, so I’d be surprised to see Prop. 1 pass by such a large margin… but I’d be even more surprised to see it fail.
There are several major differences between this year’s Prop. 1 and last year’s failed measure of the same nomenclature: the proposal, the electorate and the economic reality.
This Prop. 1 is not tied to an unpopular and controversial road expansion package that split the environmental community and dramatically escalated the costs. This Prop. 1 will benefit from the significantly larger and more progressive electorate that tends to turn out in this region during presidential election years. And most of all, this election will occur with memories of $4.50/gallon gasoline still fresh in everybody’s minds… so fresh that bus and commuter rail ridership continues to grow even as gasoline prices have temporarily stepped back from their historic highs.
As I’ve repeatedly argued, the era of cheap gasoline is over, and that means that 2008 is most definitely not 2007:
I know conventional wisdom still suggests that now is the wrong time for Sound Transit to come back with a ballot measure, just one year after the defeat of Prop 1, but the conventional wise men are missing the point: 2008 isn’t 2007. The era of cheap gas is over, and Americans—even Seattle-Americans (and yes, I know, Seattle is different from every other city in the world)—are beginning to change their behavior in response. Voters get that, even if our politicians and editorialists don’t.
Traffic congestion has far from disappeared as a volatile political issue, but public demand for affordable transportation alternatives is rising at least as fast as the price of gas. And the thing is, whether it’s cheaper and more efficient or not, when current drivers envision their future mass transit commute, they much prefer to envision themselves riding on a train, than on a bus. People like trains; that’s a fact. And if I were an elected official, I’d probably want to focus on delivering the services that the people want.
Many of our region’s political and media old timers still seem mired in the auto-centric transportation vision of the 1950’s. But I’m guessing we’ll find out on November 4 that the majority of voters are not.
None of the questions talked about the cost. The questions didn’t say there’d be a big sales tax hike, and the projected costs of construction ($18 billion) weren’t mentioned.
It’s easy to be in favor of “transit” when no costs are asked . . .
Rondolet @1,
You’re right. It is easy to be in favor of transit when no costs are asked. But I’m trusting voters to make the hard choice on this, because they understand that if we’re going to create affordable transportation alternatives, it’s going to require some upfront investment.
@2 How “affordable” is light rail that costs 6 to 8 times the average cost in other cities?
Roger @3,
It will be more affordable for most people to ride than it would be for them to own, maintain, fuel and park a car.
And if your “6 to 8 times” number refers to construction costs, back it up.
3 Roger…you mean the ones that were built years or decades ago? Back when Uncle Fed offered a lot more help and the cost of anything related to construction was pushed through the roof by the reconstruction of the major cities in China and India, not to mention all those McMansions financed with sketchy mortgages?
Then again, maybe other metropolitan areas didn’t have quite the penchant we have for blowing all the money “studying” things rather than building them, and maybe even a few didn’t have likes of Kemper Freeman tossing monkey wrenches into the works at every opportunity.
I’ll betcha one thing. If we don’t do it now, it’s going to cost even more later.
Everybody, just calm down. Greg Nickels knows what he’s doing this time. Relax, it’ll only sting a little.
Goldy, I’m all in favor of a reasonable light rail system. But comparing it to the cost of NOT owning a car is not realistic, at least in this area.
I’ll agree that the cost of owning a car is expensive. You have not only the purchase price, but repairs, maintenance, insurance, and licensing. In some places just having a place to park at home is expensive.
Here, most families believe they need at least one car, even if their commute to work is taken care of by mass transit. That’s because mass transit isn’t going to be much help when a mother (or father) has to not only get home from work, but also pick up the dry cleaning, buy groceries, take one of the kids to soccer practice and the other one to piano practice, fix dinner, then attend a teacher conference at the school in the evening. There were plenty of times when my kids were younger that we had to split up, taking the kids to different activities (sometimes parent/teacher conferences or school orientations scheduled at different schools at the same date and time).
Not to mention that most of our suburban transit plan depends upon park-and ride lots. So there are still going to be costs of ownership of at least one car. It would be nice if we could do away with at least a second car, but I’m waiting to see how well the system works, first.
As for me, I would LOVE to have a reliable, non-stop light rail link between Everett and Bellevue so I could use it to commute to work. That would give me an hour or so each way to do something else (other than listen to the radio), and save me some gas & depreciation on my cars besides.
But I’m still going to have to drive to work some days, maybe one or two days a week. My work responsiblities include trips to other destinations in the area, and sometimes business lunches or dinners which end rather late, or are in locations where transit won’t be available (such as Newcastle Golf Club). So we would still need two cars in my family.
As for me, I still drive my 15-year-old Ford Explorer because (a) it still works fine, (b) it’s smaller than the later versions, so the price of gas is comperable to a sedan, (c) it has a great turning radius, and (d) four-wheel drive is nice, occasionally, when it snows, and (d) I can carry large items from Home Depot for our home improvement projects. Like most of our cars, I’ll probably keep it until something really expensive has to be done to it, at which point I will sell it to someone who wants the parts.
I suport this just liike I supported last year’s Prop. 1, and I’m happy to see it pass.
But don’t even dream, Goldy, that we won’t get our highway improvements.
8 We live in Seattle. Back in the 90’s I worked at a computer reseller on the eastside. Fortunately, the location of the office was such (and bus service was sufficiently better) that I was able to commute from home on the bus pretty easily. I did have to drive to deal with customers–in fact, the big station wagon I had at the time was sometimes referred to as “the other company truck”. What I’d sometimes do, though, would be to do a “reverse commute”–leave the car in the office garage and take the bus home.
It’s just fine if people own as many cars as they like. In fact, since to my knowledge an individual can’t drive more than one car at the same time (and God, I hope none of you goes out there and tries to prove me wrong!) if some guy wants to collect a lot of cars, he’s doing society a great service by keeping all but one of ’em off the road at any given time.
Car ownership is fine. Just don’t drive them so much, huh?
@4 The Wikipedia article on light rail states, “The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures required. A survey of North American light rail projects[19] shows that costs of most LRT systems range from $15 million per mile to over $100 million per mile. Seattle’s new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet below ground level.[20] These result in costs more typical of subways or rapid transit systems than light rail. … Over the U.S. as a whole, excluding Seattle, new light rail construction costs average about $35 million per mile.[19].”
The $179 million figure for Seattle refers to Phase 1. The Phase 2 portion of the project on this fall’s ballot will be even costlier, due in no small part to the 5-mile tunnel from U. District to Northgate costing $500 million per mile. The Wikipedia article is footnoted, if you wish to refer to the sources of these data.
If Phase 2 passes in November, most people in the Seattle metropolitan area who currently own cars will continue to do so. For one thing, Phase 2 won’t be up and running for many years, and won’t provide a transportation alternative to cars at all until then. But even after the light rail line is in full operation, people will still need cars to get to places light rail doesn’t go (which is most places) and for a variety of other transportation needs.
Certainly, car costs are affected by the type of vehicle you buy and how you use it. But with all cars and trucks, most of the costs are fixed — purchase cost, maintenance and repairs, insurance, etc. While fuel prices are highly visible and get a lot of attention, they account for a relatively small percentage of the total cost of owning and operating a vehicle. Most people who will have to pay the light rail tax will continue to incurcar ownership costs even after light rail is up and running, and will do so because they believe they have to, so the light rail tax will be an additional transportation cost for most households.
I have frequently stated my objections to light rail before, but they bear repeating: Seattle is one of the most expensive places in the world to build light rail because of our topography and geology, and when you have several transportation alternatives before you, it doesn’t make sense to choose the least cost-efficient one. Light rail, once built, is nailed to the ground and can’t be shifted to accomodate changing population and employment patterns, as bus routes can. And light rail will be useful only for moving people from outlying residential communities to concentrated employment centers — primarily from the suburbs to the downtown core. It won’t meet the transportation needs of the people who work in the small businesses scattered all over the area, or of people who have to travel between job sites or take tools, equipment, and materials with them to where they work. Even Sound Transit estimates that light rail will provide only 2% of the region’s trips.
Another problem with light rail is that it’s years away, whereas we need more mass transit right now. It’s obvious from the standing-room-only buses that Seattle needs expanded bus service right now. Yet, the measure on the fall ballot allocates only a token amount of money, barely a piss in a bucket, for buses.
It defies common sense to opt for the most expensive and least flexible alternative when you have other choices. Light rail makes sense in many cities, but not in ours.
So why would Seattle opt for so obviously flawed a transportation choice? The answer is complex, but when you look at who’s supporting it, you get a partial idea: It’s supported by a relatively small prospective user group who will directly benefit from shifting most of the costs of the system to a a largely non-user group. An otherwise irrational investment can appear rational to people who stand to profit by making others pay. If Sound Transit’s ridership projections are accurate, then 98% of light rail will be paid for by people who won’t use it. It’s not hard to see why the other 2% don’t care what it costs.
Seattle does need expanded mass transit. We do need to reduce, and eventually eliminate (as fast as we can), fossil-fuel-powered transportation — although they needn’t, and doesn’t necessarily, imply eliminating personal vehicles. Light rail will be funded by the most unfair and regressive tax possible, although I could live with that if it otherwise made sense. But nothing about ST’s current proposal makes sense to me.
All ST has done is take the same light rail project, with the same costs, that was defeated last year and (a) separate it from raods, and (b) split it into two parts — Phase 2 and Phase 3, with the Phase 3 expansion and tax to come later — to be built sequentially instead of as a single project. But otherwise, it’s exactly the same project, and nothing has been done (and perhaps nothing can be done) to reduce costs, and it’s financed by exactly the same tax.
You and I disagree on this, Goldy. I know you’re a heartfelt supporter of light rail and even get emotional about it. I think you’re using your heart instead of your head in this instance. On a number of scores, it doesn’t pass the common sense test. Doing something that defies logic and common sense hurts the community more than it helps in the long run. That’s why I’m against it.
@5. “Roger…you mean the ones that were built years or decades ago?”
No. The Wikipedia article states, “Over the U.S. as a whole, excluding Seattle, new light rail construction costs average $35 million per mile.” (Emphasis added) “New” means now, not “years or decades ago.”
@10 I own 4 vehicles. Two of them are ancient 4WD gas hogs. Total miles put on both of them in last 3 years: 0. One of them is a late-model 4WD light truck that’s over 6 years old. Average annual mileage on that vehicle is under 5,000 miles, and most of those miles are for intercity trips. Mrs. Rabbit’s car is a fuel-thrifty 4-cylinder compact that’s 7 years old and still has less than 20,000 miles on it. It’s not what you own, or even what the mpg is, but how much you drive — that counts. When I worked downtown, I rode the bus. Now that I’m retired, I drive to the grocery store, doctor, and meetings — and that’s it. Oh, and to Montlake to jaw with my liberal friends 3 or 4 times a year.
I’d add to what RR posted that the supporters are not primarily the 2% (or less) of our community who’d use the trains on a regular basis. Those who want it bad are those who’d make big money off it: the contractors, lawyers, and political leadership around here.
Another thing RR didn’t mention is that the financing plan is abusive. There are none of the normal protections in place. There’s no limit to the taxing or spending rights, hence no incentive for the staff or board to spend frugally or even intelligently. Couple that with an appointee-only board, and it is a situation that lends itself far too easily to abuses. If the contractors encounter problems, they’ll just jack up the price and the ST board would pay it.
You CAN’T trust a local government with blank-check taxing and spending rights like that. Humans are too, well, human.
And something I read in another posting here makes no sense – why would the taxing need to continue for thirty years if only five years of it would be enough to cover the part of the costs that are to be taken care of by tax revenue (about $7 billion)? That is not a rational OR fair financing plan.
Finally, given how the credit markets are in turmoil, isn’t it fair to assume that ST’s projected bond financing costs are much higher than they are estimating now (e.g., 2006-era estimates)?
It’s financed by a sales tax.
On many people who won’t have access to it.
This is immoral.
Yeah, what #10 said.
While not everyone will have access to the light rail line everyone (maybe I should say most) people will benefit from it: less traffic, less air pollution, neat neighborhoods created by higher density housing and what not.
I don’t have kids, yet I pay for schools, health care, free lunches and probably a ton of other stuff for kids is that immoral? I’ve never voted no on a school bond. It would seem immoral to me to let a kid go hungry, sick or not have access to good schools, ust as it seems immoral to me to pave over farmland to make cookie cutter housing developments. It’s much better to have new housing go into higher density redeveloped areas.
“less traffic, less air pollution, neat neighborhoods created by higher density housing and what not.”
Total bullshit. All of that is total bullshit.
@17
Why?
Rog,
We’re starting to build housing along the I-5 corridor at densities that are higher than can be supported by SOV’s. Yes, rail is expensive here, but their isn’t much other choice if we want to continue to center our growth around I-5 and keep housing close to jobs.
In other red-leaning metro areas like Denver and Salt Lake, it’s not uncommon for Republican voters to be more supportive of public transportation if light rail is in the mix.
This poll is fairly significant, because the Survey USA poll taken early in the 2007 Prop 1 campaign had it losing like 70-30.
Roger Rabbit would rather die than let go of his steering wheel. The extreme isolation an automobile affords is a great prescription for anti-social grumps.
michael’s thoughts are these — “We’re starting to build housing along the I-5 corridor at densities that are higher than can be supported by SOV’s.”
You don’t need sales taxes to do that.
And that same contributor asked me “why” I wrote what I did above. What the gob I wrote about posted was some allusions to supposed benefits. What the gob wrote is _bullshit_ because no big sales tax increase EVER accomplished those three things. Trust me on this one, I’m correct.
But maybe you think we are special? We are unique snowflakes among regions? Is that it, michael?
@19 Yes, there is a choice — expand the bus system.
@20 “Roger Rabbit would rather die than let go of his steering wheel.”
Considering that I commuted by bus in this city for almost 20 years, and put less mileage on my vehicles than 99% of the people who live in this town, that has to rank as one of the all-time most asinine comments ever posted on this blog.
Roger, your family auto usage is admirable, but your transportation choice is not. You see, we have to begin investing in transit. The last 100 years have been the age of the automobile in America. But as America becomes increasingly urban, especially along its coastlines, we simply don’t have the space for all those cars. All those polar bear killing cars.
Hey, buses are great and will continue to be a key part of transit in this region. But Seattle is the only major metropolitan area in the country without rail as part of its transit solution. But buses are subject to the same traffic as the rest of us. It makes no sense to run hundreds of buses to the U District, Capitol Hill, and Northgate each day instead of a single light rail line. One driver with 800 passengers on a dedicated right of way every four minutes versus sixteen drivers running late in traffic and unreliable. Unless you plan on building fancy dedicated busways or new freeway lanes for transit, Roger, you are full of shit. Because that stuff would cost as much as rail and most people wouldn’t ride it–because it was still a bus! Have you been on a train? Have you been on a bus? Did you notice a difference in the quality of the ride? Many, many people will ride subways and trains that won’t ride buses. This is proven all over the world.
Another two million people are moving here in the next twenty years. Developers love building around rail stops because of their permanence. Something no bus could ever offer. We have the chance to build compact, walkable neighborhoods housing much of the growth throughout the region. These neighborhoods will give those willing to live without a fleet of cars a real choice. And there are a lot of us out there with more coming every day.
As for those of you who keep mentioning the sales tax, you are clearly right wing trolls who don’t support any tax–especially an income tax in this state. This is the only choice the legislature gave Sound Transit. Our state has a totally screwed tax structure and the leg is no help. Ultimately, this argument is a bullshit smokescreen raised to create false populism by the anti-rail crazies out there.