A rush 'hour' that lasts all day?
The folks at Sound Transit really want you to take an online survey to help them do what voters said shouldn't be done via Proposition 1. To get you into proper survey-taking mood, the entry to the survey page states: "Studies show that by 2030, rush 'hour' could last all day in many places." A startling statistic, no doubt, but one begging several questions: What studies? Which places? How are they defining 'rush hour,' and what does that mean, really, that it would last all day? A few links to more information would go a long way here.
But don't judge them too harshly. This portion of the Sound Transit Web site — devoted to system expansion — is new. Hopefully, improvements are forthcoming.
There's a little bit of passive-agressive, subtle Northwest attitude in the survey prompt, as well. For example:
In November 2007, voters turned down a large package of road and transit investments. Now, the Sound Transit Board of Directors is taking a renewed look at what transit service expansions would make the biggest and quickest improvements for commuters for the least cost.
Here's my straight-talking, Midwestern translation: You voters killed our last, best hope for a solution, so now you're going to have to tell us what you want. Since the pundits surmise that you torpedoed Prop 1 due to cost, we'll try to give you the moon for as little cash as humanly possible.
Snarky comments aside, you should take the survey. If only to help them "develop good answers to vital questions." Translation: Your ideas could prevent a day-long rush hour in 2030.
Comments:
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 10:16 a.m. inappropriate
What's missing on the survey: This is an interesting survey, both for what's asked and for what's not asked. Missing: anything related to greenhouse gas emission reduction as a priority. to alternatives for paying for the tax increases, and also whether you voted yes or not on RTID. The survey seems to assume the only way to pay for anything is a sales tax increase. As a profiling question, it would also be interesting to ask people how long a daily commute they have and how they get there. My hunch is a relatively high percentage of respondents to this will be people who already use public transportation.
Also there's nothing on it about "what transportation issues are most important: travel time, greenhouse gas emissions, reliability of whatever form of transportation you're taking," etc. For some people, the reason they don't ride the bus is because if things go wrong, you're really stuck. Or you can't be sure you'll find a parking place at a park and ride lot.
Sound Transit is to be commended for asking, but any conclusions from this survey need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 10:53 a.m. inappropriate
Sound Transit research methods: The setup for the Sound Transit survey questionnaire doesn't discuss the qualifications of respondents, which raises questions about Sound Transit's methodology and intent.
There is a nationwide network of urban rail fans cheering for Sound Transit to build its subway (see www.lightrailnow.org for example), and a parallel network of critics who would be pleased to see Sound Transit and other purveyors of hope through urban railroading stand down (see www.americandreamcoalition.org for example).
Is Sound Transit hoping that folks living outside of the taxing district won't pretend they live here and fill out the questionnaire, or does the agency and its survey contractor EMC have an undescribed way of screening the input to be received?
On the other hand, suppose a frequent visitor to Seattle from another state is eager to ride a future train from SeaTac Airport to Tacoma -- should her opinion be counted in Sound Transit's survey?
What about a truck driver from Idaho who uses the I-90 bridge weekly who doesn't want bridge right-of-way on an Interstate highway mainline taken away by passenger train tracks? Is his opinion important to Sound Transit?
What's interesting to me is that there are no qualifications for taking the survey stated at the outset of the questionnaire ... no screening questions stated to be such, like are asked at the very end of the survey.
This survey comes across to me like an election campaign instrument.
How is EMC going to prevent, or screen out, those voting early and voting often in this survey?
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 11:28 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Sound Transit research methods: I had not thought about the problem of people faking zip codes, but even if they are correctly entered, there are probably some zip codes that are partly in and partly out of the sound transit taxing district. So you could have people who say "build the max system" but if they're not paying the bill, that's easy for them to say.
One other reflection: there are some really odd combinations in the survey. For example, why should rail on the BNSF tracks be combined in a question with light rail across I90? There are no operating efficiencies. BNSF commuter rail could be up and running very quickly, while I90 light rail is a decades long project. The costs for BNSF commuter rail are a fraction of I90.
This leads to another point: the survey gives no data about relative costs of items. We voters always want something for nothing. Well, what's the relative difference of running the light rail from the airport to the Kent Des Moines road, vs running it all the way to Tacoma? What's the relative cost of the other options? Without this data, we're making very uninformed decisions.
Mr Niles mentions a polling company, EMC. Personally, I find it hard to believe this survey was put together by a professional company truly interested in unbiased truth and voter opinion. The way questions are phrased, it sounds like a push poll, similar to what Paul Allen funded before the Seahawk stadium vote.
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 12:02 p.m. inappropriate
Can we have a commenter's pick for good posts?: Sjenner gets it exactly right.
It's a totally non-scientific push poll. That said, I do agree with most of what they are 'pushing' as an alternative, with one exception. As Jenner notes light rail across I-90 isn't wise. Better to delay Eastside expansion till 520 is built and continue bus service on I-90 (and the downtown tunnel) until that date.
The answers to the questions here aren't new, they've been around since well before the Prop. 1. submittal was drafted. The Sound Transit folks tried to rip us off, and, at a minimum, their legal counsel needs to go.
The big question now is navigating the minefield of opponents - the environmentalists on the left and the roadies on the 'right'. This proposal does do this, but I'm not sure its any more 'honest' than previous efforts.
Douglas Tooley
Lincoln, Tacoma
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 12:25 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Can we have a commenter's pick for good posts?: Context counts, and that's another thing missing from the survey. A plan that makes sense with current 520 may be very different than what makes sense if a new 520 is in place.
If a new 520 is in place, then putting buses into the general purpose lanes of I90 would be bad, but not catastrophic. However, if 520 sinks, or only has 4 lanes and on bus lane, than replacing the bus lanes with rail and putting buses into general purpose would have a huge negative impact.
So another thing that's missing from the survey is "stack rank your priorities for transportation." Basically, if 520 and the viaduct go down, we're in a world of hurt. We have major opportunities though to improve how transit works on these corridors. The Sound Transit survey doesn't ask about 520 and the viaduct at all.
Personally I think tolls are needed now on 520 to start setting aside money to pay for the bridge. But that may make it harder to pass a tax increase, whether sales or MVET or whatever, for Sound Transit.
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 12:35 p.m. inappropriate
The Survey is Broken!: I filled out the first page, clicked "Submit" and got a message that says "Our records indicate that you have already completed this survey." The only possible way they could identify me would be through my IP address, since they asked me no questions about myself. Is everyone sitting behind a NAT'ed IP address getting this error?
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 1:50 p.m. inappropriate
RE: The Survey is Broken!: I filled out the first page again, after having completed the survey, and when I hit submit I went right to the second page. I am not going to do the whole survey a second time. Not sure why your IP address would trigger that message.
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 3:58 p.m. inappropriate
The real cause of rush hour ...: ... is the massive imbalance between where people work and where people live. For example, some 30% of Tacoma residents work in Seattle. Tacoma is 200,000 people, say 90,000 workers out of there. Don't you think that instead of spending billions making it easier for 30,000 people to commute to Seattle, we should focus on spreading jobs out to the bedroom communities? Isn't that just common sense? As much as I hate to admit it, Tacoma functions in many ways as the state's largest bedroom community, and it's a big enough city with a real downtown and a whole lot else going for it, things don't have to be that way.
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 4:39 p.m. inappropriate
RE: The real cause of rush hour ...: Every day I follow cars across the Narrows Bridge all the way to Seattle or Bellevue. King County seems to be where all the tech jobs are, but it sucks as a place to live. I'll hit retirement age in less than 20 years so maybe the strangling of our transportation infrastructure will be a moot point to me by the time commuting becomes impossible. I've never understood why more firms don't locate in Pierce County. There's plenty of land, plenty of infrastructure, lower taxes and fewer rules than on the East Side. I guess the allure of those prestige addresses (Redmond, Bellevue, Bothell, etc.) must be more than tech firms can withstand. But they, and their employees, are paying tons of money for geographic bragging rights that add nothing to their bottom line.
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 6:22 p.m. inappropriate
RE: The real cause of rush hour ...: The theory of light rail is we'll move to new transit oriented development close to the stations, so no need to move the jobs, the people will move closer to the job locations.
There have been some studies about how companies locate close to where the senior execs live. Their time is worth more so they want a shorter commute. The reality with Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland is a lot of execs live there. There's no way they're going to get on a train or bus for Tacoma or Pierce County, no matter what the difference is in land costs. But some "back office functions" do get moved there, for example Expedia in downtown Tacoma.
Posted Tue, Feb 26, 9:28 a.m. inappropriate
RE: The Survey is Broken!: I tried it again today and it worked. But Jeez Louise, talk about push polling! Hub and spoke solutions aren't going to work in an area where people live and work all over the place.