When asked what choice they prefer for the I-5 corridor, this was the result:
- Combined
- 35% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
28% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/Transit options
19% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
7% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
5% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
3% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
3% - [DON'T READ] DK - Tri-County
- 34% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
28% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/Transit options
21% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
7% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
5% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
3% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
3% - [DON'T READ] DK - Clark County
- 42% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
30% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/Transit options
13% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
7% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
5% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
2% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
2% - [DON'T READ] DK
When asked for their second choice in the I-5 corridor:
- Combined
- 19% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/transit options
16% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
15% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
14% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
13% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
6% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
16% - [DON'T READ] DK - Tri-County
- 19% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/transit options
15% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
15% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
15% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
13% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
7% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
16% - [DON'T READ] DK - Clark County
- 20% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/transit options
19% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
15% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
13% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
13% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
5% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
15% - [DON'T READ] DK
That is hardly a ringing endorsement of light rail when 13% of 400 Clark County respondents state LRT as their first and second choice and only 21% on the Tri-County area responded with LRT as their first choice and 15% as their second choice. More respondents over the 4 county area favor replacing the bridge with a wider bridge and other transit options than favor LRT. Other transit options doesn't mean light rail as LRT was a separate available answer.
Another question in the CRC poll mixed LRT with bus lanes in the possible answer and that question got a 49% approval. Again, hardly a ringing endorsement of light rail and a loaded question as it mixed modes.
While LRT was heavily favored when asked strictly in the context of public transit, the other poll questions, such as the ones above, place LRT as being the primary choice in doubt.
There also at least three important classification question missing from the poll however and they needed to be asked. Those poll questions should read something like "Do you take transit?", "If so, how often?" and "Would you use transit if your choice was built?"
Those three questions were needed in my opinion and I'm sure a few other classification questions regarding transit and car usage to better determine the mindset of the poll respondents. Just because someone favors LRT or some other form of public transit in a question designed to choose the best transit mode doesn't mean that they'll actually use it if built.
I really haven't trusted polls in years. None are accurate and most are agenda driven. Every group out there cherry picks the results and tries to claim that the poll, such as this one, is accurate and represents the wishes of all of the population. Many polls these days are push polls however, the CRC poll wasn't all that bad in terms of loaded questions but it did lack some needed questions.
Given that Clark County soundly voted down light rail in the past, I seriously question the poll results. I know I don't trust the cherry picked results being reported by the media. Given the extremely small sampling of residents and questions that were missing, the poll can hardly be used to say X number of people in the county support this but sadly it is being used just that way.
While the LRT extension is far from a done deal, look for the released, cherry picked, poll numbers to be highlighted in every news story about transportation issues in the Clark County area as well as being used to obtain Federal funds for a preliminary report. You'll most likely see a pro-LRT group sprouting up in Vancouver to shout down the opponents of any LRT project before 2007 ends because the CRC poll suggests most people want this.
What is at stake with this questionable CRC poll are hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, not just in Clark County or the Tri-County area in Oregon but nationwide as 80% of this project will be funded through Federal tax dollars. While this poll alone won't cause the line to be built, the poll will be cited time and time again to further push the idea that Vancouver Washington needs to have an LRT line at taxpayer expense to ease traffic congestion.
No comments:
Post a Comment