RTD, Denver’s rail transit lobby group, claims that a poll shows that most voters support a sales tax hike to pay for its boondoggle FasTracks rail plan. Voters previously agreed to a 0.4 percent sales tax increase in 2004, but now RTD says they will have to double it to get the rails built on time.
The actual survey results reveal that this was a “push poll,” meaning the interviewer asked leading questions to get people to support the project.
Early in the poll, the interviewer asked if people rode transit to work. Eighty-five percent answered “never” or “rarely” and only 5 percent said every weekday. This roughly agrees with census data that says that 4.3 percent of Denver-area residents take transit to work. The Antiplanner suspects that the 85 to 95 percent of people who don’t regularly ride transit would support FasTracks only if they think it will relieve congestion or improve the environment.
Then the interviewer explained to at least some of the people being polled that voters approved FasTracks in 2004 “to help relieve traffic congestion.” In reality, FasTracks supporters were very careful never to say that it would relieve congestion — at least when I was in the room with them — because they knew that it would not. (One of the supporters who I frequently debated asked me, “Why do you always make the point that it won’t relieve congestion? We never claim that it will.”)
The survey goes on to ask a series of question about what people think of FasTracks and RTD. More people answered that they thought FasTracks would alleviate congestion than any other answer. Naturally, the interviewers did nothing to dissuade them of this notion.
People don’t have to pay doctors to cheapest viagra get prescriptions. People suffering from ED usually cialis tablets india feel afraid initiating intimate acts with their partner. buying viagra in uk Another study published in 2013 concluded that Sildenafil medication increased the serum androgen stages in men. Although jailbreak developers soon thwarted the restriction, we will https://regencygrandenursing.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=36&Itemid=285 viagra buy best never know. The next step was to ask what people thought of five different alternatives: build only part of FasTracks, build it all but don’t finish until 2034, increase sales taxes by 0.4 percent to build it all, build some lines only part way, and build only one line and cancel the rest. The answer to raising taxes was that 26 percent thought it was a “very good idea” and 31 percent though it was a “somewhat good idea.”
So far, the poll has not been very biased. One could conclude that 26 percent of people will support FasTracks under any circumstances, while the 31 percent who think it is a “somewhat good idea” might change their minds if they understand how little it will do to relieve traffic congestion or improve environmental quality.
Then the pollster asked another series of questions, including what people thought of such statements as, “FasTracks is needed to help manage traffic congestion,” “FasTracks will protect air quality and the environment in the metro area for generations to come,” and “FasTracks construction should continue until every mile of rail and mass transit in the original plan is built.”
Note that they did not ask people to respond to things like, “RTD’s light rail spews more greenhouse gases, per passenger mile, than an average SUV,” “Denver’s light-rail cars are the emptiest in the country,” or “RTD has gone an average of 43 percent overbudget on its previous light-rail projects.” All of these statements are true, but by asking people to respond to only positive statements, the pollster was conditioning respondents to support FasTracks.
Next, the interviewer asked people if they would support a 0.4 percent sales tax increase to finish FasTracks. Notice that they already asked this question and got 26 percent strongly support and 31 percent somewhat support. Now, after having made all those positive statements about FasTracks, the answer to the very same question is 36 percent strongly support and 28 percent somewhat support. Of course, this is the result that RTD highlighted in its press release. The poll wrapped up with a series of question about why people would support such a tax increase.
This is a completely deceptive polling method. It allows RTD to falsely claim that 64 percent of the public supports a tax increase, when at best it is really 57 percent, while it further tells RTD it needs to continue to exaggerate the benefits of FasTracks to win an election. Of course, that won’t be hard if rail supporters are able to outspend skeptics by 40 to 1 as they were in the 2004 election.
Dan’s rule of thumb is: when conservatarians see poll results they don’t like, expect them to call it a “push poll”. Push polls take 45-90 seconds and consist of 3-5 questions asked to thousands.
What Randal really meant – if he hadn’t knee-jerked the standard talking point – is that the poll could be worded more ideologically toward his minority view to obtain results that sound like confirmation of his worldview (that is: worded like a push poll).
DS
Dan, taking what is posted here at face value, that poll is blatantly designed to manipulate responses using time honoured techniques, and only the favourable number is reported publicly. That is dishonest. I don’t care what your world view is, what that authority did was designed from the ground up to mislead. nobody with a sound arguments needs to do that.
Randal, take a breath. Just after the questioner asks your supposedly baitingly positive “FasTracks construction should continue until every mile…is built” there is an equally positive counter: “FasTracks construction should stop in the 2017 timeline, even if it doesn’t all get built.”
Quit monkeying around with the facts. On a scale of 1 to 10, continuing receieved a 6.8 and stopping on schedule received a 3.5. Just because those polled don’t agree with you, don’t blame the pollster.
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” -Mark Twain
“I can prove anything by statistics except the truth.” -George Canning
“There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up.” -Rex Stout
I was born and raised in Denver. When I ask people if and why they voted for their taxes to increase to fund Fastracks it usually has nothing to do with relieving congestion, saving the environment, etc. People in Denver want to be considered a world class city with world class transit. They think light rail and BRT is their best option. They are willing to pay for it and they voted for it. They want light rail. Nobody I know gives polls and stats much credit for influencing their decision. In the 90’s we voted for the first leg of light rail in Denver and it worked really well. I used RTD to get to and from school every day and when the light rail started operating my commute time was cut in half. We know its expensive. We knew that building a massive expansion would not be easy and cheap, but we voted for it anyway.
I guess my point in posting the quotes above is that you can run all the numbers, insult all the planners, tell off the bureaucrats, but the fact still remains… People in Denver want light rail, will work hard to get it, and are going to have to pay a lot for it.
Denver will never be as world class as Novosibirsk. They have a subway.
I never said that LR was the ticket. I’m not sure it hurts their chances though.
Right, it’s a problem of self esteem among Denver residents that seems to drive this frantic flailing towards anything that will allow Denverites to profess to their friends in BIG cities that they too are worthy. Bennett, if I were you I’d be more concerned about the sleepy little town of Denver not even warranting a House of Blues.
The subject is was this a push poll. I think if it walks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Light rail supporters have to be deceptive, or no one would vote for their boondoggles.
They are very good at it and it is time to stop bailing out light rail and allow it to be self supporting at the fare box .
The subject is was this a push poll. I think if it walks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Right.
We’ve already shown it wasn’t a push-poll, but rather a typical poll. One that had wording that the conservatarians here don’t like.
DS
We’ve already shown it wasn’t a push-poll, but rather a typical poll. One that had wording that the conservatarians here don’t like.
DS
no you didn’t
Ah. So you have your own facts. That’s great! You live in a different dimension of the universe!
Tell us, do they have American Idol in that dimension? Beanie babies of the President’s daughters? Dumb-*ss reactions by politicians to economic downturns?
DS
gee wiz DS
sticks and stones
are we back in grade school?
Come now. What other conclusion can one make to the assertion in 11?
In this reality, we don’t get our own facts, so one must conclude that you have a different reality.
DS
Do you really believe the transit agency or government officials that commission the poll, really wanted to know what the people think?
Or were they just looking for a poll to back up their new tax or the extension of light rail.
I live in Portland where light rail to Milwaukie has been voted down 3 times. But we are told their polls, always show support for the project.
The different reality is, they are spending our money to to change our minds and if they don’t, they will just build it.
Seeing as this was not a push-poll, we can say it is 50-50 whether the agency wants to know without additional information.
But having information such as: the voters said they would fund it, and the decision-makers in the affected areas stating their constituents want it might sway that ratio more toward the ‘yes’ side. I ride it ~6-8 x/mo, and the thing is usually close to SRO, and it definitely is SRO after games downtown – which is good as these people aren’t driving after imbibing frosty beverages.
DS
Do you think that those 25% who responded positively will become riders?
Very unlikely. Drivers want other to become transit riders. LRT usually takes riders & money from buses.
It would be nice if people were given an option:
“Would you like that money spend on a 6 lane highway?” That would carry over 8 times as many people, based upon regular usage for new LRT.
Reduce congestion? Build more roads. The induced driving phenomenon is a fallacy.
Reduce congestion? Build more roads. The induced driving phenomenon is a fallacy.
Do you have any evidence for this claim, which goes against the empirical literature?
Thank you in advance for this empirical evidence (as opposed to an op-ed with no evidence).
DS
Now this is great, O’Toole is critizing RTD for defending it’s own interests, never mind he has been paid to defend oil interests.
Re: induced demand, here’s 1 article http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/07/08/congestion-and-induced-demand-a-real-economists-take/
Some studies that try to prove more travel leave out the fact of population growth. Globally, VMT have increased.
People don’t drive endlessly for no reason just because roads are there. The purpose is to get to a destination. If you look at rural areas, there are plenty of roads with unused capacity.
The increase in lane-miles is not keeping up with population growth, therefore road congestion. The strategy to let roads deteriorate to gain transit ridership & reduce driving is not working; it lowers mpg, increases pollution, increases travel times & increases stress.
If spending on roads were increased by 50%, all of that could be improved & it would still be less than 1/3 of transit spending per passenger mile.
I see he hasn’t published this gem somewhere that people who do this for a living can look at it.
That is: surprisingly, this doesn’t match up with the empirical evidence. Which is why I asked for something that wasn’t an op-ed.
You do know how to tell the difference, right?
DS
Please stop with the ineffective ad hominem arguments. Transit uses oil too in most buses & many trains. http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=12887
I doubt that O’toole gets paid by oil companies, & if he does derive income from them, it’s not conditional. Roads can be used by electric cars, anyway, so oil is not the issue. Having more freedom & buying a house with a good size yard is separate from oil too.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/UrbanIssues/bg1721.cfm
Cars are much more cost effective & allow for much more mobility & many choices. BTW, pollution is about the same for cars vs. transit, and some new cars are much better.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
So this supposed oil connection is meaningless. If one were to look at income sources & ideology & other, then almost nothing could be believed. Look at the content.
For train analysis, have people notice how some of those are funded? By Siemens & other LRT companies. That leads to exaggerations & omissions.
As for the induced traffic fallacy, that op-ed had stats. I have some PDFs of journal articles, but not the url.
http://www.reason.org/ps346/index.shtml
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119192.html
Do you really think that no more roads should be built?
Should less food be grown because some people are obese? Keep in mind that eating is enjoyable & that roads are just a means to an end.
http://www.reason.org/road/
“People who do this for a living.” ??? What is their conclusion? It’s not working or being implemented. How has the transportation network been improved? It’s not keeping up with more people. For one thing, there’s too much emphasis on transit. Secondly, the gas tax is too low.
Here are some more. All didn’t send in one post.
http://www.reason.org/outofcontrol/archives/2008/10/thanks_but_no_t.html
http://www.reason.org/transportation/
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/197910/197910
Of course when roads are built, people drive on them. That’s why they are built.
Should the economy just not make products because people buy them? Roads can be fully use supported with about a $0.50 per gallon increase in gas tax. Transit being fully user would be cost-prohibitive. Fares would have to triple or more in price.
Please stop with the ineffective ad hominem arguments.
Please stop using the tactic ad hom, as you are not using it properly. This doesn’t stop certain ideologies from continuing to use it, surely.
Nonetheless, Scott, I’ve already discussed this fallacy. IOW: yet again, cut-pasting ideological talking points from ideological sites (rather than scholarly literature) is seen as ineffective.
HTH.
DS
Dan, You have not countered anything again.
You have a habit of avoiding the issue & talking off-topic.
You also keep changing stances & backtracking.
Please try some reasoning. You continue to rely on nothing & accusations.
I won again. Post 25 had no refutations whatsoever.
Effectiveness? You have no clue. That is a foreign concept to you. Please try to demonstrate an effective argument.
Well no duh, Scott you’re insane!