Confusion on the Interstate Bridge

James Mayer of the Oregonian writes today about a new poll showing a huge jump in Clark County support for extending light rail north of the Columbia River. The poll, to be released today, shows more than two-thirds of Clark County residents favor the extension, a big change since those voters defeated light rail 11 years ago by a 2-to-1 margin.

But.

There are a couple of problems with the story, some with the reporting and some with the data:

The first problem reflects, in my opinion, either reporter bias or bias by his source. The story leads with increased Clark County support for light rail, but nine paragraphs later you learn that those polled prefer to add vehicle capacity first (35 percent), followed by adding vehicle capacity together with a mass transit option (28 percent), followed by extending light rail (19 percent).

In other words, the poll may show support for light rail to Vancouver, but not if it doesn't include expansion for vehicle capacity. Sorry, Rex Burkholder, but most people don't share your disdain for people who drive and the vehicles they own -- they think money spent on vehicle transportation is critical.

The second problem is in the polling itself, as well as the Columbia River Crossing Project that commissioned the poll. As the story said in paragraph 4 (emphasis mine), the CRCP:

. . . proposed removing the existing bridge and replacing it with a new bridge that would include three freeway lanes in each direction and either light rail or a dedicated bus lane.

The poll found that 76 percent of those polled "favored adding a third lane to I-5," implying that the lane would be added to the Interstate Bridge or a replacement bridge.

What's wrong with those things? The Interstate Bridge already has three lanes in each direction!

Yes, portions of I-5 narrow to two lanes elsewhere in Portland, and that needs to be addressed.
But that wasn't the question. So the question essentially framed to ask if voters wanted to keep the bridge at the status quo for vehicle traffic and add a mass transit option. Those polled may have thought they were indicating support for more vehicle traffic, but it sounds like they were really tricked into giving the thumbs up for extending Burkholder's bicycle utopia into Washington.

(One caveat: the actual poll is not available online, so once I see the questions, I reserve the right to revise my story about the last issue. It may have been that the poll was broader than simply the I-5 route over the Columbia River, but at this point it doesn't sound that way, considering that the group specifically proposes a new six-lane bridge.)

Now, watch the CRCP use this data to proclaim public support to spend tax dollars on a light rail bridge without doing a thing to improve vehicle traffic. As a spokeswoman for the project said in the final paragraph of the story:

. . . the survey results confirm that the public generally supports their efforts and that critics who charge officials from Olympia and Salem are trying to force a solution that residents don't want are wrong.

No, really. They have the data to "prove" it.