"With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed."

- Abraham Lincoln, 1854

Lincoln understood that public opinion matters a great deal when making policy, and tools such as national surveys help by providing snapshots. However, what the snapshots capture may not always be the whole story. The Transportation for America poll -- which, in the interest of full disclosure, I admit was co-sponsored by NRDC -- does a good job of portraying widespread enthusiasm for more mobility choices.

However, I believe we face another challenge and that more research and analysis of its scale and nature is warranted: Lack of familiarity with the federal transportation program. One piece of evidence that most Americans don't understand the program are the answers to one particular question in a poll taken in the summer of last year by Building America's Future. As the infrastructurist.com noted, most people believe the federal gas tax is increased every single year despite the fact that it's been almost 20 years since the last increase.

Now to its credit, the Transportation for America poll asked what the split in investment is between highways and other modes without "educating" respondents first about the matter, and found that their assessment is surprisingly close to the truth (not surprising to many of us, it also found that Americans want more balance). This is important because as a terrific book by a former Gallup pollster explains, too often polls don't plumb "non-opinion" or lack of knowledge about matters, which leads to an overestimation of the public's understanding of particular issues. Tag lines such as " Or are you unsure?" and "Or don't you know enough to say?" and "Or haven't you given this enough thought?" are rarely included, for example.

And this is, I think, one of our biggest tasks when advocating for reauthorization and reform of the national program, something which I think is less of a challenge at the local level where people are apt to be more familiar with transportation policy and policymakers (helping to explain the remarkable success rate of ballot initiatives financing more transportation investments). We need a better understanding of the gap in public understanding of the federal program as part of our efforts to inform public sentiment. Federal officials must help to measure the gap with tools such as the U.S. DOT listening tour currently underway.

And then, with public sentiment on our side, as Lincoln realized we stand a much better chance of success.

Governor Glendening is right to cite the example of ballot measures. To obtain voter majorities (especially in states such as California), business, labor and environmental groups work together to achieve ballot language that they all can support. This consensus building requires that each interest think about what is most important to them, what of the other groups' priorities they can live with, and how the overall package on balance improves transportation. Amazing that even on ballot measures that increase taxes, proponents are able to receive majorities and even two-thirds support. While these coalitions may poll to determine what elements of the package are most important to voters, the key is that they sit down together and work to a common goal.

The problem is NOT that the public will not support an increase in taxes or fees to pay for transportation. The problem is that we have not done the hard work to sell them a package of reforms that they and their elected representatives will support.

Let's sum up the elements of a successful formula: advocates put the press releases away, roll up their sleeves, come to a consensus, and then go to the voters and legislators for support. This is the kind of process that leads to dramatic reforms, including for national transportation policy. The question is whether we do it today or keep delaying and do it tomorrow.

While this prompt has generated a spirited debate about how and whether to prioritize transit options in the next authorization, I would like to return for a moment to one of the original questions: What role (if any) should public opinion polls play in setting policy?

In an ideal world, we would forgo opinion polls in favor of merit. And merit, incidentally, is precisely what is lacking in current transportation policy. Everyone agrees that building and maintaining America’s roads and highways is essential, but the status quo prevents prioritization and benchmarks. Road expansions can make for a great ribbon-cutting ceremony, but are not always the best way to get people from point A to point B, as Secretary LaHood remarked earlier this week. Of course, in the real world, polls do matter, and both the Transportation for America and American Highway Users Alliance results are instructive. Industry groups that support the status quo often cite polls like the Highway Users Alliance’s survey to justify low levels of support for public transportation. On the ground and outside of the Beltway, Americans are making their preferences known. According to the Center for Transportation Excellence, voters approved 72 percent of public transportation measures in last November’s elections, and are continually willing to tax themselves for better services, despite a tough economy. Consider the news out of St. Louis today: By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, voters approved a sales tax increase to provide St. Louis County Metro with a substantial, dedicated local funding source, a decisive victory. Last year, people across the country relied on transit agencies for more than 10 billion trips. In Charlotte, North Carolina, their streetcar system, funded by a voter-approved tax, saw twice as many riders as what was initially expected. When it comes to expanding transportation options, what the people want couldn’t be clearer.

Polls clearly have a role to play in shaping policy and informing messaging, otherwise we wouldn't collectively invest in so many of them at such enormous cost. Equally obvious is the need to interpret poll results carefully based on who is asking the questions.

Would the Highway Users Alliance poll answers be different if the question was "would you still support greater investment in roads and bridges if they were deliberately built in such a way as to make them inaccessible to one third of the population who cant drive, inpenetrable to anyone that wants cross from one side of their community to another, and destined to result in even more cars and trucks getting stuck in pretty much the same spot from the moment they are open"? I don't think so.

Would the T4America poll results be different if their questions concluded with "and by the way we are also going to take your car away from you and your family"? I don't think so. And I am pretty confident that in this day and age neither AHUA or T4America would either suggest or actually espouse such a foolish view.

As others have said quite effectively, people want choice. They don't equate roads and bridges as being exclusively for cars and trucks, especially in metro areas - they want the public right of way and the public realm to build community, to generate activity and jobs, and to facilitate commerce, and they understand that there's a balance to achieving all these goals that isn't always easy.

My interpretation of what people will actually vote for - as opposed to what they will say in response to a poll - in recent years is that they will vote to tax themselves for smart transportation investments in building sustainable, livable communites that offer transit, bicycling, walking and driving as options; they will vote for park and recreation bond issues and sales tax initiatives that build critical infrastructure such as parks, trails and open space. The public is much more suspicious of, and less likely to fund, "more of the same" monocultural highway expansion projects that are rooted in a 1950's planning ideology and placed in the hands of heavy-handed state highway agencies with a "trust me we know what's best for you" approach to project selection.

That's something we should all pay attention too as we figure out what the public will support and expect their representatives in Washington DC to support as we move forward on the next transportation bill.

Polls are always tricky things. They can be thoughtfully designed to produce useful info for policymakers—T4A’s recent poll is an good example—or they can be push polls trying to convince people that President Obama wasn’t born in America. One excellent result of the T4A poll was demonstrating that Americans in urban, suburban, and rural communities are united in their desire for more transportation options, and that they all believe expanded transit systems would benefit their communities.

What’s clear is that we have far too little detailed information on how transportation currently impacts people’s lives: the pressures on commuter sheds, the relative percentages of household income spent on transportation and housing, the health impacts of emissions on people who live by bus depots or in other areas that don’t meet clean air standards. Transportation equity research is crucial to understanding the impact of transportation policy and funding decisions on low income people and people of color. TEN won $5 million for transportation equity research demonstration programs in SAFETEA-LU, and the community-run research projects that resulted were a big step toward elevating the voices of the communities who rely on transit most. We’re gratified to see a new seriousness about studying the equity impacts of federally funded transportation projects from FTA and from DC Metro.

Research by the Brookings Institute, Robert Bullard, and Todd Swanstrom has helped us understand the impacts on construction careers, community development, and individual lives when low income people are included in transit and highway construction projects. This sort of research needs to be better funded.

When polling by reputable organizations supplements equity research of this kind, we’ll finally have a full picture of the kind of transportation system America needs.

Thank you Lisa for bringing Secretary Ray LaHood's blog post on the Transportation for America poll into this discussion.

The Secretary's comments are instructive as a message, but also because of the messenger. LaHood is a moderate Republican who represented sprawling Peoria, Illinois in Congress for 14 years. He does not come from an environmental or urban background, but has been an unapologetic supporter of increased transit options and for giving bicyclists and pedestrians a stronger voice.

LaHood also made it clear that increasing options does not mean neglecting current priorities. “I never said we would stop repairing, maintaining, and--yes--even expanding roadways. I said only that it's time to stop assuming that putting more cars on more roads is the best way to move people around more effectively,” he wrote on his blog.

And in response to the finding that 82 percent of Americans support increased transportation options, LaHood added: "the American people get that. I never doubted them, but it sure is nice to see the numbers."

With Americans eager for change and an Administration that hears them, there is no reason we cannot make real progress toward increased choices, greater accountability and support for safer and cleaner transportation investments in the next authorization bill.

As mentioned in the question, the American Highway Users Alliance poll found that 93 percent of likely voters considered it important that elected representatives support dedicating fuel taxes and other highway user fees to road and bridge improvements. That suggests that those polled recognize the original intent of the Highway Trust Fund – funding our nation’s highways and bridges.

The National Highway System provides businesses and commuters with the mobility that allows our nation to grow and prosper, and brings consumers the food, clothing and goods they need for their daily lives. The Federal Highway Administration estimates the cost to simply maintain current highway and bridge programs is $105.6 billion per year, and right now only about $78.7 billion is being spent. Without addressing this funding shortfall, our nation’s infrastructure will not have the capacity to handle increasing populations and freight volumes.

As we all know, taxes on fuel and additional fees paid by trucks fund highway infrastructure. Given the state of the Highway Trust Fund, ATA supports an increase in fuel taxes as long as Congress dedicates the money to priority highway and bridge projects.

Let’s look at another poll -- the U.S. Census from 2006-2008. Rather than measuring the number of people who might like to use highways, or transit, or bicycles, the census measured how many actually use a certain mode of transportation. And the census found that only one-half of 1 percent commute by bicycle and only 4.9 percent commute by public transit, while 82.3 percent commute by private motor vehicle.

These results from U.S. Census underline the importance of our nation’s highways. National Transportation Policy should maximize the taxpayer’s investment by providing proper maintenance and expansion of the National Highway System at its worst traffic bottlenecks. Reducing traffic congestion benefits all us by helping improve highway safety, cutting emissions through the reduction of idling, and improving commute times and supply chain efficiencies.

Secretary Lahood blogged today on his Fast Lane blog about the Transportation for America poll. Here's the link to the secretary's post if you want to know what he thinks about that poll's results:

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/04/survey-shows-americans-want-more-mobility-optionsbikes-walking-and-transit-should-be-in-the-mix.html

Mort Downey provides a good example where polls have utility—to measure the satisfaction customers and taxpayers have with a salient public service. Notwithstanding that example, while the results of public opinion polling might be interesting to measure the relative importance of transportation versus other policy priorities, polls will not be of much use in formulating the specific components of the surface or aviation authorizations.

Today’s set of transportation policies is broken. It is simply not possible to reconcile our identified needs with existing policies and available funding. Until we reconcile needs with a series of funded reforms, the industry will remain frustrated by a series of short-term authorization extensions. No amount of public opinion polling is going to solve problems that are well known and continue to go unaddressed.

While the Obama Administration has began offering a compelling new vision of transportation—one that is multimodal, inclusive of environmental and energy concerns, and tied to important related priorities such as land use—it has offered a budget that credibly funds those priorities only through Fiscal Year 2011. It has not yet presented a way to fund those priorities on a sustainable basis for the future (we await its promised set of principles for the authorizations which may provide the first clues).

The transportation industry—much of which is represented on this blog—does not need to commission new polls but needs to continue to work on the set of policies and funding initiatives that will support the highway, transit, rail, aviation and other transportation priorities for the future.

On the surface side, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Policy and Finance Commissions, the National Transportation Policy Project, and others have offered sensible reforms that incorporate much of what needs to be done. For aviation, Secretary LaHood’s pending Aviation Commission could be a similar vehicle that builds a consensus around new policy prescriptions and squares the industry’s desire for NextGen with the identified resources to pay for it.

Ultimately, for any legislation that doesn’t merely paper over the current contradictions, progress will require executive, legislative and industry-based leadership that (1) paints a clear vision, (2) identifies a policy architecture that supports the vision, (3) shows how the nation will pay for it over the long-term and (4) convinces the American public that it is worth paying for. Given the overly partisan nature of our current political dialogue, and our seeming unwillingness to tackle festering challenges this is a tall order.

Frankly it only becomes taller when we issue press release-like statements and stick with entrenched positions.

I'm very glad we agree on the key point... and would be very happy if we could all work together for a better bill. Afterall, we owe a great deal to the early "wheelmen" who started the good roads movement in the first place. In advancing better transportation, there's no need to vilify highway construction (even "outer beltways") to advance alternative modes -- particularly since the polling is clear that the public thinks we're underinvesting in our roads and bridges. I also hope that we can agree that every group of beneficiaries should contribute to the trust fund to help support their programs.

I appreciate Mr. Cohen’s response but will refrain from a point-by-point rebuttal for I have no desire to hijack this thread by responding to off topic issues that have nothing to do with polling and the ways that public opinion can be expressed in the legislative process.

However, allow me to indicate that I agree with Mr. Cohen when he observes that “a broad and diverse constituency is needed to get a very difficult bill done.” That was exactly my point.

And I continue to believe that Mr. Cohen “& Co.” risk the indefinite continuation of the current stalemate if they are unwilling to build that broad and diverse constituency by including the active transportation movement as a full partner.

I also submit that it is a strategic mistake on your part to think that you can help to build that constituency with comments like claiming that those who lobby for walking and biking are trying “to force behavioral changes on the driving public.” That kind of ideologically-driven distortion does nothing to create the trust necessary to build the “broad and diverse constituency” that you claim is necessary.

My goodness, I seemed to have touched a nerve with Mr. Laughlin! Such a personally-directed response! :-) Well, I thought my initial post was quite conciliatory, actually. I didn't even demand the construction of a single "outer beltway"!

Mr. Laughlin "& company": It is very easy to demand more and more of other people's money for your programs and not be willing to pay anything. You can even create a nice grassroots army for something like that --but don't be fooled that the typical voter will play along.

If you truly want to greatly expand the size of your program, why not do it without creating adversaries for yourself? I suggest you re-consider the suggestion that Rob Atkinson and I both proposed two weeks ago -- a new user fee on bikes or bike tires that could be walled-off and guaranteed in a federal trust fund account for your programs.

The point of my post was to suggest that a broad and diverse constituency is needed to get a very difficult bill done. Mr. Laughlin seems to think his grassroots supporters can get it done without the support of the users who pay the bill and the various organizations and businesses who still support highway investments. I think it is a strategic mistake to try to divide and conquer in this way.

Mr. Laughlin also implies that we are trying to sell the public on an existing program they don't want. Simply untrue. We have been highly critical of the current program. That is why our reauthorization proposal is clearly focused on reform and getting better returns on public investments in key areas of national interest.

Polling can make a useful contribution to the public policy debate. It can, as the T4America poll does, demonstrate that a major shift in public opinion is underway. But perhaps more than any other group of Americans, members of the U.S. House and Senate understand the value and limitations of public opinion polling. So allow me to offer two additional data points that further reflect shifting public opinion.

First, although unscientific, there is no better barometer of public opinion regarding federal surface transportation policy than the number of extensions of current law following the expiration of SAFETEA on September 30, 2009. It is quite apparent that despite the collective political clout of Mr. Cohen and his colleagues at AASHTO, AAA, and the ATA, we are witnessing what could be an extended stalemate.

Why is this happening?

To put in bluntly, the product that Mr. Cohen & Co. are selling is way past its expiration date with the American people. There is simply no public support for an increase in the federal gasoline tax to build more outer beltways that reduce, rather than enhance, our quality of life.

And yet what does Mr. Cohen propose as priorities for the next bill? To quote directly from his earlier post, he suggests “growing investments in highways, transit and alternate modes at roughly proportionate rates.” In other words, he wants a tax increase to lock in status quo priorities that enjoy no support among the American people. That is a formula for extended stalemate.

My second data point is also unscientific, but is nonetheless significant to illustrate that measuring public opinion and mobilizing public action are both important. In December 2008, during the debate over the contents of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy sent the following message to our email list:

“Please sign our petition to President-elect Obama and key congressional leaders:

I support explicit funding for trails, walking and biking in the upcoming economic recovery package. Funding active transportation is a cost-effective investment that creates jobs and leads to healthier people, stronger communities, decreased oil dependency, and reduced climate change emissions.”

Within just 10 days of sending this message, we were astounded to get 15,000 signatures on our petition. When we, and our allies in the America Bikes coalition, delivered our petitions to Capitol Hill, we succeeded in securing $800 million for the Transportation Enhancements program in the bill. The willingness of our supporters to make their voices heard to their elected representatives is clearly as effective as a public opinion poll.

Our coalition is rapidly building an active transportation movement that reaches into every Congressional district. At RTC, we’ve more than doubled our email list in the last year. If we were to send that petition today, I’m confident that we could get 50,000 signatures. If we continue to grow at this rate, a year from now – when a long-term reauthorization might be debated in earnest – I suspect that we could get 100,000 signatures. The bike industry itself just launched a sophisticated effort to enlist 1,000,000 voices in support of cycling in the US.

I throw out these numbers to put one of Mr. Cohen’s final comments in context. In scolding bike advocates, Mr. Cohen observes that:

“More important for the broader transportation community is that fact that the authorization bill will not (emphasis in original) receive broad public support outside-the-beltway for a user fee increase if it is seen as tightening funding for new highway capacity or attempting to force behavioral changes on the driving public. Groups that lobby for walking and biking should drop such goals because they only serve to divide and weaken the collective strength of the transportation community (emphasis added).”

Aside from the point that we have no interest in forcing behavioral change on anyone, there is one thing that the “broader transportation community” needs to understand. Although we have the capacity to mobilize tens of thousands of voices in support of a truly reform-oriented transportation bill, we will not be able to do so if the ultimate outcome is funding at “roughly proportional rates.”

With the growth in the popularity of our movement, advocates of active transportation will not be satisfied with continuing to receive less than 2 cents of every federal surface transportation dollar. But if a reform package results in at least doubling the federal investment in active transportation, we will be able to add significantly to the “collective strength of the transportation community.”

Certainly as we make public policy decisions, polling is one way to gain a better insight into what the public holds as their priorities. Of course, there are always conflicting views among the public and polls sometimes are designed and drafted in a way to encourage responses consistent with the views of the sponsors. I haven't tracked back to the two polls cited this week, but I hope that their sponsors have made the detailed questions and responses available, as well as the detailed response and validity data quoted in the introductory material.

As evidence of how polling can give new insight into public reactions, I draw your attention to this morning's Washington Post poll of 1107 adult residents in the Washington metro area. The details of the poll are available on the Post website. Some interesting observations of relevance to the current policy debate about transportation issues in the area. (NOTE: in the interest of full disclosure, I am now on the Board of Directors of WMATA, the operator of the Washington Metro rial, bus and paratransit systems)

• While the largest issue cited by the respondents is the issue of gridlock (38%), the combination of issues about transit is of equal concern (40%). And there's an interesting observation as to what the policy direction should be to reduce congestion (30% say focus on roads, 62% say provide more options).
• Notwithstanding the problems that Metro has had in recent months, there's still a lot of fundamental support--70% of all respondents rate Metrorail as excellent or good, and that number rises to 80% among system users. These percentages are a bit off from the last survey 5 years ago, perhaps reflecting both operating issues and the increase in crush ridership.
• It's also clear that there is support for new ways to support Metro. While 40% of respondents say that Metro should "operate within its existing budget, even if this means cutting current services," 52% want to find a new way. OF the latter group, 43% favor increased taxes, 35% fares, and 15% say both.

The results of the Future of Transportation National Survey – which just came out of the field in early March – show that Americans at this moment and in this economy are hungry for more and better travel options. Indeed, this desire cuts across ideological and geographical lines and hammers home the need for a new approach that meets the needs of the 21st Century.

The March poll was conducted by a bipartisan partnership – Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican firm, and Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, a Democratic firm. As the question notes, two-thirds of voters surveyed favor “more transportation options.” Informed that less than 20 percent of federal investment currently goes toward public transportation, 58 percent said they believe more money should be allocated toward public transportation, with the level of support fairly constant across demographic groups.

The numbers are even more decisive when voters were asked whether “the United States would benefit from an expanded and improved public transportation system.” More than four-in-five (82 percent) agreed with that statement. Even 79 percent of rural voters – not a group associated with support for public transportation – agreed.

The survey does not simply answer the question of “whether” but also “why.” An overwhelming 73 percent say they “have no choice to drive as much as” they do. This coupled with the above numbers indicates an electorate yearning for choices and not getting them under current policy.

The survey also found that Americans of every political affiliation and income level are convinced that an expanded system of reliable public transportation is needed to ensure that everyone – regardless of age or income – has access to jobs and necessities. In these tough times, Americans are also especially sensitive to the plight of low-wage workers, seniors and the disabled, who need reliable and affordable ways to get where they need to go.

Context is everything in policy debates and in polling. I’m sure that if asked whether transportation trust fund money should be diverted to non-transportation (emphasis added) uses or spent on roads and bridges alone, the vast majority would support the latter. However, our poll showed that Americans clearly see public transportation, walking and biking as legitimate transportation uses – and ones they want to see expanded. They expect to see their national transportation policy rooted in today’s priorities, not those of the 1950s, and they expect a range of options for traveling within and between cities, towns and neighborhoods. It is also important to note that, under current policy, revenues for transportation are generated from a variety of sources, including bond measures and the General Fund, rather than simply the gas tax. Our utmost priority ought to be allocating those precious dollars where Americans think they are needed most.

As I said when we released the poll last week, if Americans themselves were crafting the transportation bill, we would see a doubling of the share for public transportation; an ironclad system of accountability for restoring existing roads and bridges before simply building more of them; and a strong commitment to making all of our streets safe enough for kids to bicycle to school or for seniors to walk to nearby restaurants or health services.

Transportation for America is a growing coalition that includes representatives of populations that rely upon and are affected by the transportation system, whether they are business owners, retirees, Realtors, low-wage workers, or advocates for the environment. We share a common interest in policy and results, but are not financially invested in particular industries. The Highway Users’ Alliance is an able representative of the road-building industry, but both their membership and the age of their poll lead one to wonder whether their positions are fully reflective of where Americans are today.

The most likely interpretation a legislator will take from a quick look at both surveys is that people want more investment in transportation, in general. More highways and more transit, for sure. The most logical “Big 4”, bipartisan response would include growing investments in highways, transit and alternate modes at roughly proportionate rates.

Our survey showed that people have strong feelings about how highway user fees should be spent and the appropriate leadership roles for the federal, state, and local governments. Clearly, respondents felt that highway user fees should benefit motorists and that the federal government should take a leading role in advancing major highway and bridge improvements. They also supported increased federal spending for highways and bridges and paying more in fuel taxes to improve them.

But respondents also felt that bicycle and pedestrian facilities were primarily a local issue. This does not mean that people do not like walking and bike paths, they just recognize that the critical federal priority is to really get people and goods moving again over our stressed-out highways. Increased federal funding for alternative modes should certainly not reduce the share of funding for the primary mode of travel – particularly when roads and bridges have enormous unfunded improvement needs. Regardless of this disconnect with the public, we have no doubt that some federal funding will continue to be mandated for biking and walking paths in any upcoming authorization bill.

More important for the broader transportation community is that fact that the authorization bill will not receive broad public support outside-the-beltway for a user fee increase if it is seen as tightening funding for new highway capacity or attempting to force behavioral changes on the driving public. Groups that lobby for walking and biking should drop such goals because they only serve to divide and weaken the collective strength of the transportation community.

As we move forward on what will surely be one of the toughest authorization bills in history to enact, our various groups need to develop a broad public and stakeholder constituency that supports paying for a good, reformed bill with nationally-focused transportation objectives. We need to be cognizant of the sources of revenue and maximizing the return on these investments. We also need to look at the transportation objectives we can all agree Americans strongly support, such as clear targets for congestion relief, safety, economic growth through freight mobility, and making sure our systems reach a good state of repair. These programs may be diverse but each can be implemented in a cost-effective, accountable way.

Now is the time to bring together a juggernaut of support for a good bill. Both of our surveys show that the public is ready for federal leadership.