Pacesetter: Surveys generally show people are very concerned about transportation. Yet, they often fail to support or vote for funding measures for transportation-related improvements. Why?

The monorail issue passed partially because there was no cost attached to it. More importantly, it was the only opportunity in that election to express frustration over a lack of progress and willingness to institute a solution. And it is Seattle, after all. Seattle has an independent, rebellious streak in its psyche.

An important disconnect that needs to be addressed is that the transportation planners and the public do not see the same problem. Voters see the problem in terms of congestion; that is how they experience it, and that is how they talk about it. Experts tell us proposals such as the RTA will not solve the congestion problem, so the voter is left wondering: “What problem will it solve?” The answer is “we are actually trying to solve future mobility problems, and if we don't do something now, we won't even be able to move in 10 or 20 years.” This focus on the future has not been clear to voters.

Pacesetter: Do you think individuals feel a personal connection to transportation problems and solutions?

Elway: I think people feel very connected to the transportation problem. That is exactly why it remains a top priority. People feel it every day. The frustration people feel over traffic congestion is very real and very personal. It affects the psyche of the region.

The trick is to get people to feel connected to solutions. With the first RTA proposal, not enough people thought it would address their problem. It is not even that voters are selfishly wanting a personal solution–the mythical mass transit that picks them up at their door when they want to go. It is “What is going to be done in my area? How is congestion going to be eased on the routes I travel?”

Pacesetter: What elements must be in effect to create the sense of crisis that spurs public action on a regional issue such as transportation?

Elway: I don't think there needs to be a sense of crisis created. People know there is a problem. They see it every day in their own lives. We have a tendency to think that we need to manipulate the public by creating a crisis so they will vote for this or that. Voters are also more wary of the “leader” who cries wolf.

What is needed is leadership that helps the regions' residents make the connections between the problems they perceive and the solutions that are being proposed. What the leaders need to do is make those connections. Voters are not going to be won over by expensive proposals that will not address congestion. The case has to be made clear about what specific proposals will accomplish, and how it fits into the larger picture.

I think there is a tendency to underestimate citizen ability to see the big picture and citizen willingness to participate in solutions. This is especially true after some proposal is rejected at the polls. It's a familiar pattern: supporters run a typical “divide and conquer” campaign, lose the election, then blame the voters.

The final piece is helping voters understand how their action can contribute to the solution. From the voter's standpoint the question is something like: “If I vote for this tax increase, will the solution that I think will be effective be put in place to address the problem that I saw in the first place?” All those elements have to be lined up.

Pacesetter: Based on your knowledge of public opinion, what actions do you foresee the region taking in the future to address the traffic crunch?

Elway: Transportation is a big, complex, regional problem. It requires engagement to help voters understand the problems, the potential solutions, and the actions required to achieve those solutions. It's long, hard, slow work–as everyone who reads the Pacesetter already knows. As visible progress starts to occur on the measures that have been passed, we may see some easing in the public feeling that “nothing is being done.” Of course, we may also start to feel the frustration of construction disruptions.

The vote in November on the [$2.4 billion] transportation funding package could provide an indicator of how deep voters are ready to go toward a comprehensive transportation solution. Supporters will argue that it addresses the problem and cuts taxes at the same time. Opponents will say that it does not fix enough of the problem and is short sighted. It could be a helpful debate in sorting out the public willingness to address the problem.