— from Steve Smith for Madrona Voices —
Madrona Voices released a survey about the Port of Orcas Master Plan on July 30, 2018. As of August 5, 2018, we have received 594 responses. The demographics of those responding to the survey closely match those who responded to our public hospital district surveys.
The surveys conducted by Madrona Voices regarding the public hospital district prior to the April 2018 vote predicted that 76% (+/- 5%) of the vote would be in support of the district. The actual final vote result was 76%. This means that those who answered our surveys were a representative match for those who voted. The same is true for this airport survey. We believe that the results of this survey are representative of what the community
thinks.
Two primary findings from our airport survey:
- A large portion of the comments demonstrates that the respondents believe that the Port of Orcas intends to expand the airport in order to accommodate more aircraft and larger aircraft.
- A large portion of the respondents do not trust the commissioners to act in the best interest of the community.
Madrona Voices is not affiliated with the Port of Orcas. You can read more about who Madrona Voices is, why we do these surveys, and how we do the surveys on our website
MadronaVoices.com.
As a person who did not take the survey (because I do not believe I have all of the information necessary to form a proper decision) I would like to state that I trust that the commissioners currently seated will act in a manner that they believe is best for our community. It may not be the most popular decision, it may have hurdles in front of and behind it and it may require continued discussion. Having met with, worked with and known most of the commissioners on multiple fronts, I do trust them to be people with our communities’ interest at hand.
This is more than I could say for most elected officials in the current political climate.
I think that it is a major misstatement to claim that this survey represents what the community thinks. First, the questions were not easily answered without making assumptions that should not need to be made. Second, the survey was not distributed to a random sample or even publicized that broadly. Third, the fact that many respondents did not understand the issues is clear from the text responses. Just the fact that 80% (!) of respondents are Amazon Prime members indicates to me that the group is an unusual one. (It also gives me an idea for how to help for the Exchange’s cardboard recycling efforts, but that’s another topic.)
Peg, your contribution to this issue has been laudable, well-articulated, and appreciated. However, I found the survey easy to navigate, understand, and answer, based on following the issue through an Eastsound social media platform & Orcas Issues. One can critique the structure of some of the questions, but I wonder if you have access to the demographic data Steve cites above. If not, I’m not sure I understand how you arrive at the conclusion that the survey’s conclusion is a major mistatement. I will accept that as your opinion, but I without the démographic data analysis I must reserve judgement.
Note: Amazon trucks in its deliveries to Orcas…Aeronautical doesn’t have sufficient space to deal with the quantity, but these deliveries are not airborne
For what it’s worth, about 2/3 of all US households are Amazon Prime members, and I would expect that fraction to be higher on Orcas, because of both access to retail and economic demographic. So 80% doesn’t sound like a gross systemic bias of the island’s population. Ref: https://m.benzinga.com/article/11497368
Having said that, I got an invitation but didn’t take the survey because too much nuance was being lost in the phrasing of the questions.
Thank you, Paula–I’d certainly like to see the demographic data (e.g., are 10% of island residents pilots?) just because I’m a data freak. How was the survey sample population selected? Why was it sent initially to invitees?
The most significant issue is the superficiality or ambiguity of the questions. The regulatory and grant issues are complex, and it is clear that many respondents were not familiar with either the “facts” as presented by the survey or the questions and issues raised by many members of the public. (I base this on the open text statements included.)
If the Port is to rely on any survey of opinions, it needs to commission a statistically-valid one. Even better would be a series of meetings in which information is furnished and citizen comments are taken.
I appreciate the time and effort that Madrona Voices have expended to produce, tabulate and report on the survey. I found that the wording of the questions was done in a very factual manner in an attempt to make them as unbiased as possible.
If the questions and analysis are read with an unbiased perspective, there is much value in the analysis of the questions and the results which most people would have to admit they were unaware of.
That said, I believe that those who are complaining about the survey are missing the point of the survey, which was to increase everyone’s knowledge base.
To the complainers: The survey was instructive, so appreciate what other people do, and stop picking things apart and complaining. The survey might not be perfect, but it’s more than you do, and you might actually learn something if you let go of your biases.
Terry,
I agree that Madrona Voices provides a valuable service. It was very helpful for me in deciding to vote in favor of the PHD project. I told Steve as much. But let me try to illuminate what some found problematic with the very first question that kicked off the poll:
“The Orcas Island airport is not up to date with current FAA safety standards. Do you want the port commissioners to make long-range plans to keep the airport in compliance?”
1. So every day when Cessna Caravan‘s arrive and depart, when FedEx arrives and departs and medical evacuation takes place using a Cessna Caravan–so, again, each and every day for the last many many years these operations have been ongoing and passengers have been boarding and arriving on Kenmore‘s Cessna Caravan —our airport has not been FAA compliant? Our airport has been unsafe for the last 10+ years?
2. “Do you want the port commissioners to make long-range plans to keep the airport in compliance?”
It’s either compliant or it isn’t. How do you “keep” the airport in compliance when it supposedly isn’t? When was it in compliance? What has changed on the ground?—or with the equipment used?—that supposedly brought it out of compliance?
These are the elephant-sized nuances that this question misses and made many of us feel unable to answer the first question.
Given the inconsistencies between the “assumed” facts in the question and the current and past use of the airport with no change-agent present to account for the declaration that our airport is suddenly unsafe and not in compliance, you’ll forgive the lack of credibility on the part of many residents as to the over-simplified assumptions made in the first poll question.
But, again, I think Steve does a great job, generally, and that Madrona Voices is a great Island asset.
No poll is perfect but, here, there may be too many gray areas and nuances making the poll problematic right out of the gate.
What Peg, Chris, Leif, and Ken said reflect on my impressions of and experience in taking this survey. I tried to convey my concerns in an email conversation with Steve Smith. My concern with this survey being turned in to the port is that it will have more weight than it should and that it doesn’t paint the whole picture of why a person may have chosen “yes” for question 1, when at the same time, they are against expansion. Damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont. This is my frustration with many surveys, in general. It’s also rare to find a survey that is completely unbiased – one way or the other. The format of yes/no, either/or itself makes this hard to do; when the truth is often somewhere in the grey areas not covered. The either/or thing tends to divide people who otherwise are closer together on many issues than they might know – IMO of course.
I’m struck by the number of people who voted “No” to the first question, that was hard to do, indicating that you didn’t support safety or some such was required, yet lots of people said “No”.
To me that indicates some strong feelings & thoughts, worthy of probing. Analysis of that+++ would be in order — or a revised, credible survey.
“To the complainers: The survey was instructive, so appreciate what other people do, and stop picking things apart and complaining. The survey might not be perfect, but it’s more than you do, and you might actually learn something if you let go of your biases.”
The survey WAS instructive, about how difficult it is to take a multi-layered nuanced legal and community issue and reduce it to simple yes-no answers, or to rely on the proponents of the changes to be clear and straightforward about the underlying facts.
The principal objection to the “survey” is that its authors presented it as reflective of “what the community thinks.” That position is technically and practically untenable.
I see that there are a few new comments, since I last looked, which address the survey itself rather than the airport. We have a description on our website of how we do the surveys and how we measure them. On our site, please look at the menu on the top and click on “Methodology.” We think several objections here are addressed on that page.
First, let me say that question 1 could have been better worded. Second, it was not our intent to imply that you had to choose between being safe or being unsafe.
I think much of the confusion with the question comes about because of the different assumptions with which people come to the survey. Some come believing that the Port plans to expand to allow larger aircraft than what the airport uses now. We assumed that the Port meant what it said in that it does not now nor has it ever intended to do anything that will allow larger aircraft than are currently using the airport.
We perhaps should have anticipated that this alternate perception was firmly fixed in some people’s minds and we should have either better explained the options or phrased the question such that there could be no misunderstanding. Our apologies for failing to anticipate everyone’s perceptions.
Once the survey goes out, we cannot modify it. There are a couple of reasons it can’t be modified. First, if some people take a survey that is different than the survey that others take later, it renders the survey invalid. Second, within minutes of being sent, a large number of people typically take the survey. Third, if we modify the survey while someone is taking it, Survey Monkey unfortunately erases their responses. We have no way of knowing if someone is in the process of taking the survey. Best option – make the survey perfect the first time.
The good news is that the Port moves very slowly. It tends to move in years rather than months. There will be many opportunities to influence the Port before any dirt is actually moved.
There will also be future surveys. Our goal is to create fair, neutral, unbiased surveys that both supporters and opponents of an issue will be willing to take. We are not perfect, and we welcome any suggestions on how to best achieve the goal of serving the community. Please take a look at our “Methodology” write-up as you provide your ideas. Thank you.
I came to the survey without assumptions about the Port’s intentions to make the airport available to larger planes. I came with questions whether the airport was officially “unsafe” for existing (but relatively rare) Caravan-level traffic under FAA guidelines and whether it could continue to operate without the drastic changes to Mount Baker Road and surrounding properties. I think that no one can take a position about what the Port should do without understanding that very question.
My recommendation for the future would be to make whatever survey you undertake available to all Orcas residents, whether by postcard notice or intense media coverage.
One interesting topic that has some lead time to it is the proposal to close Crescent Beach Road and make it a “preserve.” (This is different from any closure that would be required due to sea level rise over time.)
Another is the proposed addition of bike lanes from School Lane to North Beach Road, which I believe would require the street width plus 4 additional feet on either side to be taken from the frontage properties/County easements.
Susan—I chose not to vote because voting No to question 1 seemed a little odd given the question.
But my first inclination was to vote No because a NO vote would be the answer to the question if it were properly worded to include the relevant nuances that flushed out the real issues present.
Perhaps that’s what others chose to do. In other words, they voted no, perhaps, to the question as it should have been framed instead of as it was framed.
A sort of passive-aggressive answer to a survey question….?
I agree with many of the comments here – I followed my inclination to vote “no” in the first “lead” question – which almost turned me away from the survey altogether. But I wanted to see how the other questions were, so I took the survey. I thought that “no” was the only way to vote if you don’t want expansion. the last question and the questions two before the last were equally frustrating yes-or-no questions that didn’t consider nuance or give the chance to comment. The other questions in the survey were clear and much easier to answer.
I have been involved in trying to save Eastsound Swale and the rural/ecological aspects of the watershed on which Eastsound is built, for a number of years. We’ve all watched grant-driven “plans” be made while being assured it wouldn’t happen, it was just necessary for the “update” – blah blah blah.
If they receive grant monies for It plan It, they WILL build It. Anyone who thinks differently must not have been involved over years with watching the County do violation after violation to what the People said they wanted. Just look at the 6 year road plan, all the road “improvements” driven by state grants that require much wider easements than the county requires – overkill which does kill – trees and ecosystems and “straightens” roads and ups the speed limit – making them MORE unsafe. Putting a “preferred plan” into the Port Master Plan and then continuing to take FAA grant monies WILL assure buildout. We have not even done carrying capacity – not only for residences, but for traffic and other areas. I’d say that at traffic – we are already maxed-out. Many more facts need gathering from all sides of the issue regarding the airport, and the constraints of the small wetland land mass that it’s on may make the data presented inaccurate, since those constraints have not yet been explored. The time to explore them and consider them is now — BEFORE a master plan is adopted.
We “complainers” want to know all the facts and don’t believe they are all there in the Port’s assessment of need, or the consultant’s Alternatives. We want to know who pushed the narrative. We want to be included in effecting our wishes of keeping the airport small, and safe.
We hope that future surveys will be more nuanced, and appreciate that Steve Smith may be willing to consider wordings of future surveys, and broader data. Here are a few questions that come to mind to consider for the next survey; I bet the Public can come up with many more.
1) Do we want to keep taking AIP grant monies so that we HAVE to meet “grant assurances” and the conditions that come with taking the monies?
2) Do we believe that the expansion plans proposed are necessary to meet safety requirements?
3) Do we think that some safety measures can be implemented without massive expansion and impacts to traffic on our two major collector roads?
4) if the maximum runway separation is achieved by accepting the maximum buildout plan (alt. 4), do we envision or want planes up to 79′ wingspan?
Because if you plan it, they will build. Experience dictates.