HEARTS & MINDS:Anti-roads groups making progress

At the same time an important segment of the American public IS buying into the environmentalist idea that roadbuilding won’t help relieve congestion. These are a couple of striking conclusions from six intensive focus group sessions held in St Louis, Altanta, Denver, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Oklahoma City a few months ago. The survey was carried out by Mike McKenna of the Lazarus Group, marketers and pollsters in Richmond VA for The Road Information Program (TRIP), a national road lobby.

The focus group work will be followed up with a sample survey to produce statistically sound measures of the extent of different views but the focus group research threw up the conclusion that a lot of people buy the generic idea that new roads just generate extra traffic, while at the same time many of them DO still want local road improvements. There is also widespread support for a greater spending on transit. And almost unanimous support for the idea of “better planning.”

The focus group in Atlanta produced fierce opposition the federal government’s withholding of road funds from Georgia because of its inability to produce a transport plan that would get the city in conformity with federal clean air requirements. The locals saw denial of funds for new roads as being perverse, because it would aggravate congestion and air pollution.

However the groups suggested traffic congestion is regarded as “an annoying fact of modern life that one must approach with a sense of tolerance and humor” rather than an urgent or pressing issue on a par with crime or education. It is nevertheless an issue that needs to be tackled, because it encroaches on people’s time. A lot don’t particularly enjoy driving.

“When offering solutions for traffic congestion, people were hesitant to offer the thought that new roads needed to be built and that current roads need to be improved. Rather their first thoughts focussed on improving transit or altering work schedules... ominously it indicates that people have at least subconsciously adopted the notion that we can’t build enough roads to substantially affect traffic congestion. In fact when that idea was specifically tested, people agreed with it... people believe it might make sense to invest a bit more in transit and a bit less in roads.... Some people believe specifically that increasing road surface only serves to increase traffic congestion.”

Yet there is a disconnect. The same people who agreed with that anti-road thinking as a general proposition also simultaneously supported some specific roadbuilding projects in their own region. In addition people readily support projects that involve some ingenuity in making more efficient use of an asset that already exists. They are resistant perhaps to ‘grandiose’ projects, but like smaller scale clever things. The focus groups suggested little faith in high technology (ITS) as having much of a role in solving traffic problems. Indeed there was concern about the unintended consequences of technology, the Lazarus group reports.

The groups did not confirm the idea that people merely want transit merely “to get that other motorist off the road.” People said they would use transit themselves if it were made “convenient.” That begs the question of whether, or what kinds of transit, can in fact be made convenient enough for people to use, but the view is apparently so widespread that most politicians and officials will want to be seen to favor ‘transit.’

People do not know that a great deal is being spent on transit already and think far more is being spent proportionately on roads, the survey found. The groups showed people have no idea of the small increases that are being made to roadway capacity.

“The environmental community has clearly made inroads with their arguments against generic roadbuilding, to the point where average Americans are subconsciously adopting the no-build rhetoric. The environmentalists progress has been made in part because the roadbuilding community has focussed on building roads rather than on creating arguments and allies... systemic arguments will have to be made for building roads.

“Unless and until the roadbuilding community forcefully, publicly and coherently argues that new roads lead to reduced (not increased) congestion in people’s neighborhoods and communities, people will have a lingering attitudes that (new) roads may in fact lead to more congestion... absent another voice in the debate, people will believe that new roads cannot (help.)”

The report says roadbuilders need to “regain the rhetorical high ground.”

The focus groups suggested the “jobs” argument is a mistake. The vast majority of people have jobs and are not impressed by the idea that roads are being built to provide jobs. They do not usually get given persuasive arguments about the local benefits of roads in terms of a smoother, safer, quicker ride.

“For every road project of any size, the roadbuilding community should get in the habit of being able to explain how the project will help people in the affected subdivisions and neighborhoods.. Typically it is assumed that such benefits are obvious. Don’t assume that.”

Roadbuilders are advised they need to encourage more “credible messengers” who can argue the case that people will get worthwhile benefits from road work. While there is still “substantial sentiment in this country that we need to build roads” it has been eroded by the constant repetition of the pessimistic enviro line that we cannot build our way out of congestion. There is still sufficient support for each individual road project that individual road battles tend to be won, even while the “war” for roads in general is in some danger of being lost, Lazarus reports.

The study says that road battles will be fought or lost at the local level and that thoughtful and cogent people need to be cultivated who know the local scene, have local data and local examples: “A simple vague assertion or even a competent theoretical explanation are less effective than a single concrete example.” (Frank Moretti TRIP 202 466 6706)