Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to How transportation language impacts policy and planning
Similar to How transportation language impacts policy and planning (20)
More from BTAOregon
More from BTAOregon (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
How transportation language impacts policy and planning
- 1. What we talk about when we talk about transportation: does the way we use language matter? Lake Strongheart McTighe Regional Planner, Metro 2016 Oregon Active Transportation Summit
- 2. Do we need a “transportation language” policy? a) Use objective, unbiased language: subjective language can support bias, obscure meaning b) Use plain language: technical jargon can obscure, alienate and exclude c) Use the correct words: using words with different meanings as though they were interchangeable can exclude
- 3. Objective, unbiased language Biased Terms…………………Objective Terms • Improve………………………change, modify • Enhance, deteriorate ….change, increase, decrease • Upgrade……………….change, expand, widen, replace • Alternative……………………bus, bicycle, walk, non-car • Level of service…………….level of service for … • Traffic……………motor vehicle traffic, bike traffic….. • Accident………..collision, crash • Efficient…………fast
- 4. Objective, unbiased language “Improve” “Improvement” “Improves” Biased • The following street improvements are recommended. • The intersection improvement will cost $5,000. • The motor vehicle capacity will be improved. Objective • The following street modifications are recommended. • The right turn channel will cost $5,000. • The motor vehicle capacity will be changed.
- 5. Objective, unbiased language “Enhance” “Enhancement” “Deteriorate” Biased • The level of service was enhanced. • The level of service deteriorated. • The capacity enhancements will cost $40,000. Objective • The level of service for cars was changed. • The level of service for cars was decreased. • The level of service for cars was increased. • The increases to car capacity will cost $40,000.
- 6. Objective, unbiased language “Upgrade” Biased • Upgrading the street will require a wider right of way. • The upgrades will lengthen sight distances. Objective • Widening the street will require a wider right of way. • The changes will lengthen sight distances.
- 7. Objective, unbiased language “Alternative transportation” Biased • Alternative modes of transportation are important to downtown. Objective • Non-automobile forms of transportation are important to the downtown. • Non-motorized forms of transportation are important to the downtown.
- 8. Use the correct words poor urban mobility
- 9. Use the correct words poor urban mobility ≠ car congestion you can have good urban mobility, and car congestion at the same time
- 10. Use the correct words poor urban mobility ≠ car congestion “When you use words with different meanings as though they were interchangeable, you are denying the existence or relevance of people who are included in one meaning but not the other.”
- 11. Plain language, not technical jargon
- 12. Plain language, not technical jargon • Issues=problems • Leverage=use, exploit • Mitigate =reduce, avoid, prevent • Stakeholders=participants • Sunset the project=kill the project • Urban fabric = appearance or character • Dwelling unit=single-family house or apartment unit • Neighborhood commercial uses = shops, stores, or businesses
Editor's Notes
- We use words and language to communicate. However, language does not only describe reality, it also produces reality. Words can enlighten, engage, illuminate, clarify, welcome, and encourage. They can also complicate simple ideas, obscure problems, and perpetuate power relations. So it is critical that we are conscious of the words we use, how we use them, and not only of the reality they can describe, but the reality they could be creating. The way we talk about transportation, the words we choose to use and the ways in which we use them in TRANSPORTATION plans, policies and projects – has a concrete effect on the reality of how we get around. So, I do think we need a policy for using “sustainable, unbiased transportation terminology” In 1996 Ian Lockwood was the transportation engineer in West Palm Beach and helped the city adopt a Transportation Language Policy. Much of my presentation draws from the city’s resolution.
- Much of the current transportation language was developed several decades ago at a time when the car was the major priority in cities. However, objectives have changed and for many cities today creating a balanced, equitable, and sustainable transportation system characterized by freedom of travel choice is the goal. Unfortunately, transportation language has not evolved to comply with this objective, and much of it still carries a pro-car bias. Continued use of biased language is not in keeping with the objective of a balanced, equitable, sustainable, “smart” transportation system. The words were coined during the golden age of the automobile, the 1930s through the 60s, by the transportation experts. These experts memorialized words in our books and technical manuals, like the Highway Capacity Manual. And the intention was to express the values of the profession in those words. The values, of course, were very automobile-oriented. And we still use those words today, even though our value sets have shifted dramatically. What the words do is perpetuate the bias of the time. So if we want to reform and change things, it’s much more difficult if the automobile biases and culture are literally hard-wired into the language.
- Here are some examples, from that 1996 West Palm Beach city policy, that I think help illustrate how words we have been using for a long time as though they were objective, are actually quite subjective. Improve is in nearly every transportation project description. And why not – it sounds so good!
- Enhance and deteriorate are another set of very subjective words that we have been using as if they were scientific and objective.
- “Upgrade” is a term that is commonly used to describe what happens when a local street is reconstructed as a collector, or when a two-lane street is expanded to four lanes. “Upgrade” implies a change for the better. Though this may be the case for one constituent, others may disagree. Again, using “upgrade” in this way indicates that the community has a bias that favors one group over other groups. Objective language includes “expansion,” “reconstruction,” “widened,” or “changed.”
- The word alternative begs the questions, Alternative to what? To driving of course! I run across this word all of the time!
- In addition to using objecitve and unbiased language, it is important to use words that correctly describe what you are tying to describe. What do these words ‘poor urban mobility’ conjure up for you – what do they mean? Do they mean it is hard to get around in the urban area? On his blog Human transit, Jarret Walker points out that, every year, the Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Scorecard describes the nation’s most transit-intensive and walkable metro areas as having terrible “urban mobility”. And every year in the news, the scorecard and report is described as though it were the bottom line of the state of "mobility" or “commuting” in America. Even though every year the methods of the report are disputed. One of the things disputed is whether the analysis really captures the state of urban mobility.
- But, as Walker states, you don’t need to study the analysis to understand what’s wrong with TTI's claims. All you need to do is look at their press release or summary, and notice that they want you to think of car congestion as equivalent to poor urban mobility. Urban mobility are not the right words to use.
- Walker says: “When you use words with different meanings as though they were interchangeable, you are denying the existence or relevance of people who are included in one meaning but not the other.” He continues, “The people being erased are anyone who moves about in cities (urban mobility) but does not experience congestion. These include anyone who organized their lives so that they can walk to work, and of course anyone who cycles or uses public transit– at least those transit services that are protected from congestion such as most heavy rail, light rail, and busway services. (And in fact, the report itself is interested only in the travel time of “auto commuters,” so all transit riders are excluded.)” If you are one of these people, you do not count as part of your city when the TTI tallies your city’s “urban mobility." Any subsequent commentary about the economic impact of “urban mobility” problems refers to an economy in which you do not exist.
- You can also exclude, alienate and obscure meaning by using transportation jargon instead of plain language. This is so important that in 2010 Congress signed into law the Plain Writing Act of 2010, requiring federal executive agencies to use plain writing. Books have been written about it and there are workshops for bureaucrats. 1979- Carter EO to use plain language 1980- Regan rescinded 1998-Clinton – memo use plain language 2010-Plain Writing Act passed by Congress US DOT has a Commitment to Plain Writing Use plain writing in every covered document that the agency issues or substantially revises[3] Train employees in "plain writing" Establish a process for overseeing the agency's compliance with this Act Create and maintain a plain writing section on the agency's website to inform the public of agency compliance with the requirements of this Act Provide a mechanism for the agency to receive and respond to public input on agency implementation and agency reports required under this Act, and be accessible from its homepage Designate one or more agency points-of-contact to receive and respond to public input on the implementation of this Act
- Jargon, from the Old French word ‘gargun’ meaning the cheeping of birds, is usually defined as technical terminology or characteristic language of a special activity or group; and obscure and often pretentious language marked by the unnecessary use of too many long and uncommon words. While technical language definitely has its place – it can help communicate more clearly, efficiently and effectively within the technical community; it has also been used very effectively to intimidate and obscure. People using jargon to posture, evade, confuse or exclude people should not be tolerated. Using words that the general public does not use is a relic of the “father knows best, doctor knows best, high priest of engineering knows best.” it can be a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes where no one wants to ask – what on earth are you talking about? So, Ask the question, “I don’t understand, what do you mean?” Too often, bureaucrats use terminology in their presentations and reports that are unnecessarily confusing or hard to understand. The result is that many undesirable government actions face less public opposition because citizens are unable to understand the implications of the proposal. Many believe that this lack of using “Plain English” is a deliberate form of obfuscation, as it gives bureaucrats more power (citizens must rely on the bureaucrat to explain the communication), or protects the bureaucrat from criticism (because citizens are unaware of the implications of the proposal). In a democracy, government must be as transparent as possible, which means that communications from government must strive to use as much plain, simple language as possible.
- And finally, I will end on a slightly different note – that while using the right words matters, so does using enough words. The public should be able to read and understand how funds are being spent on transportation investments. Without well-written, specific project descriptions, it can be very difficult to understand what projects are being planned, and why they need to be built. Some interesting work done by Advocacy Advance “scored” the project lists of state transportation investment plans against a set of criteria including “description clarity”(Oregon received a “C” for this criterion). The report recommends “Project descriptions should match the importance of the investments being made” On the slide a page from the report compares the number of words in STIP project descriptions to those in Twitter feeds and directions from a tube of toothpaste. On average both the twitter the toothpaste directions had more words, than multimillion dollar transportation projects. Thank you!