Are we our own worst enemy when advocating for better transport policy?
Before we get into this week’s blog, please take a couple of moments to answer my survey seeking feedback on how I can improve the newsletter and blog for you. Many thanks, Russell.
Key Takeaways:
How we advocate with the public for better transport policy is ineffective in five ways:
- Not targeting communications at those we need to persuade.
- Using language that outsiders cannot understand.
- Using language that alienates those we need to persuade.
- Talking down to those we need to persuade.
- Messengers who are not trusted by those we need to persuade.
To achieve better policies, our communications must focus on the right-of-centre voters we need to persuade, not the already convinced left-of-centre voters.
Improving our advocacy requires a re-think, including:
- Diversifying our messengers.
- Adopting language that bridges rather than divides.
- Developing Communication Channels That Reach New Audiences.
- Training Advocates in Effective Cross-Partisan Communication
Persuading more people will be much more effective at creating a bipartisan approach to transport policy than continuing to preach to the converted, creating space for political leaders to make the changes our transport systems need.
What next?
Undertake an audit of your transport advocacy communications - who are you talking to, what are you saying and who is saying it?
Introduction
Transport is a long game, yet our advocacy is failing us. The infrastructure we build today shapes cities for generations, but our inability to create lasting political consensus threatens this legacy. Despite decades of evidence and expertise, we watch helplessly as vital projects get cancelled and sensible policies get reversed with each electoral swing.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood," wrote Stephen Covey in "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People." Unfortunately, as transport professionals, we've ignored this wisdom at our peril.
The increasing politicisation of transport policy isn't just frustrating; it's devastating to creating the sustainable, efficient systems our communities deserve. While left-of-centre governments often embrace public and active transport, right-of-centre administrations frequently dismantle these initiatives upon taking office, creating a costly cycle of policy whiplash.
But is this inevitable? I don't believe so. Having worked within right-of-centre governments that successfully championed public and active transport, I've witnessed firsthand that bipartisan support is possible. The problem isn't political ideology; it's how we communicate.
Our failure lies in the uncomfortable truth that the transport community's advocacy approach has become self-defeating. We've created communication barriers that actively repel the very voters and politicians whose support we desperately need.
The Political Landscape: Understanding the Real Battlefield
To understand why our communication as transport professionals often backfires, we must first understand the political terrain in which we operate.
For most political leaders, transport isn't a passion; it's an obligation. Few enter politics dreaming of revolutionising mobility systems. Consequently, their understanding of transport policy is typically shallow and intuition-based: see congestion, build more roads. Concepts like induced demand might as well be quantum physics to many decision-makers.
This knowledge gap creates a significant vulnerability for sound transport policy. While effective transport agencies proactively educate new political leaders on these complexities, politicians ultimately respond to what they believe their constituents want.
And here lies the core challenge: the public's views on transport have become increasingly polarised along political lines.
In recent years, left-of-centre voters have generally embraced public and active transport solutions, making it politically safe, even advantageous, for left-of-centre politicians to champion these initiatives. They face little political risk in advocating for bike lanes, bus corridors, or light rail projects.
In stark contrast, right-of-centre voters often view such projects with scepticism or outright hostility. They typically respond more favourably to policies that prioritise driving, such as road expansions, removing bike lanes, and increasing parking availability. For right-of-centre politicians, pushing against public and active transport can become an easy way to signal values alignment with their base.
This partisan split creates a fundamental instability in transport policy. Rather than debating which public transport projects deserve priority, we're stuck in an endless cycle of arguing whether such projects should exist at all. The result? Transport policy becomes a political football, with projects started under one administration routinely abandoned by the next.
Is this division inevitable? International examples suggest otherwise. Right-of-centre governments have successfully invested in robust public and active transport while maintaining electoral support.
The question becomes: how do we break this cycle of polarisation? The answer begins with recognising that our current advocacy approach isn't simply ineffective; it's actively reinforcing the very divisions we need to overcome.
Five Ways Transport Advocates' Communications Sabotage Their Own Cause
When it comes to persuading sceptics about better transport policy, we're often our own worst enemies. Our communication approaches don't just fail to convince; they actively repel the very audiences we need to reach. Let's examine how we're undermining our own effectiveness:
1. Preaching to the Choir, Not the Congregation
Transport advocates habitually direct their messages toward those who already support their cause. We share articles in echo chambers, celebrate wins with like-minded colleagues, and accumulate likes from those who already agree with us. This feels rewarding, but it's strategically pointless.
Every communication resource spent reinforcing existing supporters is a resource not used to persuade undecided or opposing voters. When we need to build a broader coalition, particularly among right-of-centre voters, this approach leaves our most important audience untouched.
2. Speaking in Code That Outsiders Can't Decipher
Our profession has developed an impenetrable vocabulary that creates immediate barriers to understanding. Terms like "modal shift," "active transport," "first-mile/last-mile solutions," and "induced demand" might be precise technical language to us, but they're meaningless jargon to most people.
This communication gap doesn't just cause confusion; it creates dangerous openings. When people encounter terms they don't understand, they become susceptible to misinformation that fills the void with appealing but false explanations. The proliferation of "15-minute city" conspiracy theories is a perfect example of what happens when we fail to communicate clearly.
3. Using Ideological Trigger Words That Close Minds
Transport professionals often unconsciously embed their communications with terms that immediately signal political alignment. Phrases like "climate emergency," "social justice," "equity-focused planning," and "reclaiming streets" may resonate with left-of-centre audiences, but they function as alarm bells for right-of-centre listeners.
This ideologically charged language activates political identity before any rational consideration of policy merits can occur. Once this happens, the substance of our arguments becomes irrelevant; the audience has already categorised the message as coming from "the other team" and dismissed it.
4. Adopting a Tone of Superiority That Alienates
Our communications frequently contain subtle (or not-so-subtle) implications that people making different transportation choices are ignorant, selfish, or morally inferior. We tell drivers they're not "in traffic" but "are the traffic." We diagnose people with "car dependency" and "motonormativity" as if these were pathological conditions requiring treatment.
This condescending approach doesn't enlighten; it insults. People who feel judged or belittled are unlikely to be receptive to even the most compelling evidence or logical arguments. Instead, they become defensive and entrenched further in opposition.
5. Deploying Messengers That Trigger Automatic Distrust
The credibility of a message depends heavily on its source. Unfortunately, transport advocacy messages primarily come from sources that right-of-centre voters have been conditioned to distrust: environmental activists, academics, and government agencies.
Before these messengers utter a single word about transport policy, they've already been categorised as untrustworthy by the very audiences we need to convince. This creates a no-win situation where even factually correct, politically neutral information gets rejected based solely on its perceived source.
When these five communication failures combine, they create an almost impenetrable barrier between transport advocates and the voters whose support we desperately need to build lasting policy consensus. Breaking through requires more than minor adjustments; it demands a fundamental rethinking of our approach to public persuasion.
How Did We End Up in This Echo Chamber? The Anatomy of Our Communication Failure
The ineffectiveness of transport advocacy isn't accidental; it's the predictable result of structural and cultural factors that have narrowed both our messenger base and messaging approach. Understanding how we arrived here is essential to finding our way out.
The Homogeneity Problem
Transport advocacy suffers from a profound lack of diversity, not just in demographic terms but in political and ideological perspectives. The overwhelming majority of vocal transport advocates, whether they're public servants, academics, urban planners, or cycling activists, cluster on the left side of the political spectrum. This creates a natural blind spot when attempting to communicate with those holding different values.
This homogeneity creates a self-reinforcing cycle. When right-of-centre voices are isolated within transport advocacy circles, they either remain silent or leave the conversation entirely, further concentrating the ideological uniformity. The result is an advocacy community with a limited firsthand understanding of how their messages land with half the population.
The Media Fragmentation Effect
The broader media landscape has fundamentally changed how information flows, and opinions form. Traditional media outlets have polarised, serving increasingly partisan audiences with content tailored to reinforce existing beliefs rather than challenge them. This makes it harder to place transport messaging that reaches across political divides.
Simultaneously, social media has created algorithm-driven information bubbles that limit exposure to diverse perspectives. Transport advocates post content that's algorithmically shown primarily to those who already agree, while potential allies or persuadable sceptics never see these messages in their feeds.
The Vilification Spiral
Perhaps most troublingly, our advocacy culture has increasingly embraced an "us versus them" mentality that treats those with different transportation preferences as opponents rather than potential allies. Car drivers aren't just people making a different transportation choice; they're characterised as contributing to a harmful system.
This adversarial framing might energise the base, but it destroys the possibility of coalition-building. When we implicitly or explicitly vilify the very people whose minds we need to change, we eliminate any chance of persuasion before the conversation even begins.
These interconnected factors haven't just limited our effectiveness; they've actively undermined our ability to build the broad-based support necessary for sustaining good transport policy through political transitions. Recognising these patterns is the first step toward developing a more inclusive and effective advocacy approach.
A Plan of Action: Building Bridges, Not Just Bike Lanes
Understanding where our communications fail is only helpful if we develop concrete strategies to address these shortcomings. We need a comprehensive approach to fundamentally transform transport advocacy.
1. Diversify Our Messenger Base
We urgently need to find and amplify voices that can reach audiences currently resistant to our message. This means:
- Actively recruiting business leaders who can speak to the economic benefits of public and active transport
- Engaging community leaders from traditionally right-of-centre neighbourhoods who support transport improvements
- Partnering with centre-right think tanks that recognise the long-term cost savings of efficient transport systems
- Identifying respected right-of-centre commentators who can champion transport reform within their own audiences
2. Adopt Language That Bridges Rather Than Divides
We must consciously shift our terminology to emphasise shared values rather than partisan triggers:
- Shift from "car dependency" to "expanding transportation choices."
- Move from "reclaiming streets" to "creating more valuable public spaces"
- Transform " equity" arguments into "improving access to jobs and opportunities"
3. Develop Communication Channels That Reach New Audiences
Creating compelling content is meaningless if it never reaches those we need to persuade:
- Establish partnerships with media outlets that reach centre-right audiences
- Create content designed explicitly for platforms and forums where right-of-centre audiences gather
4. Train Advocates in Effective Cross-Partisan Communication
Many transport advocates lack the skills to communicate effectively outside their comfort zones:
- Develop training programs that help advocates understand different value frameworks
- Practice message testing with politically diverse focus groups
- Create communication toolkits with language that works across political divides
- Establish mentoring relationships between advocates and communication experts
- Encourage relationship-building across political lines within the transport community
The transformation of transport advocacy won't happen overnight, but with deliberate effort to implement these strategies, we can begin building the broad-based support necessary for lasting policy impact and advocacy that bridges divides rather than deepens them.
Conclusion
If we want to create lasting change in transport policy that survives political shifts, we must fundamentally rethink our approach to advocacy. The polarisation of transport policy isn't inevitable; it's partly a result of our communication failures.
By broadening our messenger base, neutralising our language, and targeting our communications at those we actually need to persuade, we can build a more inclusive coalition for better transport outcomes. When public and active transport are seen as practical solutions rather than ideological positions, we create the political space for sustained, bipartisan policy approaches.
This isn't just about winning arguments; it's about building cities and transport systems that work better for everyone. When we bridge the communication divide, we open possibilities for genuine dialogue about the trade-offs and benefits of different transport approaches.
The next time you advocate for a transport policy, ask yourself: "Am I speaking to those who already agree with me, or am I genuinely trying to persuade those who don't?" The answer to that question might determine whether your preferred policies survive the next election cycle.
Let's stop being our own worst enemies and start being more effective advocates for the transport future we want to see.
Thanks for reading,
Russell
PS Please let me know what you think. Where do you agree, and what have I missed?
PPS If you haven't done so already, please take a couple of minutes to answer my survey about how I can improve the newsletter and blog for you.