This article is adapted from a shorter op-ed in our latest Express newsletter. If you want to hear from us first, subscribe here.
One of Duke University’s reasons for vetoing a light rail project is that construction would disrupt underground utilities that serve its medical center, as reported by the New York Times.
Multiple readers commented that this isn’t a problem for the scores of hospitals and universities located in cities with underground transportation.
That’s a great and important point to make. But unfortunately, the debate on transportation priorities in this country – like most issues – isn’t grounded in reason. People are irrational and make decisions emotionally.
It might be true that construction would disrupt work at Duke’s hospital. But there are plenty of anti-transit opinions that aren’t based on anything factual. Streetsfilms captured the craziest arguments against bike lanes at last week’s Bike Summit in Arlington, Va., with one opposer even claiming that bike lanes would cause terrorism.
This inability to change your mind, even when presented with solid evidence, astounded the late Yale psychologist Bob Abelson. Although Abelson wrote the following excerpt in 1995, it couldn’t ring truer today:
Throughout my academic career I have been fascinated by the capacity of holders of very strong attitudes to resist persuasive attempt at change. Public figures and ordinary folks alike often cling tenaciously to beliefs and attitudes that we, as know-it-all academics, are convinced are wrong-headed. Whether the attitudes concern life after death, gay rights, a perceived conspiracy to take over New Jersey, or whatever, we can argue until blue-faced without budging our State Representative or our Uncle Walter an inch.
While it can’t explain everything, psychology’s “appraisal theory” suggests why people remain opposed to transit or active transportation projects even after learning about those projects’ benefits. Under appraisal theory, people’s perception of the world around them shapes their emotions.
So, given that most roads in the United States are built exclusively for single-occupancy vehicles, it makes sense for people to believe that roads are meant for those vehicles only. Anything that challenges that – like transit or bike lanes – might fire up your emotions.
We won’t get anywhere if we ignore criticism and opposition, though. Our writer Andy Furillo suggested a better way to debate transportation projects than getting bogged down in technical details (like underground utilities): “It might be more effective to discuss what people need from transportation, regardless of the mode,” he wrote in this article. More in-depth, this article from Inc. breaks down the debate process into four main steps.
It’s one thing to diffuse the passions of transit and bike lane opponents. But how can we turn unengaged people into active transit supporters?
Just like how emotions make it difficult to change opponents’ minds, emotion can be a tool to motivate people to get involved. That means that advocates have to show people that transportation is an exciting, emotional issue.