[sustran] non-biased transportation language for engineers and planners

[SUSTRAN Resource Centre]

The following was recently reposted to the pednet discussion list by 
Michael.M.MOULE at odot.state.or.us from an original message from Dom Nozzi 
[SMTP:domz at gru.net] sent to the sustainable-l at lists.ufl.edu

I have cut out all the preliminaries.    I am sure there will be some 
debate over one or  two of the examples. But removing the pro-automobile 
bias inherent in much of the discussion of transport is certainly a 
worthwhile thing to do.   I imagine that this linguistic pro-car bias also 
applies in Bahasa Indonesia/Malaysia, Chinese, Vietnamese, Hindi, etc as 
much as in English.

Of course, you may ask why stop at objective language? Some of us may even 
be keen to inject some anti-car bias to replace the pro-car bias!! ;-) ;-)

Paul Barter
SUSTRAN Resource Centre
P. O. Box 11501,
50748 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Tel/Fax: +60 3 274 2590,  E-mail: sustran at po.jaring.my
Web: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/
The SUSTRAN Resource Centre hosts the Secretariat of SUSTRAN
(the Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific).
-------------------------------

........ irrelevant stuff deleted ....

The following memo was sent to all department directors and division heads
of the City of West Palm Beach by Michael Wright, the City Administrator
(Manager) on November 14, 1996:

Please be advised that the City of West Palm Beach has adopted a new
transportation language policy. Employees are asked to follow the policy
and encourage those who deal with the City to do the same.  The intent of
the policy is to remove the biases inherent in some of the current
transportation language used at the City. This change is consistent with
the shift in philosophy as the City works towards becoming a sustainable
community.  Objective language will be used for all correspondences,
resolutions, ordinances, plans, language at meetings, etc. and when
updating past work.

Everyone's cooperation will be greatly appreciated.  Please ensure that
your employees are aware of, and use, the objective language.  After a few
of weeks of practice, using the objective language will become second
nature.

Background.  Much of the current transportation language was developed in
the 1950's and 1960's.  This was the golden age of automobiles and
accommodating them was a major priority in society. Times have changed,
especially in urban areas where creating a balanced, equitable, and
sustainable transportation system is the new priority.  The transportation
language has not evolved at the same pace as the changing priorities; much
of it still carries a pro-automobile bias.  Continued use of biased
language is not in keeping with the goal of addressing transportation
issues in an objective way in the City.Languages Changes. There are several
biased words and phrases that have been identified and summarized at the
end of this memo.  Suggested objective language is also summarized. The
rationale for the changes is explained below. In summary, the City has to
be unbiased, and appear to be unbiased.  Objective language will also allow
the City to be inclusive of all of the City's constituents and modes of
transportation.

The word *improvements* is often used when referring to the addition of
through lanes, turn lanes, channelization, or other means of increasing
motor vehicle capacity and/or speeds.  Though these changes may indeed be
*improvements* from the perspective of motor vehicle users, they would not
be considered *improvements* by other constituents of the City.  For
example, a resident may not think that adding more lanes in front of the
resident's house is an *improvement.*  A parent may not think that a
channelized right turn lane is an *improvement* on their child's pedestrian
route to school.  By City staff referring to these changes as
*improvements,* it indicates that the City is biased in favor of one group
at the expense of others.  Suggested objective language includes being
descriptive (e.g., use through lanes, turn lanes, etc.) or using language
such as modifications or changes.

Examples:

Biased --
The following street *improvements* are recommended.
The intersection *improvement* will cost $5,000.00.
The motor vehicle capacity will be *improved.*

Objective--
The following street *modifications* are recommended.
The *right turn channel* will cost $5,000,00.
The motor vehicle capacity will be *changed.*

Like *improved* and *improvement,* there are similarly biased words such as
*enhance,* *enhancement,* and *deteriorate.*  Suggested objective language
is shown in the examples below.

Examples:

Biased --
The level of service for motor vehicles was *enhanced.*
The level of service for motor vehicles *deteriorated.*
The motor vehicle capacity *enhancements* will cost $40,000.00.

Objective --	
The level of service for motor vehicles was *changed.*
The level of service for motor vehicles was *decreased.*
The level of service for motor vehicles was *increased.*
The *increases* to motor vehicle capacity will cost $40,000.00.

*Upgrade* is a term that is currently used to describe what happens when a
local street is
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 City has a bias that favors one group over other groups.
 Objective language includes *expansion,* *reconstruction,* *widened,* or
*changed.*

Examples:

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.

*Level of service* is a qualitative measure describing the operational
conditions of a facility or service from the perspective of a particular
set of users (motor vehicle users, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.). If the set
of users is not specified, then it is a mystery as to which set is being
considered.  The bias enters the picture when it is assumed that, unless
otherwise specified, level of service implies for motor vehicle users.  The
objective way to use this term is to add the appropriate modifier after
"level of service".

Examples:	

Biased --
The level of service was "A".

Objective --	
The level of service for motor vehicle users was "A".
The level of service for pedestrians was "A".

If  "level of service" were used frequently for the same users in the same
document, using the modifier every time would be cumbersome. In these
situations, the modifier is only required at the beginning of the document
and periodically after that...

...Promoting *alternative* modes of transportation is generally considered
a good thing at the City.  However, the word *alternative* begs the
question "Alternative to what?" The assumption is alternative to
automobiles.  *Alternative* also implies that these *alternative* modes are
nontraditional or nonconventional, which is not the case with the
pedestrian, cycle, nor transit modes.  [I would also add that the term
*alternative* disparagingly implies that it is a form of travel only used
by hippies, wild-eyed radicals, or other undesirable, weird,
counter-culture types, and will therefore never be a form of mainstream
transportation used by us "normal" people -- ed.]

If we are discussing *alternative* modes of transportation in the City,
then use direct and objective language such as "non-automobile" modes of
transportation. Alternatively, one can add an appropriate modifier as shown
in the last example.

Examples:

Biased --
*Alternative* modes of transportation are important to downtown.

Objective --
*Non-automobile* modes of transportation are important to the downtown.
*Non-motorized* modes of transportation are important to the downtown.
Alternative modes of transportation *to the automobile* are important to
the downtown.

[My own personal preference for terminology here is:
*Sustainable* forms of transportation are important to the downtown. -- 
ed.]

*Accidents* are events during which something harmful or unlucky happens
unexpectedly or by chance. *Accident* implies no fault. It is well known
that the vast majority of *accidents* are preventable and that fault can be
assigned.  The use of *accident* also reduces the degree of responsibility
and severity associated with the situation and invokes a inherent degree of
sympathy for the person responsible. Objective language includes
*collision* and *crash.*

Examples:

Biased --
Motor vehicle *accidents* kill 200 people every year in the County.
He had an *accident* with a light pole.
Here is the *accident* report.

Objective --
Motor vehicle *collisions* kill 200 people every year in the County.
He *crashed* into a light pole.
Here is the *collision* report.

*Protect* means shielding from harm. However, when we discuss *protecting*
land for a right of way for a road, the intent is not to shield the land
from harm, but to construct a road over it.  Objective words include
*designate* and *purchase.*

Examples:

Biased --
We have *protected* this right of way.

Objective --
We have *purchased* this right of way.
We have *designated* this a right of way,

Everyone at the City should strive to make the transportation systems
operate as *efficiently* as possible.  However, we must be careful how we
use *efficient* because that word is frequently confused with the word
*faster.*  Typically, *efficiency* issues are raised when dealing with
motor vehicles operating at slow speeds. The assumption is that if changes
were made that increase the speeds of the motor vehicles, then efficiency
rises.  However, this assumption is highly debatable.  For example, high
motor vehicle speeds lead to urban sprawl, motor vehicle dependence, and
high resource use (land, metal, rubber, etc.) which reduces efficiency.
Motor vehicles burn the least fuel at about 30 miles per hour; speeds above
this result in inefficiencies.  In urban areas, accelerating and
decelerating from stopped conditions to high speeds results in
inefficiencies when compared to slow and steady speeds.  There are also
efficiency debates about people's travel time and other issues as well.
Therefore, be careful how you use the word *efficient* at the City, If you
really mean *faster,* then say *faster.* Do not assume that faster is
necessarily more efficient.  Similarly, if you mean *slower,* then say
*slower.*

Examples:

Biased --
The traffic signal timings were adjusted to increase motor vehicle
*efficiency.*
Let us widen the road so that cars operate more *efficiently.*

Objective --
The traffic signal timings were adjusted to *increase* motor vehicle 
speeds.
Let us widen the road so that it cars operate *faster.*

[It is for these reasons that I have concerns about the wording of the
Transportation Goal of Sustainable Alachua County, which refers to
"efficient" travel. -- ed.]


Summary

Biased Terms --  Objective Terms

improve -- change, modify
enhance, deteriorate -- change, increase, decrease
upgrade  -- change, redesignate, expand, widen, replace
level of service	-- level of service for ___
traffic	-- motor vehicles
traffic demand -- motor vehicle use
accident -- collision, crash
protect -- purchase, designate
efficient -- fast

[Disparaging Term -- Desirable Term

alternative -- sustainable]

Dom



SUSTRAN Resource Centre
P. O. Box 11501,
50748 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Tel/Fax: +60 3 274 2590,  E-mail: sustran at po.jaring.my
Web: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/
The SUSTRAN Resource Centre hosts the Secretariat of SUSTRAN
(the Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific).