How San Diego Planners Spun the Press to Sell Highway Expansions

How far will transportation agencies go to spin public perception of their highway expansion plans? San Diego’s KPBS has produced a brilliant case study in this video and the accompanying report — a deep dive into the media operation mounted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to defend its slate of highway expansion projects.

In late 2011, SANDAG passed a long-term transportation plan with a slew of highway expansions guaranteed to increase pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the agency hailed its work as an environmental victory, the first such plan in California to meet the state’s supposedly stringent new sustainability goals.

Environmental groups weren’t fooled. They sued SANDAG on the basis that the agency failed to account for the increased traffic generated by highways, and they were soon joined by California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Rather than make any substantive policy changes, SANDAG has doubled down on highway expansion in the latest update to its long-range plan (which has to be refreshed every four years). The updated plan calls for 1,757 miles of additional freeway capacity to be built in the next 35 years.

SANDAG’s plan slates the transit and biking projects far into the future while those highway miles are going to get built much sooner. Even taking the multi-modal projects into account, wrote CityLab‘s Eric Jaffe, “It’s the complete opposite of everything the state hopes to achieve.”

SANDAG officials anticipated pushback from the environmental groups that were suing them. So naturally it deployed an expensive, highly-coordinated media strategy to sell the public on the environmental virtues of its highway expansion project list and ensure its passage.

KPBS reporter Claire Trageser acquired internal SANDAG documents that show how the agency went about shaping the media narrative. Most public agencies have press operations, but it’s revealing just how much time and effort SANDAG spent to sell people on the billions of dollars in highway projects it wants to pursue.

Here are a few of the highlights from Trageser’s review of SANDAG’s media operation:

  • SANDAG spent $560,000 on media consultants to convey its message. That’s in addition to the 12 full-time communications staff and three interns the agency already employed at a cost of $1 million annually.
  • SANDAG authored an opinion column in support of the plan then shopped it around to different public officials in the hopes that they could run it under different bylines in different publications, with only minor tweaks to the content. In the end some officials declined to put their name on it, so it ran in four different media outlets with two different sets of bylines.
  • The column misleadingly asserts that the plan “will cut greenhouse gas emission even farther than targets set for our region by the California Air Resources Board — reducing per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2020 and 21 percent by 2035.” But SANDAG’s own materials show the plan will not meet the state’s emissions goals.
  • SANDAG employees would sometimes exchange “dozens of emails over multiple days” deliberating how to respond to negative tweets about the plan.
  • SANDAG pitched a select group of local reporters on story ideas like “Is ‘Transit-First’ truly an option?” — casting doubt on the position of environmentalists opposed to the plan.
  • When San Diego City Council President Todd Gloria, a supporter of the plan, was questioned by media outlets, he sent questions directly to SANDAG communications staff, who drafted a response for him. Gloria’s communications staff offered to rework the quotes to make them sound more “Todd-esque.” Ultimately, they rejected the agency’s answers as “too wonky,” and Gloria did an interview instead. At other times, communications staff for Gloria sent their public comments to SANDAG communications staff for approval before releasing them.

The plan was approved unanimously by SANDAG’s board in October.

SANDAG said its press operation was a necessary part of “educating” the public and media about the plan. And in some ways, SANDAG’s press operation is simply typical of how government operates in the 21st Century. Internal documents of any given public agency might reveal similar techniques.

Still, Bey-Ling Sha of San Diego University’s School of Journalism and Communication said the story — in Trageser’s words — illustrates “a tension between putting out information and trying to persuade the public.” A substantial amount of SANDAG’s resources — i.e. public, taxpayer-funded resources — goes toward convincing the press that highway expansion is good for the environment.

  • neroden

    SANDAG staff — paid government employees — wrote and “shopped around” an opinion column which *outright lies* about the emissions levels achieved by the plan, while telling the truth about the emissions levels in their formal documents?

    That crosses the line between “publicity” and “fraud”. There has to be something criminal in that. Has someone looked into what can be done? Civil suits against the individuals?

  • jackkshu

    On SANDAG’s 2011 RTP, the California Attorney General joined environmental organizations legally challenging the Plan’s information regarding environmental impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures. In this case, the Superior Court found that SANDAG “abused it’s discretion” when approving the plan. Later the Appellate Court ruled that in five areas, SANDAG “misled and misinformed” the public and elected leaders when information about the Plan was made known in their public presentations and reports. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, primarily on one of the five issues ruled on by the Appellate Court. This should give everyone reason to question SANDAG’s leadership,
    operational methods, findings and plans. When so much of our public health, money and quality of life for generations to come is determined by SANDAG, will any local elected officials try to correct this problem?

  • bgarvey

    This was a tactic used by INDOT in getting I-69 in the Transportation Improvement Plan by the MPO in Bloomington, Indiana. The vast majority opposed the new-terrain route, 20 years of organized opposition made it clear. The state resorted to extortion, pull all funding for all projects in the county unless it was included in the TIP. A hand full of cowards and crooks allowed this to happen, 120,000 citizens signed against it, but it is being built. The newest section willcost double due to “creative Financing” via PPP. Meanwhile the state’s infrastructure crumbles.

  • This is a tricky question. I’d support this type of media campaign to push a transit project (at least without the lies and fraud, which well, wouldn’t necessarily be needed for a transit policy). Obviously though, there are serious issues in this government agency.

  • Joe R.

    Why on Earth do we keep expanding roads when we can’t even afford to maintain the ones we’ve already built? Putting aside everything else wrong with this plan, it’s sheer stupidity to keep expanding the highway system. It also flies in the face of democracy. Highways only benefit those who can afford cars. With wages stagnant, that will be a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

    Instead of expanding highways we should be performing triage deciding which parts of the system we should let return to nature. I would start with the portions of the system serving mainly exurban housing tracts.

  • People clearly keep forgetting that there are more areas in California except the coastal cities. If this dust up from SANDAG seems a bit dubious, it absolutely pales in comparison to the plans from SANBAG in San Bernardino County and RCTC/WRCOG/CVAG in Riverside County. Those agencies represent what is projected to be the fastest-growing area of the state over the next couple decades, but at present, it’s set to expand into a festering sore of auto-centric sprawl, complete with “new urbanist” master planned communities proposing a “grid network” of 4- to 8-lane arterials to “promote short trips”. Those will in turn be supported by a network of freeways that are supposed be expanded from their current 8-lane state that already slice through some of the most impacted communities in the state.

  • Charlie

    Government agencies should lay out all the options and inform citizens. They should not be trying to advocate or persuade people, especially in a way where their identity is hidden.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

CA Voters Reject Measures With Lots of Highway Money and a Dash of Transit

|
On Tuesday night, voters approved major transit improvement plans in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Raleigh, and Seattle. There were other types of transportation measures on local ballots — they focused on highway expansion and lumped in transit funding as a secondary consideration. TransitCenter reports that in California, highway-centric packages didn’t have the same appeal as transit-focused ballot measures: Consider California. While […]

San Diego Planners Envision a Future With More Driving

|
When it comes to forward-looking transportation and planning policy, California is out in front of other states, with legislation that requires regional agencies to incorporate carbon reduction goals into their transportation plans. But not all regions are up to the challenge. San Diego seems to be having a hard time mustering the political will to adapt, as […]

Biking Skyrockets Where San Diego Added Buffered Bike Lanes

|
Build bike infrastructure and they will ride. It’s true just about everywhere, including San Diego. Thanks to bike counters set up around the region, Network blog Bike SD got data showing that cycling has skyrocketed on two streets where the city added buffered bike lanes last year: In late 2012 SANDAG, the region’s planning agency, installed bike counters around […]

How NIMBYism Stifles San Diego’s Sustainability Goals

|
Earlier this month, the California environmental group Next 10 released a study ranking the walkability of nearly 500 rail stations in the Golden State’s major cities. Not surprisingly, San Diego’s transit stations rated at or near the bottom. Andrew Keatts at Voice of San Diego says the culprit isn’t bad planning. And it’s not the lack of a market […]

San Diego Chooses Between Two Bicycle Boosters For Mayor

|
The election is less than a week away. Americans have a choice between a) a president who has overseen notable transportation and land use innovations but failed to provide leadership when the national transportation bill could have been reformed, and b) a former governor who enacted a progressive, pro-smart-growth agenda but who has renounced those […]