Messages That Convert Public Transit Skeptics
This is a straight money grab! Why are the drivers paying [for transit]… when we don't use mass transit???!!!
—New York Driver
I saw this comment on a LinkedIn post about MTA’s congestion pricing policy and knew I had to respond.
In the process of our exchange, the frustrated driver had a complete transformation. Here’s what happened.
This transformation occurred in a five comment exchange. I made just two of the comments.
Comment #1: A Good Attempt
In my response to the man’s original comment, I leaned into the topic of traffic. I thought traffic would be this person’s most direct pain point that public transit alleviates. I also knew MTA had been using traffic as a talking point for congestion pricing and figured I could align with that messaging. Here’s what I said.
My comment:
Hi [Name], I don’t work for MTA but wanted to say that while I understand your frustration, even if you don’t use public transit you do benefit from it! Imagine if all the people taking transit were on the road instead. It would make traffic truly impossible. Thank goodness for public transit!
This angle didn’t resonate with this community member. He didn’t think of driving as having elastic demand. His logic was that New York City was full of dependent riders who couldn’t afford another option. Those people, he concluded, wouldn’t drive even if public transit didn’t exist. Here’s what he said in his own words.
Driver’s response:
I'm NOT trying to be difficult, but the example you gave me isn't a realistic one that would allow me to see THAT particular benefit. To begin with, most people use the MTA because they can't either afford the cost of driving in NYS OR are not willing to pay THAT expense. Trust me, it's VERY expensive to operate an insured vehicle in the 5 boroughs. So, NO that is NOT a viable reason why I could appreciate congestion pricing, which will be ended in 11 days!!!
A few things happened in this comment.
First, he made an assumption about my motives that wasn’t really there. I wasn’t speaking directly about congestion pricing, and it felt important to clarify that.
I wanted to address the underlying belief that led to his opposition rather than getting stuck arguing about the policy itself.
By pivoting the conversation away from a specific policy that he felt strongly about, I helped him open to the point I was trying to make without bumping up against his fixed beliefs.
I wanted to address the underlying belief that led to his opposition rather than getting stuck arguing about the policy itself.
I also looked for elements of truth in what he was saying and pointed them out. I knew I could acknowledge the things he was saying that were true and build trust and rapport in the process.
Comment #2: The Pivotal Comment
Folks, we hit a goldmine with this messaging. This person completely changed tune. Let’s break down the comment.
My full comment:
Thanks for sharing your thinking process on this. I understand your logic. I believe you about the cost of operating a vehicle in the city. I wasn't trying to convince you about congestion pricing, just speaking to your question about why people who drive should have to pay for public transit. The point I'm making is that we all benefit from transit whether we use it or not. Think about it...
If public transit didn't exist, some people would adjust their budgets to take more cab rides, creating more traffic. People who couldn't afford that option would go out less or even move out of the city. There would be job loss not just for bus and train operators, but also all the industries reliant on a thriving city life to maintain their staff.
I don't know enough about your life to confidently guess how a lack of public transit would impact you specifically (aside from increased traffic), but it's good to remember that many of the people we rely on need public transit to get to their jobs. That could mean a cook at a restaurant, the people who maintain the roads, or nurses in the ER. The fact that people can get around benefits us all. That's my two cents. I hope it's a helpful perspective to consider.
When people are worked up about something, their nervous system feels like it’s under threat. No one in that state is able to thoughtfully consider new perspectives. Getting through to someone who is emotionally activated requires showing them that you’re not an enemy.
Here’s how I did that.
Part 1: Building Rapport
“Thanks for sharing your thinking process on this. I understand your logic. I believe you about the cost of operating a vehicle in the city.”
I built rapport in this first paragraph by acknowledging this person’s world view and letting him know that I understood him. I showed that I wasn’t trying to prove him wrong, make him look unintelligent, or tell him he’s a bad person. Many people in internet comment sections are trying to do exactly those things. Don’t underestimate the importance (and productivity) of empathy and kindness.
I went on to say:
Part 2: Alignment
“I wasn't trying to convince you about congestion pricing, just speaking to your question about why people who drive should have to pay for public transit.”
Here, I further put him at ease by letting him know I wasn’t here to challenge his policy beliefs. This was honest. I haven’t read deeply enough about congestion pricing yet to offer a well-informed opinion on the topic. I do know enough about the benefits of public transit for non-riders to engage in a conversation about that, so that’s where I focused.
In retrospect, it would have been even better to rephrase the statement that people who drive should “have to pay for” public transit. I was using his words which likely helped him connect with my statement, but it would have been better in this case to say that people who drive should “financially contribute” to public transit, not pay for it. Saying people who drive should pay for public transit makes it sound like they would be bearing the full financial burden for the service, which is inaccurate.
Getting through to someone who is emotionally activated requires showing them that you’re not an enemy.
Now that he knew he wasn’t under attack, I gently introduced another perspective. Then I created a curiosity gap by ending the paragraph with an incomplete sentence and an ellipsis, which primed him to consider what I was about to say.
Part 3: Gentle Shift
“The point I'm making is that we all benefit from transit whether we use it or not. Think about it…”
Next I started to paint a picture of how life might look in New York City without public transit.
Part 3: Imagine the Alternative
“If public transit didn't exist, some people would adjust their budgets to take more cab rides, creating more traffic. People who couldn't afford that option would go out less or even move out of the city. There would be job loss not just for bus and train operators, but also all the industries reliant on a thriving city life to maintain their staff.”
Here, I used a talking point laid out by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). They found that messaging about jobs is the most effective way to convince legislators in the current political climate of the importance of funding transit. While this man is not a legislator, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to touch on that talking point.
I went on to offer this person respect by admitting the limits of my knowledge of what mattered to him before helping him see possible ways that public transit benefited his life. The ideas I shared were inspired by Metro Transit in St. Louis, which ran a campaign showing the benefits of transit beyond simply transporting people.
Part 4: Transit Benefits Us All
“I don't know enough about your life to confidently guess how a lack of public transit would impact you specifically (aside from increased traffic), but it's good to remember that many of the people we rely on need public transit to get to their jobs. That could mean a cook at a restaurant, the people who maintain the roads, or nurses in the ER. The fact that people can get around benefits us all. That's my two cents. I hope it's a helpful perspective to consider.”
Without much insight into his life, I focused on things that most people who drive into a city might need. He probably grabs food at least occasionally. He definitely uses the roads. And there’s always a chance he could need a hospital in the city. It’s easy to see how a cook, construction worker, or nurse might rely on public transit. It’s also clear how many problems would arise if people in those roles couldn’t get to work.
The Transformation
I found the man’s response to my second comment heart-warming.
I really appreciate it that you took the time to share this AND enlighten me. I don't like it, BUT I do have to admit that your logic is sound!
—New York Driver
He may still not thrilled about the idea of spending more money, but he has softened considerably on the topic. He seems to understand the key point that public transit benefits him even if he’s not riding.
Key takeaways:
When talking with a transit skeptic, try these techniques:
Demonstrate that you understand what matters to that person
Acknowledge any legitimate concerns they have
Dig down to address deeper underlying beliefs rather than getting stuck on policy specifics. This is where change really happens.
Enhance Your Communications
Messaging can either build or erode trust. But words are only one piece of the puzzle.
Visual storytelling offers an additional layer of communication that can land an important message more powerfully than words alone.
Combining words, visuals, and audio means an entire suite of tools available to help you shift skepticism into support. That’s the power of animated videos.
At Aloe by Olivia, we help local governments build trust and understanding with their communities through animated outreach videos.
Our process involves:
Strategically messaged scripts
Music and visuals that convey the message on a deep level by communicating with the viewer’s non-verbal, emotional brain
For a single animated video, we’re often able to offer options within an agency’s direct award threshold to save you the hassle of the RFP process. When a more comprehensive scope is appropriate, we’re happy to provide information that can help you plan for the procurement process.
We love working with fellow transit advocates. Let’s make something great together.
Impacts of Executive Actions on Public Transportation
Introduction
This blog post contains notes taken during the APTA webinar titled “Impacts of Executive Action on Public Transportation.” The APTA webinar details can be accessed at APTAGateway.com with an APTA member login.
Webinar date: February 20th, 2025
Webinar Panelists:
• Paul Skoutelas, President and CEO, APTA
• Ward McCarragher, Vice President - Government Affairs and Advocacy, APTA
• Taria Barron, General Counsel, APTA
• Stacie Tiongson, Senior Director - Government Affairs and Advocacy, APTA
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by Olivia Krishnaswami, director of the animation studio Aloe by Olivia. The author of this document is not a lawyer. This document does not contain any legal advice.
APTA Webinar Notes
Executive Orders
A presidential memo directed federal departments and agencies to end all DEI-focused preferences, programs, activities, etc.
This means agencies must include specific terms in contracts or grant awards to certify that contracted parties don't operate any "illegal DEI programs," with possible fees of up to 3x the contract amount for noncompliance.
Executive Order 14159 directs DOJ and DHS to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions do not receive federal funds.
There are multiple ongoing court cases challenging the executive orders. There are questions about constitutionality, executive branch authority, and free speech, among other things.
USDOT
A USDOT memo directs the department to cancel programs that relate in any way to climate change, "greenhouse gas" emissions, racial equity, gender identity, "diversity, equity, and inclusion" goals, environmental justice, or the Justice 40 Initiative.
DOT is shifting how they consider cost-benefit analysis in grants, lending, and policies. One rule says funding can't be used for projects that are "purely local in nature." This brings up questions for transit since some critics consider transit a local initiative. APTA argues that the economic benefits of transit have federal significance.
Q&A:
What’s happening with the DBE program?
The DBE program is ongoing but will likely see changes. Awaiting guidance from DOT.
Do any of the executive orders define what is covered under the phrase “DEI programs?”
Any sort of race or sex-based preferencing in terms of hiring and promotion, contracting, doing business.
Do we anticipate this memo to impact existing CIG project ratings, or be built into future guidance? Would new criteria require an act of congress?
One possibility: for projects with an existing grant agreement or small start, there would be a provision that would allow federal government to alter/unilaterally adjust agreement under certain conditions. Would depend on whether that is in the scope of agreement.
The rating process is typically for projects that are still in the pipeline. The FTA has guidance for how they administer the CIG program. Will need to change their rating guidance to do that. Typically, it has been done through a public notice and comment process. Not clear if they could do that without the public comment period.
Has APTA done any analysis of what the grantees provision would mean for SSOAs with countervailing laws and regulations? Would they need to return grant funds?
Have not done that analysis. Some of that is playing out in federal courts. Sanctuary jurisdictions, for example. States and cities have different laws than federal government.
Locally, jurisdictions will decide how to move forward. Some will likely continue to prioritize DEI on a local level, while some will not.
Information compiled by Aloe by Olivia
