I agree with Denzel.

There is a great scene in one of the best movies I have ever seen, Training Day starring a very bad-a$$ Denzel Washington. Ethan Hawke walks into the restaurant on his very first day on job with the narcotics division lead by Denzel. Denzel is reading the paper and ignores Ethan's questions for the first minute or so only to stare him when he doesn't get the hint.

"90% of what I read in this paper is bullsh!t. I read it because I like to be entertained. If you are not going to let me read the paper then you entertain me rookie." - Denzel Washington.

From the specific use of words, references to culture, ethnicity, or statements from individuals that really have no relevance to the story one can't help but agree with Denzel's character. The point here is, the media contributes to sensationalizing news. Bad news sells and the worse you can make the story or "spin-it", the more people will be involved.

The thing that enticed me to write this was a recent article by Michael Smyth in the Province date Sept 20th, 2007. As someone with experience in the public sector, I find this article interesting but not for the reasons you might think at first glance. Michael Smyth is trying to illustrate the conundrum that NDP leader Carole James is in where she has to publicly advocate against the Liberals and their spending on Highway Improvements (coined "Black-Top Politics") but still agree that "some" of these improvements are necessary. What does that mean exactly? Does that mean everyone agrees that the improvements are needed but choose to oppose them simply because it because tabled by the opposing party? Shouldn't this be about the constituent.

Reading the article again (with a little guidance from me) you realize that what Smyth has creatively done is imply that highway improvements for the purpose of boosting votes near elections is a given and that we should instead focus on the fact that parties politically can't support each other because of "politics" versus the need of the constituents.

What the real truth here is that regardless of what year the project actually proceeds to construction, much time is put into the analysis and design of the project (a process that can often take several years). The process involves consultation with relevant stakeholders, considers environmental impacts (yes, we all have to comply to environmental standards), and most importantly has to make sense. A strong business case that focuses on the economics of the project: a high Net Present Value, a high Benefit/Cost ratio, strong savings from safety implications (fatality, injury, personal property damage), and it has to make sense to our stakeholders. As of recent you also find a focus on greenhouse gas emissions (in the form of reduction by tonnage).

The real point (yes I'm getting to it) is that a project does not simply show up in an election year unless the people behind the scenes believe its a project that needs to be there. The process isn't flawless, but it is defensible by any traditional economic standards. The Gateway project was created much in the same way has a investment window well beyond the next election. Politics aside, Smythe's article is a bit too presumptions and misleads the reader into an interpretation of highway project delivery that is not founded.

My 2 thoughts anyways...