8

At this point of US President Donald Trump's speech at the 2017 North America's Building Trades Unions National Legislative Conference, the President claims that this is a chart of 'some of the permits you need' to build a highway in the United States:

enter image description here

This is, if you want to build a highway in the United States, these are some of the permits that you need. It's a process that can take way over ten years, and just never happens. Then at the end of the period they vote against it.

But it is, of course, not even close to legible. Is this really a chart of permits required to build a highway?

Undo
  • 131
  • 10
  • Once again, is this really a notable claim, in that anybody actually believes it's true? – DJClayworth Apr 04 '17 at 20:12
  • 12
    I am not seeing any source that has a recreation or a highres version of the chart. So we do not really have any specific claim here. It appears to be a flow chart of the steps involved. Meaning not every bubble will be a permit. And no highway/construction project will need to fulfill every bubble, some will be an either/or scenario. Note; that image shows it off poorly, the document is actually around 8 feet tall. – Jonathon Apr 04 '17 at 20:20
  • 2
    Here's a higher-res picture that you can read parts of: https://static2.businessinsider.com/image/58e3c8308af5781f008b6322 – Batman Apr 04 '17 at 21:20
  • 3
    While we can't read the chart there's enough to see that this is a flow chart. While most steps **could** be permits I note some decision boxes--those aren't permits. As we have found something that isn't a permit the claim is clearly false. – Loren Pechtel Apr 04 '17 at 20:24
  • 8
    "a chart of permits" need not imply that every element on the chart is a permit. In the strict sense, if the primary function of the chart were to demonstrate the permits required, I might call it a chart of permits. In a loose sense, I might still call it a chart of permits if it had a lot of permits on it. It wouldn't say that's enough to call the claim false. – called2voyage Apr 04 '17 at 21:10
  • 8
    The high-res image linked to by @AlexanderO'Mara clearly shows that it's a flow-chart for the steps that need to be followed to determine what reviews need to be done to get permits for a highway project which, while significant, don't appear to be extraordinary for an infrastructure project that can have a lot of local impacts. – jeffronicus Apr 05 '17 at 01:05
  • 1
    The white box in the middle reads "Legally Required Analyses:", and looks like the only *structured* part of the chart. Of the rest, a majority reads like "Migratory Birds/Eagles", "30 Days Comment Period", or "Significant Impacts?", with *some* permits in between. There is also *no* discernible system to either the color or shape of the items (other than that the diamonds stand for decisions). As such, it's a very *bad* flowchart, or to put it differently, "smoke & mirrors". I challenge the noteability of the claim. – DevSolar Apr 05 '17 at 07:46
  • Doesn't this fall outside Meta rules on when [trump] tag applies? – user5341 Apr 05 '17 at 13:44
  • @DevSolar There is definitely a system to the coloring of the flow chart. Working only off of the image posted by Alexander O'Mara, I can see that green denotes actions taken with respect to the EPA, red deals with endangered wildlife, dark red for migratory birds, dark blue deals with storm/waste water, robin's egg blue deals with rivers. All boxes with a yellow aura around it indicate the need for a permit. I haven't been able to work out the rest of the chart since I don't have access to the original, but please don't fall into the trap of "I don't understand it so it's bad or wrong" – A Bailey Apr 05 '17 at 14:13
  • @DevSolar, I would like to add that this chart really does need a legend. – A Bailey Apr 05 '17 at 14:14
  • 1
    @ABailey: Not all permits have a yellow aura, for example. It's wildly inconsistent in my eyes, while admitting that I (as a non-US citizen) don't know half the abbreviations. – DevSolar Apr 05 '17 at 14:19
  • @DevSolar, do you have an example of a permit that doesn't have the yellow aura? I understand that I'm working from an image that doesn't show the entire chart and I agree that the chart was designed in such a way to appear as busy and complicated as possible, but as far as I can tell nothing in the chart is deceitful, incorrect, or even inconsistent. – A Bailey Apr 05 '17 at 14:28
  • 1
    @ABailey: To the left of the big red circle with `"Incidential Take"` reads `Submit permit application`. 4 boxes below that reads `Prepare and submit consistency certification`. The ones *with* a yellow aura (which you say are "permits") are all of the same shape, but not all other similar shapes are about similar things ("Migratory Birds" and "Notify FWS/NOAA" are the same shape). Many hexagons are about "comment periods" or similar, but neither are *all* hexagons about them, nor are all such periods in hexagons. And so on. It might not be malicious, but badly done in any case. – DevSolar Apr 05 '17 at 14:35
  • @DevSolar, The "Submit permit application" isn't the end of that chain, the next two steps, "Public Notice/Comment" and "Analyze Floodplain Impacts", lead to the "Issue Permit" box with the yellow aura. I agree with you on the shapes. Most of the "Public Comment" boxes are hexagons, but some are rectangles for some reason. Same issue with the rectangles with rounded corners. I'd love to see the guide they used to put this together (If they had one). – A Bailey Apr 05 '17 at 14:54
  • 1
    @ABailey: As for the deceitful, if only the circles with the yellow aura are actually permits required to build a highway in the US, it seems the POTUS forgot to point that out. Or have the chart reduced to the actual permits. ;-) – DevSolar Apr 05 '17 at 14:57
  • @DevSolar, I agree with you on most points, Hanlon's razor is the only thing holding me back from calling it deceitful. – A Bailey Apr 05 '17 at 15:09
  • Just to point out: that chart could be anything, and could even be the chart of the permit to build an highway, why not? I mean, an highway it's not just a hole in the backyard, think only about the number of people working there and all associated permit. The deceit here is not the chart, but other two things: first, he is trying to gain the trust and support of the builder's union by forcing the concept that laws are bad and complicated. – motoDrizzt Apr 05 '17 at 17:26
  • 3
    Second, he strengthen the concept by saying "It's a process that can take way over ten years, and just never happens. Then at the end of the period they vote against it." That is, did USA really never ever had a single highway built? – motoDrizzt Apr 05 '17 at 17:26
  • 4
    Not sure that someone not being able to drop a highway wherever they want on a whim is necessarily a bad thing, philosophically speaking. – PoloHoleSet Jun 20 '17 at 16:15

1 Answers1

9

CNBC was able to get the highest quality image out there. Here is a direct link to the image.

Specifically, the entire paper is a flowchart of the process of getting permits. The large white box is the list of permits, but you might not need to get all of them.

There's a lot going on, and it's not particularly clear, since lines are everywhere. I'll explain one part of it, this part:

Migratory Birds/Eagles permit process

There are two permits here that are grouped together, The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act permit and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act permit (presumably because they are very similar permits).

While I can't find much information on the Migratory Birds permit, I found what can be playfully described as a choose-your-adventure guide for determining if you actually need an Eagle permit. It's on the US Fish and Wildlife (FWS) site here. One path ends with you needing to sign something, but not needing an Eagle permit.

FWS has a list of permits here, but not all the permits are in their list, and most of the permits that are listed don't have an "Estimated Processing Time".

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
  • 1
    Of course the claim competely overlooks the fact that there are obviously quite a few people who prefer eagles to highways :-) – jamesqf Jun 20 '17 at 17:41
  • 2
    @jamesqf That might be true, but I'm betting a far greater number would choose the highway. – Andy Jun 26 '17 at 22:48