Op-Ed: What/who keeps holding back New Mobility reform?

If you get it, New Mobility is a no-brainer. However, while the New Mobility Agenda is a great starting place, it is not going to get the job somehow miraculously done just because it is the only game in town when it comes to sustainable transport. There is plenty of competition for all that space on the street and  between the ears. We have a few potential sticking points here that need to be overcome first. Let’s have a quick look to get this exchange off the ground. After some years of talking with cities, and working and observing in many different circumstances, here is my personal shortlist of the barriers are most frequently encountered in trying to get innovative transportation reform programs off the ground, including even in cities that really do need a major mobility overhaul.

- Eric Britton, Editor, World Streets, Paris, France

1. The Mayor/city manager: The mayor or prime city leader either: (a) does not get it; (b) feels that he knows the whole topic area well enough to require nothing else; (c) does not consider the sector to be a matter of high priority to merit a major rethinking and reform effort; (d) feels confident that his staff has this well under control, or quite simply (e) does not have enough time to get his arms around it.  These are the rule; fortunately there are exceptions.

2. The City Council: Where you have city councils taking these decisions, it turns out that they are often much better at disagreeing then agreeing, at least when any unfamiliar , to them unproven, idea comes before them for decision. And yet, if we do not get some kind of consensus for change at the top this is never going to happen.

3. The city’s transportation experts: The city’s main transportation expert, team, may well not be interested in having any “outside help”. Anything else is often seen as a challenge to their authority and expertise. So we basically have a turf problem, and more often with a deeply embedded old mobility tilt.

4. Local consultants: The specialized consultants who already work in the sector in that city, or have contact with it, feel that they do not need any additional help since this is after all their job and specialty. (more like than not, once again, old mobility is their main game.)

5. Local business community, who the most part are firmly wedded to the idea of cars and car access (AKA parking) hold the key to the success of their businesses.

6. Transportation service providers: Bus/transit services, taxis, school and special service buses, others — tend to be the most part narrowly focused on their specific business area, often already under some financial duress, and thus for the most part not known to be welcoming to new ideas or new ways of doing things. Including new and much broader partnerships with other service providers and actors in the community. This is not the case for all cities, but most operators are under such financial and management pressure that they have little or no margin for innovation or experimentation.

7. Public interest groups: This is pure irony. Specific transportation, environmental groups, cycling, pedestrian, public space, emissions, quality of life, specific neighborhood groups, etc. — all for the vast part  tend to be committed to their specific turf and missions,  and far more often than not simply do not get together to create a global sustainable cities program, as indeed should be the case.

8. Local media: For reasons of their own, advertising revenues included, have rarely really bought into the sustainability agenda.

9. The police: Police in some cities regularly participate in transport and land use planning, and have been known to block needed actions in some cases, including infrastructure, policy, and law. Police also play a great role in how friendly our streets are; they can either protect and affirm the validity of walking and bicycling, or attack and negate it. This plays out in a wide number of circumstances and has a real effect on people’s lives and their travel behavior. (Thanks to Jason Meggs for the reminder for this and the next item on our list.)

10. Fire Department: The fire departments of most cities take their mission very seriously, and like the police are a powerful local force impacting on the streets in many ways, and can be very effective political groups.  All too often, though, they tend to show an inability to dialogue with and about new concepts. Erik Griswold has put it this way: “usually, they are the ones who will stop traffic calming, narrowing of roads or building built to pedestrian scale because they feel they will be unable to adequately service the area in case of an emergency. It is quite often the case that the local Fire Chief is more powerful than any other local city staff since he or she can quash a project based on “safety” and “response times”.”

11. Developers likewise could be using their great power to shift the structure of the city more. Developers have much to gain financially by reducing parking requirements, increasing density, and providing for a quality lifestyle without driving, but many have been slow to act on these opportunities. Part of the problem is financing in relatively uncharted territory (particularly in the United States), and the restrictions developers face, but there are countless cases where a development could be wildly different — and great leaps better — by the vision/choice of the developer.

12. The “local car lobby”. While there are financial and political interests tied to the continuing abundant unfettered use of cars in the city, including local auto dealers, any businesses that might be suppliers to the sector, parking businesses, the great bulk of this “lobby” is an unquestioned implied understanding that nothing should be done that would change your relationship with your car.

13. All of us:Doubtless the biggest single obstacle to deep transportation reform is a result of the fact that it deals with a highly visible area of public life in which just about everybody, from mayor to dog-catcher, feels that they have a high degree of implicit expertise in figuring out what works and what will not work in their city. . . because transport is something that they do every day and can see with their own eyes.

This last is indeed the Achilles’ heel of transportation policy, this very human tendency for just about everybody to feel that if they do it (i.e. move around every day) this means they understand it. The trouble with this is that transport in cities is a highly complex metabolism of great systemic complexity that is far closer to that of the human brain than say another glass of beer. Thus one of the main challenges of deep transportation reform — the only viable option available to us — is to help citizens and decision makers come to grips with these challenges of complexity, without at the same time removing it from their role as active and responsible citizens and placing it entirely in the hands of centralized experts. There is a major communications challenge here. And a very considerable governance challenge as well.

* * *

Look, I am not trying to pick a fight. I am just trying to share with you certain patterns which I have observed in my work in a very wide range of cities and environments. Do you agree? We really do need to be asking more hard questions. Including of ourselves.

How many potential barriers is that already, twelve And if you think of it in terms of your own city, I am sure you are going to spot most if not all of the above and yet others. It is thus the first challenge of anyone who wishes to advance the sustainable transportation agenda in that place to understand this difficult terrain and to figure out ways of coping with it.

For sure, it is going to be impossible to take on and convert all of these interests at once. But the fundamental concepts and potential of a 21st-century mobility system are such that if we take a strategic approach to dealing with these barriers, taking them on one at a time and with great patience and foresight, the policy agenda can be opened up and perhaps some first small victories can be achieved. Once this has happened, the rest will follow in due course.

Our best counsel for transportation reform in your city: 

Start at the top of this list with your mayor , while simultaneously engaging and working your way down this list patiently one by one. Build up your support base , and gradually expand it. Be known as a great and patient listener.

* * *
Some other postings on World Streets you might find useful in this context:

 

# # #

About these ads

8 responses to “Op-Ed: What/who keeps holding back New Mobility reform?

  1. Great topic, essential to be addressed.

    Worth mentioning two other groups: police and developers.

    Police in some cities regularly participate in transport and land use planning, and have been known to block needed actions in some cases, including infrastructure, policy, and law. Police also play a great role in how friendly our streets are; they can either protect and affirm the validity of walking and bicycling, or attack and negate it. This plays out in a wide number of circumstances and has a real effect on people’s lives and their travel behavior.

    Developers likewise could be using their great power to shift the structure of the city more. Developers have much to gain financially by reducing parking requirements, increasing density, and providing for a quality lifestyle without driving, but many have been slow to act on these opportunities. Part of the problem is financing in relatively uncharted territory (particularly in the United States), and the restrictions developers face, but there are countless cases where a development could be wildly different — and great leaps better — by the vision/choice of the developer.

  2. Steve Tracy

    Interesting menu, Eric. In our fair city, since our last election we have a Mayor and City Council who are on board for sustainable transportation. But progress is stifled, still. Our primary impediments remain numbers 3 and 5, and because we let it happen, 10 – all of us. Steve Tracy, Davis, CA.

    • But we can judge their commitment by a single indicator: Are they making use every day as their main means of locomotion the sustainable (i.e., not alone in their car or driven in car with chauffeur) transport system of their city? If they do, then they are part of the solution. If not, despite all their rhetoric and promises, they are part of the problem. And how do we put teeth into that? Make it a part of a public commitment without which you and many others (one hopes) will not vote for them. Sometimes life is simple..

  3. Erik Griswold

    I feel you left out another entity, the fire department. Perhaps they fall under “the Police” in a sense, but usually, they are the ones who will stop traffic calming, narrowing of roads or building built to pedestrian scale because they feel they will be unable to adequately service the area in case of an emergency. It is quite often the case that the local Fire Chief is more powerful than any other local city staff since he or she can quash a project based on “safety” and “response times”.

  4. One good thing I’ve seen with Police and Fire, is that even if their political personas appear to host a sordid culture of antagonism to walking and cycling, individual complaints to enforce safety and legal issues are often still addressed. For example, asking police to cite people blocking sidewalks with parked cars can be successful. In Berkeley there is a lot of parking which was put in illegally or not up to code, which I wasn’t able to get movement on through Zoning. However, the Fire Department shut down one spot because it blocked emergency access, and people with disabilities, thanks to a request (the car parked in front of the steps, leaving much less than a meter to squeeze through — sometimes only a foot or so).

    On the other hand, non-individual (organized) efforts to work with police in Berkeley to allow citizens’ arrests failed (despite their being a constitutional right in the USA), and police shut down their own stings on drivers after they say one of their officers was injured (now if that isn’t running from the problem, what is?). On the other hand, they stepped up stings against jaywalking and cyclists running stop signs under the bogus banner of equal treatment, a car-first program with little if any safety merit which discourages active transport, exacerbating feelings of injustice and leaving people feeling even less welcome and protected.

    Erik, absolutely agreed about needing to appease emergency response concerns regarding traffic calming. This lead me to think the best comprehensive traffic calming (short of banning private motor vehicles, or installing automatic speed limiters on vehicles of course) was to place mid-block narrowings on all residential streets. These can be fast and inexpensive, do not cause any deflection issues for emergency vehicles, and I haven’t heard any other overriding objections. I also imagined an elaborate system for residents to fast track and beautify these treatments (e.g., install a park, or garden, as part of the mid-block roadway narrowing), drawing on the precedent of Portland, Oregon’s City Repair Ordinance, but really the direct need is to provide protection everywhere.

  5. From Jason Meggs:

    One good thing I’ve seen with Police and Fire, is that even if their political personas appear to host a sordid culture of antagonism to walking and cycling, individual complaints to enforce safety and legal issues are often still addressed. For example, asking police to cite people blocking sidewalks with parked cars can be successful. In Berkeley there is a lot of parking which was put in illegally or not up to code, which I wasn’t able to get movement on through Zoning. However, the Fire Department shut down one spot because it blocked emergency access, and people with disabilities, thanks to a request (the car parked in front of the steps, leaving much less than a meter to squeeze through — sometimes only a foot or so).

    On the other hand, non-individual (organized) efforts to work with police in Berkeley to allow citizens’ arrests failed (despite their being a constitutional right in the USA), and police shut down their own stings on drivers after they say one of their officers was injured (now if that isn’t running from the problem, what is?). On the other hand, they stepped up stings against jaywalking and cyclists running stop signs under the bogus banner of equal treatment, a car-first program with little if any safety merit which discourages active transport, exacerbating feelings of injustice and leaving people feeling even less welcome and protected.

    Erik, absolutely agreed about needing to appease emergency response concerns regarding traffic calming. This lead me to think the best comprehensive traffic calming (short of banning private motor vehicles, or installing automatic speed limiters on vehicles of course) was to place mid-block narrowings on all residential streets. These can be fast and inexpensive, do not cause any deflection issues for emergency vehicles, and I haven’t heard any other overriding objections. I also imagined an elaborate system for residents to fast track and beautify these treatments (e.g., install a park, or garden, as part of the mid-block roadway narrowing), drawing on the precedent of Portland, Oregon’s City Repair Ordinance, but really the direct need is to provide protection everywhere.

    Finally, Erik, regarding duplicating comments, no problem, the more the better; but this is an issue today with posting blogs to facebook and other sites, the comments can be different in each place. My opening salvo was posted three places in hopes of not missing anyone. :)

  6. Jason Meggs
    Regarding electeds being part of the solution if they use sustainable mobility practices in their personal travel, I can name electeds including one relatively famous mayor who do this, get good press for themselves and their city, and then take actions clearly undermining and even harming citywide solutions. Be wary of greenwashing of electeds. In some cases these actions take place because of the other forces, and the general ignorance of the system (and its future potential states). A strong grassroots political push has and can tip the balance, but it’s difficult to muster that again and again on each issue. Taking a broad measures approach may be best (e.g., a panoply of policies and programs all pushed through as one ordinance or measure, preferably with clearly designated funding sources and designation of those responsible to ensure it gets done).

  7. Excellent and agreed Jason.

    The sustainable mobility agenda by itseelf is too narrow to hold attention and get the level of citizen activism that is required to generate real change. So it needs to be folded into a larger agenda. But it is important that the whole thing — think of it as a “Pact of Equity” (poor name) — that large numbers of citizens will both help build and then sign in to in order to, what is the word, “blackmail” anyone who is running for public office to sign — and then submit to periodic inspection and a sort of open citizen audit. The trick is (a) that we need concrete measures of “compliance” and (b) a certain overall consistency and great simplicity of the Pact.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s