Gamechangers

[Note: It just occurred to me that this post is the opposite of Betsey’s! It could be subtitled: “small steps add up to squat.”]

Last month, I happened across Conrad deFiebre’s review at MN2020 of Car2Go, the latest innovation in car sharing to hit the streets of Minneapolis. Something caught my eye. Here’s the piece:

Minneapolis, already home to several first-generation car-sharing services, is launching a possible game-changer in the field: Car2Go is deploying hundreds of two-seat Smart cars that can be picked up and dropped off at any unrestricted parking spot in the city — even in front of your own home.

This stationless innovation relies on global positioning technology plus communication links ranging from state-of-the-art (a smartphone app) to old-school (land-line telephones). For hourly or by-the-minute use rates, you get free fuel, insurance and parking. In Minneapolis, it also means at least a tenfold increase in the number of shared cars on tap.

“It’s a huge quantum leap,” Atif Saeed, the city parking systems manager, told the Star Tribune.

With one-way trip functionality, Car2Go certainly seems cool. (See also Brendon’s recent review). But as I thought about it, I started to become more interested in deFiebre’s concept of “gamechangers.” Is car sharing a gamechanger? Would people not owning their own private automobile really transform our city? What does it mean to be a “gamechanger”?

On Gamechangers

fosbury flopThe concept of “gamechanger” marks out a difference between incremental change and radical change. In other words, most of the changes we make to our cities have small effects. We stripe a bike lane or tweak a zoning code, and cars slow down slightly, a few more people ride their bikes, or we get a few new square feet of building on our block. Most changes we make are like this, nothing radical, no big waves in the pond.

Following the sports analogy, most changes we make are like people of different skill level playing a game. You sign Clayton Kershaw to pitch for your team, and you get a few more strikeouts, a few less runs, and win a few more games. Some people are better at playing the game, and slowly the game evolves.

Game changers, on the other hand, cause radical change. Sometimes it’s the rules of the game changing completely (e.g. the designated hitter), and sometimes it’s someone who comes along and introduces a whole new way to tackle the problem (e.g. the Fosbury flop). A game changer marks something that causes radical change, that forces all the other people playing the game to re-think what they’re doing. Faced with a game changer, we all have to question our assumptions and look again at how we approach the task at hand.

So, you’d have to think that gamechangers are pretty rare. But if you want to really make a difference in our cities, we should be spending more of our time trying to change the game, not just learning to play it a bit better. In the analogy, “the game” is our unsustainable urban development pattern, the way our lifestyles are destroying the planet. We can spend years trying to bend the rules, making slow or little progress (kind of like the Twins trying to become a good team again). Or we can change the game completely. (E.g., like next year when the Twins innovate a new system of “golf scoring,” and become the best team in the league.)

So, what would be the “gamechanger” for different urban design challenges we face? What are the differences that will make a difference?

Gamechanger for car-dependency: Car2Go

car2goWell, to me this is a bit debatable. But I think that car sharing, and particularly a flexible service like this one, might really be a gamechanger for how we get around. One of the big reasons cars are so pernicious is that much of the cost is up-front. We pay for the car, the insurance, the maintenance, the license and the registration whether we use the car or not. These are “sunk costs,” and they stack the odds for the actual decision making process. (Q: Should I drive or take the bus. A: I already paid for my car.) Car sharing changes all that because you’re paying the cost of the car a la carte, instead of all up front.

Another reason it might change the game is that car sharing removes our personal attachment to the car. If we share our car, we no longer see it is an extension of our ego, as “who we are” as individuals. Instead, we become part of a community.

(There’s also the “cars are parked 90% of the time” argument,” which might also change the rules of the parking game.)

We’ll have to wait and see, but a flexible, affordable, and reliable car sharing service has a lot of potential to change how we think about our infrastructures.

Other possibilities? Robot cars (too far away)

Gamechanger for traffic safety: red light cameras

red light cameraI’ve written about this before, but recently I’ve been having a lot of conversations about traffic safety. How can we get people to stop for pedestrians, to drive more slowly and carefully, to pay attention? Do we hire more cops? Do we fund a large education campaign? Do we re-design our streets?

Yes, all of those will have small effects. But for the cost of a single police officer, you can install a whole bunch of automated and highly effective red light cameras that will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and do so without any racial profiling.

In fact, once they’re made legal in Minnesota, the main gripe with red light cameras is that they are too effective. People are upset because they actually work, they actually enforce the law. How unfair!

We can spend heaps of time and money on a new safety campaign, or we can call our own bluff and make red light cameras / speed cameras / crosswalk cameras part of everyday life. Trust me, that will change the game really quickly.

Other possibilities? Traffic calming everywhere.

Gamechanger for transit: ??????

mpls streetcar renderingThere are few possibilities here, but none of them seem perfect. An effective and efficient bus system (particularly with dedicated right-of-way) would be amazing. Done right, this is called BRT, and I was tempted to put it here. But Metro Transit’s aBRT plan isn’t really a “gamechanger” in the sense that these other things might be. It’s an incremental change that shaves something like 10% of the travel time off the bus trip (IIRC). Frequency increases, the buses get a bit more comfy and a bit faster, and stops are a bit nicer… those are all good changes, but they’re not gamechangers.

The same might be said for streetcars. I believe that streetcars will be gamechangers for the street environment in the places they’re built, radically altering the feel of the street, calming traffic, placing pedestrians the center, and fostering walkable density along a few key corridors. But they won’t change the game for transit. (It’s because they’re slow.)

(Also, LRT is not a game changer.)

Other possibilities? $1 fares.

Gamechanger for sprawl: ???

Here’s another difficult one. I’m tempted to say something like, “Ending the Mortgage Interest Deduction.” That would reduce a huge way that home purchases are subsidized all across the board.

Another one might be shifting the Federal road funding model away from the 90/10 cost-share. That would certainly force cities and states to re-think how they’re building roads and subsidizing development. There’s no way that the current development pattern would continue (at its current rates) if cities had to pay for freeways themselves.

Gamechanger for bicycling: quality cycle tracks

cycletrackLook at the impact that the Midtown Greenway has had on Minneapolis, and imagine if we had a system like that running through the entire city. That would change the game for bicycling, and get a whole new group of people onto bicycles. The key is that you’d be able to bike long distances without ever having to “share the road” with aggressive and scary cars. The qualitative difference between bicycling and driving to work would be stark. (You can either sit there strapped in your seat getting angry at someone cutting you off, or be out in the lovely weather, cruising unimpeded along a lovely path. Your choice.)

This is why advocates in Minneapolis are so focused on building cycletracks, despite the structural difficulties they present to public works’ departments. As Walker recently pointed out, building a better network of bike lanes might get a few more people to try bicycling, lift our mode share by a few percentage points. But if you want to double or triple the number of people bicycling, it’s going to take comfortable and convenient cycletracks.

(Crappy and dangerous cycletracks are NOT gamechangers, FYI.)

Other possibilities? See this law from Bolivia making cycling mandatory.

Gamechanger for land use: market priced parking

chicago metersOf all the land use levers we have, I’m convinced that parking policy is one of the most effective. It might seem politically daunting (“You can rip that parking spot from my cold, dead hands!”), but compared to tackling housing, small-business retail, or downtown interests, parking might be the easiest kind of land use to tweak. Reducing parking is interesting is that it does double duty: you’re reducing the supply (giving opportunity for density), and reducing the demand (by creating density). At best, this will set in motion a virtuous cycle…

There are a few steps to go about charging market prices for parking. Most simply, you get rid of mandatory minimums. If people want to pay for their parking spots, they can! (But they don’t have to.) You let the market sort out how and where and how much parking will cost.

It’s also important to set market prices for publicly-owned parking. (See the Chicago privatization scheme or the San Francisco “smart parking” policy.) A coherent and consistent market for parking, so that people actually pay the full cost for car storage, would go a long way to making our urban land uses more sustainable.

Most everything else seems either a utopian fantasy or a minor tweak.

Other possibilities? Form-based codes, I guess, maybe.

Conclusion? Focus like a laser

Outside of the car-sharing evolution, none of these things seem particularly easy to accomplish. But urbanists and sustainable city advocates would be well served by focusing more on these “game changer” ideas instead of spending all our time tinkering around the edges. As they say in hip-hop, “don’t hate the playa, hate the game.”

 

Streets.mn is a non-profit and is volunteer run. We rely on your support to keep the servers running. If you value what you read, please consider becoming a member.

12 Responses to Gamechangers

  1. Adam Miller
    Adam October 8, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

    You’re second one should be titled: “game changer for generating ticket revenue.”

    The problems with red light cameras and other automated traffic enforcement have been well documented. They “work” at generating money. The don’t really “work” as appropriate enforcement.

    Also, the game changer you need for cycling is to find away for it not to be prohibitively cold and covered in snow for 1/3 of the year.

    • Bill Lindeke
      Bill Lindeke October 9, 2013 at 12:07 am #

      Well i just have to disagree with you about red light cameras. I think they’re very effective in changing behavior, far more than any of the other options.

      That said, I’d be curious about any data you might have. actually, its gonna be the subject of a future podcast, because there’ll be a bill in the MN legislature about this very topic this year…

      • Adam Miller
        Adam October 9, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

        Not that this source is necessarily unbiased, but some of the underlying reports, none of which have I looked at in detail, may be of interest: http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies

        The U.S. PIRG seems like a potentially credible source and seems to highlight some of the challenges.

      • Froggie October 11, 2013 at 3:09 am #

        I tend to lean towards Adam on this one. I apologize that I don’t have access to the actual numbers out here at sea, but there’s evidence that while it reduces serious crashes, red light cameras tend to increase the overall crash rate, so the safety record is a mixed-bag. In addition, several areas have had issues with the yellow times being shortened, in order to “maximize revenue” for the red light cameras. That is very much a safety and engineering no-no.

        I also have to question where the money is going, as that plays a factor. If it simply goes to the jurisdiction’s general fund, there is a strong incentive for them to generate revenue, which just further reinforces the point that they’re about revenue instead of being about safety. This is one of the issues in DC with red light cameras.

  2. Brendon Slotterback
    Brendon Slotterback October 8, 2013 at 2:26 pm #

    Telecommuting? Working from home has more “mode share” than transit, biking or walking in many metros (including more than biking in the Portland metro!). http://www.newgeography.com/content/003098-a-look-commuting-using-latest-census-data

  3. Alex Cecchini
    Alex Cecchini October 9, 2013 at 10:14 am #

    I think we need a very healthy combination of the big changes and the small, incremental ones. The big stuff can really alter the fundamentals of how everyone views the housing, office, and transportation markets. There’s so much support out there for major changes like removing the mortgage interest deduction, changing the federal funding split (though think of the implications for major transit projects if that were the case), etc. But at the same time, there are heavily entrenched opposition to those things that make it extremely hard to push through (politically). Add in the inability of larger government to get just about anything done at all.

    So, with that said, I think task fores out there need to focus on both the big whale stuff and the small fry incremental stuff. Spend 30% effort on the big stuff and hope you can really nail 1 issue per year or so, and 70% on fighting for the small victories and changes that help add that extra cyclist, apartment, quality bike lane, intersection calmer, etc to prove the world won’t collapse when these things are done. They strengthen the arguments for the big fights and get things done in the meantime.

  4. Mike Hicks October 9, 2013 at 10:27 am #

    I’m more optimistic about LRT, though I certainly prefer when it can be developed along bustling corridors like University Avenue. Metro Transit routes 16 and 50 carried 6.5 million riders in 2010 (back before heavy construction on the Green Line started), while the Hiawatha (now Blue) Line carried 10.5 million that year. It’s very hard to imagine that the Central Corridor stretch of the Green Line will carry any fewer riders than the Blue Line. Most light-rail advocates suggest that converting a bus service to rail will only increase ridership by 30%, but here we’re probably going to see an increase of 100%.

    The Northstar commuter line, has been a “failure” because it merely quadrupled rather than quintupled the ridership level of its predecessor commuter bus. We have pretty strong rail bias in this region.

    I keep wishing that the existing freight network in the Twin Cities could get a pretty much wholesale upgrade — make the corridors double-tracked radiating about 25 miles out from the center and run some DMUs (basically light rail vehicles with diesel engines) over them at 15-30 minute headways all day long, with the occasional train going out significantly farther.

    But anyway, that’s all very expensive. Despite significant ridership gains, trains don’t help the overall picture enough unless they’re combined with the other things you mentioned, particularly parking minimums and pricing of parking, along with good zoning codes that encourage bike- and pedestrian-friendly environments.

    Regarding car sharing — I really hope that apartment complexes will start hosting a few shared vehicles on-site as an amenity for residents.

    • Bill Lindeke
      Bill Lindeke October 9, 2013 at 11:35 am #

      Certainly cheaper than giant underground parking garages.

      • Matt Brillhart October 9, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

        Interesting point. According to popular lore, underground parking costs $25-30,000 per space. The raw cost of purchasing a compact sedan combined with insuring and fueling it for a few years could cost less than the parking space it occupies in the garage. If it allows a developer to build 3 or 4 fewer parking spaces, then it looks like a huge win.

        I think that many of the incremental changes you described (aBRT, increased availability of car sharing & bike sharing, more bike lanes and cycle tracks) viewed collectively as a package, add up to a game changer.

        It’s also important to remember that all of these changes are relatively brand new in the Twin Cities or not yet implemented. I think the wave of individuals going completely car (ownership) free or families deciding to own one car instead of two or three has only begun.

    • Adam Miller
      Adam October 9, 2013 at 2:20 pm #

      I’m hoping that my building will host as car share or two, which might be enough to tempt me to sell my car.

  5. Reuben Collins
    Reuben Collins October 10, 2013 at 10:42 pm #

    Bill, why do you say LRT is not a gamechanger?

    • Bill Lindeke
      Bill Lindeke October 10, 2013 at 11:40 pm #

      well, maybe in a really dense spot, but i think that as its currently being built (SWLRT and Bottineau) its only gonna have effects at the margins, moving the needle a few tiny fractions… its not like we’re really affecting the balance between roads and rail. (for example, Dallas has a huge LRT system, but still is 110% invested in roads and look where its gotten them.)

Note on Comments

streets.mn welcomes opinions from many perspectives. Please refrain from attacking or disparaging others in your comments. streets.mn sees debate as a learning opportunity. Please share your perspective in a respectful manner. View our full comment policy to learn more.

Thanks for commenting on streets.mn!