Touching the Political Third Rail

How to overcome gridlock for controversial policies?

There is no shortage of political issues that seem untouchable, especially when it comes to transportation. But that doesn’t stop people from trying. Environmentalists in European nations, such as Germany, are calling for a relatively extreme speed limit of 100 kilometers per hour (around 60 mph). Urbanists in the United States demand a reduction in parking in city centers to make way for more housing, cafes, and green space. Others call for more public housing, more places for the homeless and the drug addicted to live.

Public opposition to these proposals is typically loud and fanatical. German opponents to an Autobahn speed limit view the proposal as an attempt to quash German identity itself. Americans often see the removal of parking minimums as guaranteed to make it harder to get around, or that it will force them to use their city’s poorly resourced and slow bus system. As a result, these proposals are often viewed as political “third rails:” touch them and your career as a politician is over. But is that really the case?

It ends up that many policies are not inherently controversial. Rather it is that the changes seem too radical. Or, it is that the benefits feel too uncertain, and the consequences loom too large. Citizens can come to believe in change, but only by getting more experience with it.

Credit: PIC-ONE/Stefan Müller

A recent paper in the journal Transport Policy by a Dutch team led by Bert van Wee surveys controversial policies and finds that they often become more popular after they are implemented. For instance, residents of Scandinavian cities adamantly opposed congestion pricing, road use fees meant to discourage driving, because they focused on the costs. Only after implementation did they recognize the benefits: less traffic, more available parking, less pollution, and better funded road maintenance.

Van Wee and his colleagues suggest that the way forward lies in “better communication.” But for a public worried about losses of freedom, or their ability to get to work and find a parking spot when they get there, expert assurances are bound to fall flat. Ultimately it is a technocratic approach: “Trust us. We’re the experts.”

Most of us either live (or would like to live) in a democratic country, not a technocratic one. Telling the citizens that they must swallow bitter medicine, with the promise that things will be better afterwards, can undermine public trust and drive polarization. Employing that strategy during the pandemic was anything but productive. How can we overcome political gridlock without jettisoning our commitment to democracy?

The paper does briefly mention a promising strategy in this regard: phased implementation. For instance, Stockholm tested congestion pricing and Melbourne experimented with speed limits in smaller areas on a temporary basis. Not only do policy trials provide helpful feedback for designing full scale implementation, but can help convince skeptics that the policy is worthwhile when the outcome isn’t a disaster.

Most importantly, trials can be staged in places where they enjoy the greatest support. For instance, lower speed limits are more popular in neighborhoods where children play or walk to school. Congestion pricing can be started in areas of the city where fewer residents drive but still suffering from the noise and pollution of traffic.

Given their clear advantages, why aren’t policy trials more common? Politicians often feel pressure to “deliver.” Big projects, if successful, can be touted during the next campaign, while incremental tests could appear meek, even if they are far more intelligent.

Some might fear that the window for change is quickly closing, absent decisive action. Climate and environmental policy suffers from this sentiment. But the outcome of decades of calling for radical policy hasn’t been “transformative change” but instead partisan gridlock. What if true believers stopped deriding the purported scientific illiteracy of skeptics, and instead focused on creating trials to prove that environmental protections can be both worthwhile and compatible with the lives that opponents want to live?

When it comes to coping with an increasingly complex world, we don’t appreciate enough the reality that learning is rooted in experience. Whether it is a city considering removing parking minimums, federal policy to phase out gasoline cars, or a company rethinking their “work from home” allowances, the consequences can be unpredictable. But making changes small and temporary can promote wiser and more productive decision making by helping people more quickly learn the costs and benefits of change. Fostering that learning is likely the best way to turn political third rails into normal policy.