The reason isn’t ideology. It’s structure.

Under California’s “top two” system, all candidates from all parties compete in the first round and only the two highest vote-getters advance. When one side fragments and the other consolidates, the system can exclude an entire coalition—even if that coalition represents a majority of voters.

This coordination trap isn’t unique to California. Runoff elections across the globe repeatedly produce the same pattern: voters must guess which candidates have a “viable” shot and pool support behind them, or else risk unexpected consequences.

France learned this in 2002. Peru saw it in 2021.

The good news: one small change, currently used in the city of St Louis, could substantially reduce this risk—without overhauling the elections process or ballot design.

Chaos in California

California’s current race for governor illustrates this problem.

The top two candidates in this year’s first-round election will face off in the second round in November. In a state that’s dominated by Democrats, numerous recent polls show the top two candidates may be Republicans:

If the first round were held today, it could result in Democrats being “locked out” of the final election.

As John Mulholland writes in State Affairs:

While Republicans are largely consolidated behind two candidates, Democrats are spread across a sprawling field. The Republicans can carve up 40% of the vote between them, while a much larger number of Democrats scrap over the remaining 60%.

The specter of a Republican-only runoff is drawing anxiety among Democrats since the electoral consequences would be severe.

I suspect many Democrats will try to coalesce around one candidate. But which one? There are two (Eric Swalwell and Katie Porter) with similar levels of support.

This concern is not new. “Almost every year, the prospect of one party getting shut out from the November ballot, because an overabundance of candidates splits the primary vote, sends activists and political strategists into flights of panic,” writes Ben Christopher. (Versions of this system are also used in states like Washington and Louisiana.)

Some candidates try to work the system by spending money to boost a candidate from the other party, as a way of either helping themselves get on the second-round ballot or trying to keep a threatening competitor from their own party off the second-round ballot.

Frustration in France

France uses a runoff system to elect its president. For decades, the pattern was familiar: mainstream center-left and center-right candidates would be the top two in the first round, then face off in the second round.

In 2002, that pattern broke.

Far-right candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen had previously hovered around 15% in prior first-round presidential elections. In 2002, he got 16.9% of the first-round vote—roughly in line with expectations.

Center-right incumbent Jacques Chirac got 19.9%.

But the left-wing vote fractured across multiple candidates. Lionel Jospin, who was expected to qualify for the runoff, got just 16.2%—finishing slightly behind Le Pen and missing the second round by less than one percentage point.

In the second round, people across the political spectrum rallied around Chirac, who earned 82% of the vote vs. Le Pen’s 18%. So voters did avert the election of a widely-disliked candidate.

But France was supposed to have a competitive election.

Opinion polls prior to the first-round election—which had assumed that Chirac and Jospin would advance to the second round—showed a close race, with each candidate earning at least 48% support:

When multiple similar candidates split support in the first round, even small miscalculations can change who advances to the second round. Voter coordination is critical.

Problems in Peru

“Just do a better job at coordination” sounds like great advice—but what do you do when it’s not ever clear which candidates voters should coalesce around?

Peru’s 2021 presidential election had 18 candidates. Of them, 9 got at least 5% of the first-round vote, and 4 got at least 11%. The top vote-getter only got 19%.

Small shifts—just one or two percentage points—could have changed who advanced to the second round, and ultimately the outcome of the election.

And unlike France in 2002, there was no obvious focal point for coordination. With multiple viable candidates clustered closely together, it was unclear who voters should strategically consolidate behind.

Pre-election polls were all over the place:

In a field that fragmented, even well-intentioned voters had little reliable guidance.

The runoff ultimately featured Castillo and Fujimori—a highly polarizing matchup with both candidates widely disliked. But the first-round vote totals suggest that different pairings were possible under slightly different strategic behavior.

Note that the 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-place finishers in the first round (Keiko Fujimori, Rafael López Aliaga, Hernando de Soto) were all right-wing candidates. From what I’ve read, Hernando de Soto was positioned as a more “moderate” candidate. If he had been the right-wing candidate to advance to the second round, it’s conceivable he could have won the election against left-wing Castillo. Of course, we can’t say for sure.

In a system that allows only one vote in the first round, voters must both express preference and solve a coordination puzzle at the same time. In highly fragmented races, that puzzle can be nearly impossible.

In Peru’s 2026 election, there are 34 candidates. Good luck trying to figure out what to do there!

One small change that can make a big difference

One simple change could meaningfully reduce risk: in the first round, let voters select as many candidates as they want rather than limiting them to one.

Everything else stays the same: the top 2 vote-getters advance to the second round, where you vote for 1 candidate and then the majority wins.

Now, instead of fracturing support across multiple similar candidates, voters can vote to advance any candidates who they want to have a shot at being on the final ballot. Candidates can cross-endorse each other, saying: “Vote for both of us, and hopefully one of us makes it to the second round!”

Then the 2 candidates with the broadest support across the electorate face off in the second round, where:

• If one of your selected candidates made it to the second round, great—vote for that person!

• If you got really lucky and two of your selected candidates ended up being the two finalists, you get the luxury of deciding between them in the second round!

• If unfortunately none of your selected first-round candidates made it to the second round, you’ll still get the chance to choose between the top two choices of the rest of your fellow voters

If everyone just selected one candidate in the first round (“bullet voting”), then you’d basically have the same result as the current system. So we have to see what actually happens in the real world.

Putting principles in practice

This system has been used for municipal elections in St Louis, Missouri, since 2021.

In the 2021 mayoral primary, the average voter selected 1.6 candidates from the 4 options. In 2025, the average voter selected 1.4 out of 4. So while plenty of people did bullet vote, plenty did not. The portion of voters who selected multiple candidates is easily large enough to make a real difference in avoiding vote-splitting and “lock out” problems. Remember how close some of the first-round vote totals were in examples above like France or Peru; tiny shifts can change who advances.

There’s some evidence suggesting voters select more candidates when given a larger candidate field. For example, experiments in France showed that on average voters approved between 2 and 3 presidential candidates, out of 12 candidates in 2007 and 10 candidates in 2012. (These experiments were conducted at the same time as the real elections, but did not count toward the election results.)

Lament in Louisiana

Louisiana’s 1991 governor’s race was an example of where the usage of the St Louis system may have actually made a difference.

The election featured 4 major candidates:

• Democrat Edwin Edwards, former governor

• Republican (former Democrat) Buddy Roemer, incumbent governor

• Republican Clyde Holloway, U.S. Congressman

• Republican David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan leader and white supremacist

Here’s how the first round went:

Democratic votes were consolidated behind Edwin Edwards, while Republican votes were split across several different candidates, with David Duke getting the highest number and advancing to the second round.

This set off a frantic anybody-but-Duke campaign in which lots of people who otherwise would not have voted for Edwin Edwards did so in order to avoid the election of David Duke. In the second round, a large majority of voters coalesced around Edwards and he won.

In the final round, 61% voted against David Duke, but in the first round 64% had voted for a Republican. Is it possible that incumbent Buddy Roemer would have been the candidate whose election would have left the largest number of people at least somewhat satisfied? Perhaps, though we’ll never know because the election system didn’t give us the chance to find out.

Under the St Louis system, voters could have selected multiple candidates to advance—for example, Buddy Roemer and Clyde Holloway, or Edwin Edwards and Buddy Roemer. I think there’s a decent chance that the final round would have been Edwards vs. Roemer—and in such an election, Roemer may have stood a good shot at winning. (Though note that this was not a simple “left vs. right” election.)

Not a magic wand

In many cases the St Louis system (or any alternate system) wouldn’t change the final result, as many elections have a clear front-runner who would likely win no matter what the rules are.

For example, Chile’s 2025 presidential election and Chicago’s 2023 mayoral election both featured messy fields of 5 major candidates with highly-fractured first-round vote totals. They seem like the kind of elections where the St Louis system would really help. But when you learn more about the specific candidates, including their coalitions and political views, I think it’s likely the outcomes of these elections would not have changed.

Changing campaign incentives

Even when it seems the outcomes won’t change, the St Louis system would at least likely make for a more cordial first round, as similar candidates can cross-endorse each other rather than fighting each other. In a vote-for-one system, attacking adjacent rivals is rational; in a vote-for-multiple system, coalition-building is rational.

And in polarized political environments, this system can provide a real incentive for candidates to bridge the divide between the two “sides” and try to appeal to a wider swath of the electorate—since voters can select multiple candidates across parties (or factions) on the same ballot. Maximizing broad appeal is how you maximize your chance of making it to the second round.

If the changed campaign incentives get more consensus-building candidates onto the second-round ballot, that could ultimately get more of them elected, making for a healthier politics.

Evolution, not revolution

Talking about “how might everything change if we had a different election system” is fun, but the hard reality is that it’s often difficult to get public support for big structural changes, especially ones that may require a constitutional amendment.

The change that I’ve outlined here explicitly uses three design constraints:

1. No ranking or scoring of candidates—as that typically requires significant voter reeducation as well as changes to voting machines and ballot designs

2. Maintaining a two-round election system—as it’s familiar to many voters, and in some jurisdictions a “majority winner” is constitutionally required (necessitating a two-candidate runoff election)

3. Maintaining single-winner elected offices as they are—so no switch to proportional representation or other multi-winner systems

In my next posts, I will dive deeper into two specific issues:

• How I did a “U-turn” on ranked-choice voting—switching from being a lifelong supporter to being a strong skeptic

• What a better electoral system for single-winner offices would look like (besides the St Louis system)

Make sure to subscribe to get those posts straight to your inbox:

The St Louis system is not perfect, but it’s a dramatic improvement over the status-quo system in numerous countries and states—and a reform that may actually be within reach.

I was fortunate to be able to visit Bangladesh 🇧🇩, Singapore 🇸🇬, Mexico 🇲🇽, France 🇫🇷, the UK 🇬🇧, Bulgaria 🇧🇬, Georgia 🇬🇪, Taiwan 🇹🇼, and Algeria 🇩🇿, in addition to my home of the U.S. 🇺🇸, so this will be a very international spread.

I thought it would be fun to do a “5 by 5”: 5 letters of the alphabet, 5 snapshots each:

• A: Avenues and streets

• B: Buildings

• C: Churches and religious sites

• D: Delicacies

• E: Experiences and events

Let’s go!

A: Avenues and streets

1. Bustling streets of Bangladesh 🇧🇩

In Bangladesh’s major cities, like Dhaka and Chittagong, the streets can be incredibly hectic!

2. Not-so-bustling streets of Bangladesh 🇧🇩

Bangladesh also has quieter streets, like in this village in Sreemangal.

3. Roman ruins in the middle of the street 🇧🇬

Bulgaria’s second city of Plovdiv has a rich history, including Roman ruins all over the place. As they’ve been excavated, they’ve been integrated into the urban fabric.

The main pedestrian street through the city just casually has a Roman amphitheater sitting in the middle of an intersection!

4. French colonial Algiers 🇩🇿

By the looks of this photo, you might think you’re in Paris. Instead, this is Algiers; Algeria’s capital has a ton of French colonial architecture in the city center, and it’s quite well preserved—perhaps even better preserved than some spots in France.

5. Sunday stroll on Paseo de la Reforma 🇲🇽

On Sunday mornings, Mexico City’s most famous avenue transforms into a bike- and pedestrian-only thoroughfare, making a busy street a bit more calm and giving you a chance to enjoy it in a more relaxed environment.

B: Buildings

6. Oxford’s ‘Harry Potter’ Great Hall 🇬🇧

I had breakfast in the Great Hall of Christ Church College at Oxford University, which was apparently the inspiration for the Harry Potter dining hall (replicated in a studio)! It was surreal.

Contemporary architecture seems like a huge step backward from this.

7. Houses on stilts 🇧🇩

It’s always cool to see cases where building styles respond to their local environmental conditions. This village in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh features houses on stilts, as it’s near a river.

8. Dar Mustapha Pacha 🇩🇿

Algeria was sort of like “Morocco without tourists.”

9. Indoor jungle at Singapore airport 🇸🇬

The Jewel at Singapore Changi Airport offers an extraordinary example of bringing the outdoors indoors, with vegetation and a waterfall.

I wrote a post about this and other efforts to create urban jungles:

10. Ivan Vazov National Theatre 🇧🇬

It’s nice when historic buildings are lit up at night!

C: Churches and religious sites

11. Ely Cathedral 🇬🇧

Ely Cathedral was one of the most spectacular cathedrals I’ve ever seen. One thing I particularly loved was that it’s filled with light, whereas many other cathedrals can be a bit dark on the inside.

12. FaChuKung Temple 🇹🇼

This Taoist temple in Taipei was super cool because it’s placed on top of a street! Great use of space in a dense urban context.

Another thing that I thought was cool about a lot of these such temples was that they have multiple floors where each one has a different focus, so you get a sequence of different experiences. Most other religious buildings I’ve been to have only had one or two primary floors.

13. Svetitskhoveli Cathedral 🇬🇪

Svetitskhoveli Cathedral in Mtskheta, Georgia, is around 1,000 years old—and you can really feel it!

Read more about lessons from my Georgia trip:

14. Hindu Street 🇧🇩

Bangladesh is ~90% Muslim, but it has an 8% Hindu minority. In Dhaka, “Hindu Street” serves as a visible hub of Hinduism. While visiting, our group encountered some sort of festival, which had the street packed with people sitting.

15. St Bartholomew’s 🇺🇸

St Bartholomew’s Church in Midtown Manhattan has a beautiful small side chapel! I love the hanging lamps. The church has a mix of Byzantine Revival and Romanesque Revival architecture, both of which are uncommon in the U.S.

D: Delicacies

16. Chocolate dumplings 🇬🇪

Georgia’s khinkali dumplings are awesome in general. But I found one particular restaurant that had some dessert varieties, which I’m told is unusual. Have you ever had a chocolate dumpling?!

17. Pizza with a dumpling crust 🇧🇩

Now imagine if you took dumplings and put them inside of a pizza.

In Dhaka (Bangladesh), our group went to a Pizza Hut that had pizza with momos (Nepali/Tibetan dumplings) incorporated into the crust. It was definitely one of the most unique pizzas I’ve ever had.

Cultural fusion is awesome!

18. Huitlacoche 🇲🇽

One Mexican delicacy that’s really hard to find outside of the country is huitlacoche. Imagine mushrooms but 100x better. (Here’s my favorite street stand in Mexico City.)

19. Scallion pancakes 🇹🇼

Taipei has lots of awesome scallion pancakes. This street stand was the kind of place where there’s a line for a reason. But it moves quickly, as they run an impressive operation.

20. ‘Black vanilla’ ice cream 🇩🇿

In Algiers, I tried “black vanilla” ice cream. It tasted like vanilla with black sesame. It was a bit odd but I liked it.

E: Experiences and events

21. Polyglot Conference 🇹🇼

One of my passions is language learning. This year I heard about the annual Polyglot Conference—a get-together for multilinguals—and knew I had to go.

Held in Taipei, the program included numerous lightning talks on language topics as well as opportunities for socializing with the attendees from around the world. It’s quite mentally stimulating to have conversations with people that weave between various languages that you rarely get to use together. I hope to go again!

22. Fish market in Chittagong 🇧🇩

The fish market in Chittagong, Bangadesh’s second city, was an incredible hub of buzzing activity—probably one of the coolest markets I’ve been to!

23. Riverside County, CA 🇺🇸

Despite appearances, I’m actually usually just at home in the U.S. working. So I should probably show something work-related, right?

I had the chance to do a project site visit in California, where I got to see firsthand the hard work that staff at the Riverside County Children & Families Commission do to help families navigate a range of social programs. Being in person makes a real difference!

I wrote about 5 key takeaways from the site visit in this post.

24. Birthday cake on a plane 🇹🇷🇺🇸

If you’re flying Turkish Airlines within three days of your birthday, you’re entitled to a free in-flight birthday cake. All you need is to be signed up for their frequent-flyer program; you don’t need to have any status tier.

I was flying Turkish Airlines on my birthday this year, so I requested a cake. Sure enough, toward the end of the flight, they brought me my birthday cake, complete with a to-go box so that I could take it home!

You do need to sign up for it, though. I was actually flying Turkish Airlines around my birthday in 2024 as well, but I forgot to submit the cake form.

25. New year in the Sahara Desert 🇩🇿

I rang in the new year of 2026 not with big-city fireworks but rather in a small town in the desert of Algeria, in a celebration featuring local drummers. Our group was joined by another crew of Italian tourists who brought a festive spirit. It was definitely one of the more unique new years I’ve experienced.

—

Where will 2026 go? We’ll see!

Tomorrow I’m excited to kick off a series of posts on election reform. I’ll cover:

• A small incremental change that could greatly improve two-round elections

• The serious mathematical problems with ranked-choice voting

• Better alternative voting systems

I hope you like it!

What I discovered was a fascinating local culture, coupled with a nation turning the page from its Soviet past to a future that’s still being figured out.

A unique country nestled in the mountains

Georgia, formerly part of the Soviet Union, sits in the turbulent Caucasus mountain region at the intersection of Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

I’ve been to many other countries in the post-Soviet world, Middle East, and Eastern Europe—including Russia, Turkmenistan, Iraq (great vacation destination!), Turkey, Bulgaria, and the Baltics—and this didn’t remind me of any of them.

The first thing you notice is the language. Georgian (ქართული ენა) has its own script and is not related to any of the world’s other major language families.

Even ads for familiar brands look quite different in Georgian:

Georgians seem quite proud of their language, and I think it’s awesome that they’ve been able to preserve it! Having your own alphabet seems particularly cool and unique-identity-building.

Most people belong to the Georgian Orthodox Church, one of the world’s most ancient churches. Georgian Orthodox churches often have a distinct architecture:

Georgian churches often use a specific cross with the arms angled down, St. Nino’s Cross, which may be over 1,500 years old.

The local architectural styles were very cool!

I started describing a lot of the buildings as “village-y,” and particularly loved the intricate balconies.

Even the food is quite distinct from other cuisines in the region.

Probably the two most famous dishes are khachapuri (cheesy bread—but like, really good) and khinkali (dumplings).

Part of the issue may be geography. Mountains separate Georgia from Russia on the north and Turkey and Iran on the south.

Although Georgia has been under numerous empires—such as the Roman, Persian, Ottoman, and Russian—it has usually been on the edge of these territories, perhaps due to the difficulty of crossing these mountains.

This edge location may be why they were able to sustain such a strong localized culture, as they were neither close to the centers of power (which would have resulted in being under heavier influence from others) nor a central influencer themselves (which would have spread their culture elsewhere).

Caught between worlds

Still, Georgia doesn’t exist in isolation. You can feel the country being pulled—culturally, linguistically, and politically—in different directions.

After a while, I started to notice echoes of the country’s Soviet past. Though the city center didn’t have much of what I think of as classic Soviet architecture, the further-out neighborhoods had tons of Soviet-style apartment buildings:

The metro is similar to other former Soviet metros (though the stations aren’t nearly as grand as those in Moscow, St Petersburg, or Tashkent). They even make use of some of the exact same model of train cars as many other ex-Soviet metro systems.

Just like many other ex-Soviet cities, crossing a busy street often requires walking through a pedestrian underpass rather than using a crosswalk:

The status of the Russian language was fascinating: it was simultaneously nowhere and everywhere. I virtually never saw Russian on buildings or large signs—whereas English was quite commonly displayed—but I heard Russian spoken all the time, and it was not uncommon on restaurant menus as well.

I believe this is due to a mix of things, including:

• Many people want to emphasize Georgian identity, free the country from association with its Soviet past, and turn closer to Europe

• English is the world’s lingua franca and thus a priority for young people to learn

• Russian is realistically the foreign language that many people, particularly older generations, speak best

• Russian is often a bridge language used to speak with Russians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Central Asians, etc.

• Individuals also vary in their opinions on different foreign countries, which can carry over into their views on language use

It’s complicated!

A hot topic in recent years has been the question of potentially joining the European Union. Georgia gained candidate status in 2023—then in November 2024 put talks on hold until 2028.

I’m not an expert on Georgian politics, but as a visitor, I noticed the prevalence of the Europe (and Russia) question everywhere.

There are daily demonstrations outside the parliament building, which I saw when I visited:

My visit was shortly before the October 2025 municipal elections, and I saw campaign billboards and posters everywhere:

On the cultural side of things, there’s a youthful energy to the contemporary scene, and plenty of foreign influences are visible.

I went to a cocktail bar that I guess you could say is “Old Western” themed:

The menu was exclusively in English, which was the case at other “hip” bars too.

I went to another that calls itself Georgia’s first mezcal bar:

I asked the bartenders and local tour guides what they thought about the idea of Georgia joining the EU. They had mixed feelings—but all of them told me they think it will never happen, saying that they’re too culturally different.

Quirky details: 4 quick observations

1. Many parks have pairs of benches facing each other—very useful if you have a group!

2. Tbilisi has an estimated 29,000 stray dogs, which you see absolutely everywhere:

3. Tbilisi has ~5 aerial cable-car lines climbing the mountain to the west of the city. They’re fun to ride!

4. All around the city, I saw touch-screen machines that looked like ATMs…

… but upon close inspection were actually terminals that let you do transactions related to a range of public services, utilities, etc.:

I would imagine that if these services can be handled electronically, you could do them on a computer too. My best guess is that these machines are intended to let people pay for these things with cash without needing to go to a central office somewhere; if so, that’s neat.

Post-Soviet — but now what?

Ex-Soviet countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have been searching for a new identity and direction, leaving the past behind but trying to define what comes next.

They’ve taken some very different paths, involving different combinations of:

• EU integration (e.g. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia)

• Continued close ties with Russia (e.g. Belarus)

• Engagement with other power players like Turkey, Iran, and China

• Isolation (e.g. Turkmenistan)

These political and economic relations can have a big impact on culture and society. Which path lies ahead for Georgia? I have no idea!

Regardless, the country has a unique local culture and blends the ancient and contemporary. I recommend visiting and seeing it for yourself.

Have you been to Georgia? Let me know!

This had led me to think a lot about greenery in cities. Here are 6 observations from cities around the world:

1. Mexico City

I didn’t really know what to expect the first time I visited in 2017, but I was immediately struck by all the greenery in Parque México, near where I was staying. Many years (and cities visited) later, it remains one of my favorite urban parks in the world.

It turns out that it’s not just one park. Many parks are like this! And a number of major avenues have tree-lined medians with a path through the middle.

Walk around and it’s impressive how much greenery they fit in!

Many buildings have tree-filled courtyards, with some restaurants having seating in such spaces.

Lots of people put plants out on balconies:

And who can forget the striking purple jacaranda trees, which bloom around March?

I’ve been to neighborhoods all over the city, and while not every single block looks like this, the lush greenery extends far beyond the touristy areas.

2. Singapore

Over on the other side of the world, what I found particularly striking about Singapore is the extent to which trees and greenery are incorporated into buildings:

I was particularly impressed by how often I would look at a building then realize upon closer inspection that its rooftop and/or balconies had trees hiding in plain sight:

I even found a metro station with a plant wall!

Combined with the drizzly weather, I found that Singapore really had an “urban jungle” vibe.

3. Hiding ugly buildings

Many cities have an unfortunate number of ugly buildings. While it’s best to not build ugly buildings, it’s not always sensible to knock down existing ones. But trees can come to the rescue!

Here’s a building in London that I find quite ugly:

But here’s what it looks like from the other side of the street:

The street is quite pleasant! The trees do double duty: they’re awesome on their own + they help hide the ugly building.

4. What about nice buildings?

Of course, trees can also hide pretty buildings.

Here’s the beautiful Palacio de Hierro in Orizaba, Mexico, designed by Gustave Eiffel. (Yes, the guy who also designed the Eiffel Tower.)

You wouldn’t want to block this with a bunch of large trees, would you?

The same goes for this street in Antigua Guatemala, with old colonial buildings, an arch, and a volcano in the background.

As one more example, here’s Times Square in New York:

Times Square is notably lacking in trees, both before and since its major renovation around a decade ago.

That’s fine. People don’t visit Times Square for its greenery—and trees would block the view of the famous billboards, ruining the whole vibe. But places like this should be exceptions, not the norm.

Paris takes this too far. There are tons and tons of streets that look like this:

Individually, the buildings are pretty! But when street after street looks like this, it can start to be a bit monotonous, not to mention (as the buildings are all white) lacking color.

In many cases, you can add trees without taking away from the architecture too much. Take this street, for example:

And a lot of streets in Paris are tree-free despite having less-than-stellar architecture; they should be easy candidates for adding trees.

In places with architecture that’s really worth spotlighting, you can carefully arrange trees to preserve views of key buildings and focus greenery choices on shorter plants. Here are a few examples from around the world:

5. Lush airports

Of course, one of the main places where we spend time in cities isn’t just outdoors, it’s indoors. And we could be doing a lot more to bring trees indoors!

In January, I took what I call the “jungle jump” flight, connecting Doha and Singapore—the world’s two most famous examples of airports with indoor forests.

This is quite different from airports that lack trees. Here’s the newest concourse at my home airport of DCA:

It’s nice, but some greenery would be even nicer.

Greenery indoors is great in all sorts of contexts, but especially those (like airports) where people are often stressed out, as trees have been shown to decrease stress.

6. Mass timber

Speaking of bringing trees indoors, one great opportunity is by constructing buildings of mass timber:

Mass timber, also known as engineered timber, is a class of large structural wood components for building construction. … Mass timber has been shown to have structural properties competitive with steel and concrete, opening the possibility to build large, tall buildings out of wood.

An exciting example is the new airport terminal in Portland, Oregon:

It’s a fitting aesthetic for this airport in particular, as “pine forests are integral to the Pacific Northwest in the American consciousness,” notes Edward Russell in his blog Airport Architecture.

The design for Gelephu airport in Bhutan also makes use of mass timber plus indoor greenery. Russell writes (with many photos):

The wood beams that make up the structure of Gelephu showcase Bhutanese carpentry, carving, painting, and weaving… . Greenery, as part of a “forest spine,” will connect the landside and airside of the airport while separating domestic and international functions. There’s even a treetop walkway.

Here’s a video exploration:

And those are just examples from airports. There are an increasing number of ordinary city buildings being made from mass timber, an exciting development.

This matters a lot for cities, as it’s common for small buildings to be constructed of wood but rare for taller buildings, so this is a genuine opportunity to bring more wood indoors for city-dwellers specifically.

It’s time for ‘jungle-fication’

Trees are great! There are endless opportunities to incorporate more of them into our cities, both outdoors and indoors. We should push ourselves to think more boldly.

[For more musings on this topic, check out Luca Gattoni-Celli’s post on this subject—which was the inspiration for this one.]

People love to talk about urban gentrification. Let’s talk about “jungle-fication”!

What city has the best trees you’ve ever seen? Can you think of any opportunities for incorporating much more greenery where you live?

Skipping these leaves future voters with a very distorted view of government.

As the “law of the hammer” says, when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If your civic education is mostly about federal politics and lawmaking, you end up seeing passing new federal laws and executive orders as the primary avenue for action in government.

To explore these issues further, let’s look at the curriculum of AP U.S. Government and Politics as an example, as it’s broadly representative and probably the most widely used.

Gap #1: Implementation—beyond signing bills

When I was in elementary school, our class was shown the classic Schoolhouse Rock video “I’m Just a Bill”:

It’s a cute video! And it’s totally fine for elementary students. But when citizens’ only understanding of government looks like this, you easily get a political culture that obsesses over passing laws then ignores what happens next.

Unfortunately, much of the success or failure of government rides not in the intentions expressed in these bills but in how they get implemented.

The intro to Jennifer Pahlka’s fantastic book Recoding America is appropriately titled: “Beyond Schoolhouse Rock!” She writes:

When the words of a bill become law, they are suddenly magic, or so I believed. But the Schoolhouse Rock! video ended when a bill was passed. What was supposed to happen next was not clear to my preschool brain, but I now understand that somewhere, someone (actually, lots of someones) must figure out how to implement and enforce it. …

It has gotten so difficult to deliver on the promise of legislation that the magic words are losing their magic. Today, when the Schoolhouse Rock! characters cheer our little bill’s becoming law, they are celebrating prematurely.

We talk about signing a bill as if it’s the end of the journey, but in reality it’s just the first step.

You’d barely know it from the way that the bureaucracy is covered in many civics classes. For example, the AP U.S. Government “essential knowledge” regarding “how the bureaucracy carries out the responsibilities of the federal government” is that:

The federal bureaucracy is composed of departments, agencies, commissions, and government corporations that implement policy by:

i. Writing and enforcing regulations

ii. Issuing fines

iii. Testifying before Congress

iv. Forming iron triangles (alliances of congressional committees, bureaucratic agencies, and interest groups that are prominent in specific policy areas)

v. Creating issue networks (temporary coalitions that form to promote a common issue or agenda)

Missing from the list: service delivery.

Whether it’s sending Social Security payments, conducting military operations, maintaining national parks, controlling borders, or investigating financial crimes, the bulk of what government does is service delivery. I find it bizarre for that not to be considered essential knowledge.

Social programs without delivery are merely aspirations.

Criminal laws without enforcement are merely suggestions.

It’s not enough to exclusively focus on politics and policy. Implementation is how promises made become promises kept.

Even at the graduate level, you see this issue in many Master of Public Policy programs:

So, what to do? Every citizen ought to know these things:

• Lawmaking ≠ implementation: A law mandating something doesn’t magically make it happen.

• Critical resources: Running a government depends on human staff, physical resources (buildings, equipment, infrastructure, etc.), and information resources (data/records, software, telecommunications).

• Management: Bringing resources together to accomplish intended outcomes is a complex craft. Success is rarely guaranteed.

• Procurement: Governments rely heavily on private companies and nonprofits to execute their missions, with larger contracts typically awarded through formal competitive bidding and smaller (and emergency) spending often more flexible.

High-school students do not need to understand the intricacies of military operations or IT infrastructure migration. But they do need to know that there’s more to government than Schoolhouse Rock—that passing laws is just the beginning.

Gap #2: State and (especially) local government

The curriculum for AP U.S. Government has ~100 pages of required course content yet not a single mention of local government.

Even coverage of state government is mostly limited to the context of federalism—looking at states’ relationship with the federal government rather than as important institutions worthy of their own study.

Meanwhile, of government employees in the U.S., 87% are at the local and state level! Over the past 70 years, federal employment has stayed flat while state and local have exploded:

Number of employees isn’t everything—but it’s safe to say that state and local government are a huge deal.

Funnily enough, students often never learn about how their own school districts work. In other words: Education about government often neglects how education itself is governed.

This creates many problems, including:

• Ignorance on key public functions: State and local governments are the primary providers of many things that people see in their daily lives, like education, police, transportation, social services, parks, zoning and building regulations, sanitation, public health, libraries, and more.

• Misunderstandings: Local governments are often structured very differently from the federal government, leaving citizens misinformed if trying to use the federal government as an analogy.

• Uninformed direct democracy: The place we ask people to exercise direct democracy via ballot initiatives is at the state and local level—precisely the levels many have never learned about.

• Nationalization of politics: Teaching students only about the federal government gives the impression that the federal government is the only place for action, which I suspect contributes to our toxic nationalization of politics.

As I’ve written recently, state and local governments offer a lot of opportunities to make an immediate difference in people’s lives:

State and local governments are also trusted much more than the federal government:

And they can even solve problems of intergovernmental coordination on their own:

The variety of state and local governments admittedly presents challenges for teaching, but there’s still a lot we can do, such as:

• Common structures: Teach common structures and major variations found in state and local governments nationwide.

• Case studies: Use specific states and localities as examples. AP Comparative Government and Politics does this, using China, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, and the UK as illustrative examples of the range of governments.

• Local knowledge: Require learning about students’ own state and local governments.

• Debates: Engage students in debates about trade-offs between different governance models.

Some key aspects to examine include:

• Elected leadership in the form of a legislature only (which appoints a professional manager to oversee the bureaucracy, as in many cities and counties and in most school districts), a separate executive and legislature (as in all states plus “strong mayor” cities), an executive only (e.g. most sheriffs’ and prosecutors’ offices), etc.

• Unicameral vs. bicameral legislatures

• Elected vs. appointed judges

• Home rule (local autonomy vs. state control)

• Distribution of local power between municipalities, counties, and special-purpose districts

• Veto powers, including line-item veto

• Ballot initiatives

• Recall elections

We can debate precisely how much detail is needed—managing expectations for how much high schoolers can realistically be expected to learn—but skipping it all is not the answer.

The U.S. Constitution is exceptionally difficult to amend. But it’s common for voters to be asked about changes to state constitutions or local charters—changes that actually have a chance of happening.

To give credit where it’s due, while the AP curriculum doesn’t include local government (or much about state government) in its 100 pages of required knowledge, it does encourage local civic engagement as one possible applied-learning project.

And there are schools and teachers out there who do try to incorporate state and local content into their civics classes! But it can be really hard without much structural support via standard curricula, textbooks, materials, etc.

Making it happen

It may sound like I’m calling for a radical revision of U.S. civics education, but I actually don’t think that much surgery is needed.

On policy implementation, I don’t think the curriculum needs to go into much detail beyond the few points I listed above. (And as a start, civil service vs. patronage is already a common topic in curricula such as AP.) The big change needed is of messaging: we need to be super clear that passing laws is the beginning, not the end!

On state and local government, a bit more accommodation is needed. I would make room for them by reducing coverage of the following:

• Specific U.S. Supreme Court cases covered in detail

• Historical evolution of the federal government

Additionally, existing content can be leveraged to help reduce how much accommodation is needed to incorporate state and local government:

• Apply federal content: Lessons from the federal government allow much quicker teaching of state and local government—e.g. learning how Congressional committees work greatly helps understand how a city council’s committees work.

• Diversify examples of general content: A big part of any civics curriculum is content that transcend levels of government: campaigns and elections, political parties, interest groups, the media, public opinion, etc. Requiring that a spread of federal, state, and local examples be used can help provide state/local coverage without needing more time.

I think civics education is one of the most important things any citizen should get out of high school—after critical thinking, literacy, numeracy, and social skills—so another option is to simply expand civics at the expense of another subject. For example, turning a half-year civics course into a full year, and trimming half a year of something else.

(Note also that by “civics education” I have been referring to education about government and politics. History, civic engagement, civic values, and media literacy are included in many definitions as well, and those topics matter too!)

An equipped citizenry

I graduated high school knowing more about 200-year-old Supreme Court cases than about what a district attorney does, and having read four Shakespeare plays but not a word of the Pennsylvania constitution. That’s not okay.

People graduating high school and going off to (hopefully) be lifelong voters need to be equipped with essential civic education. This includes state and local government—not just federal—and the fact that passing laws is often just the beginning of the work of government, not the end.

This post is not a personal critique of curriculum developers or teachers! To the contrary, I think they have done and continue to do an incredible job of conveying important concepts. Existing civics curricula provide a strong foundation that we have the opportunity to build upon!

I see the status-quo focus on federal politics and policy in education to be just one instance of a larger societal orientation in that direction. But perhaps by changing how we teach, we can push to change the broader conversation.

—

Subscribe for free to hear about my upcoming posts:

Tell me: What changes would you like to see in civics education? How do you think we can make them happen?

A great example comes from E-ZPass (pronounced “Easy Pass”), a system that lets drivers use a single device and account to pay tolls across 20 U.S. states. Other public services could follow the same road.

How it works

To start, you open an E-ZPass account and place a small device on your windshield:

Then, anywhere you see their purple logo, you can use your E-ZPass to pay tolls and your account will be charged:

E-ZPass lets people pay tolls in 20 states, all with one account and device:

Despite crossing many state lines, it’s not a program of the U.S. Department of Transportation. It’s barely centralized at all; the coordinating organization listed only 5 staff as of November!

Instead, the program works on a distributed model: individual tolling agencies provide the devices and accounts and handle customer service. So you’re using the services of many government agencies but primarily just interacting with one. You don’t have to worry about the governance details.

Building from the bottom up

Here’s a quick history:

In 1987, several toll agencies in the Northeast Corridor spanning New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania began to explore the potential regional application of an emerging technology … that allows a motorist traveling on a participating toll facility to pay his/her toll automatically from a prepaid account without having to fumble for cash or retrieve and present a toll ticket. …

In 1990, seven toll facilities from the states of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania joined to form an alliance known as the E-ZPass Interagency Group (IAG). These seven agencies represented almost 40% of all U.S. toll transactions and nearly 70% of all U.S. toll revenue. …

Today the E-ZPass Program is the largest, most successful interoperable toll collection program anywhere in the world consisting of toll agencies/companies in 20 states, servicing more than 35 million accounts, 59 million tags and the collection of over $13.8 billion dollars in electronic toll revenues.

If you ask me, it’s an extraordinary feat of intergovernmental cooperation and dedication to user experience.

Its 4 core strengths

E-ZPass’s key strengths are:

1. Common branding, making it easy for drivers to see when they can use E-ZPass and ignore the governance details

2. Decentralized administration, leveraging existing institutions and reducing reliance on a single actor

3. Single-issue focus, providing a laser focus on solving one problem + politically making it much harder to attack compared to seemingly vague and distant entities like the U.S. Department of Transportation (elected officials would be crazy to suggest pulling out of E-ZPass!)

4. Voluntary participation by agencies, meaning its use only expands if it successfully delivers value—as opposed to a mandatory-participation federal system that proceeds regardless of how well it works

The many-legged table

One way to visualize the resilience of E-ZPass is as a table with many legs. If one leg is removed, the table remains standing.

If a state withdraws from E-ZPass, the rest of the network continues to function.

In contrast, if electronic toll collection were a federally-run program, a single election could disrupt or even dismantle it. Imagine if it were hit with the kinds of across-the-board federal layoffs happening right now.

I discussed this issue in depth in my last post:

Avoiding the political fray

Being a single-issue, decentralized system helps avoid the chaos of federal politics.

For example, the Trump administration is seeking to use federal transportation spending to further its social agenda. The Secretary of Transportation ordered that when giving out grants, loans, and contracts, the U.S. Department of Transportation should, among other things:

• give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average… ;

• prohibit recipients of DOT support or assistance from imposing vaccine and mask mandates; and

• require local compliance or cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement and with other goals and objectives specified by the President of the United States or the Secretary.

If E-ZPass were run by the U.S. Department of Transportation, it would be dragged into culture-war fights like this.

The road ahead

E-ZPass isn’t perfect. For example, some member agencies give discounts on their own tolls to people who got that agency’s specific E-ZPass; I think this hurts the effort to build a common brand.

E-ZPass also isn’t the solution every problem. But it’s an inspiring tool in the toolbox! States and localities can provide seamless experiences across governments without waiting for or depending on a federal system.

Could this model be applied to other public-facing services? Some possibilities:

• Public benefits and the social safety net

• Consumer financial protection

• Library cards

• Multi-state parks passes

• Business registration

• College financial aid

• Healthcare

Let me know in the comments: What state and local public services do you think might offer an opportunity to create more seamless citizen experiences through the E-ZPass model? Have you seen examples in action?

This isn’t just hypothetical; Americans are experiencing whiplash from federal policy changes that reach deep into their daily lives, from healthcare to education to transportation. And right now we’re seeing an especially stark example that goes further into attacking the basic functioning of government.

The constant shifts aren’t just inefficient—they’re exhausting. They create anxiety for public servants, uncertainty for people who rely on services, and a sense that nothing is stable. Each new administration brings a flood of changes that ripple through every corner of American life. Could there be a better way?

The rude awakening

Centralizing power in the federal government is an extraordinary aggregator of risk, enabling a single administration to wreak havoc. Unfortunately, what’s happening right now—which is doing both short-term and long-term damage—is a particularly potent example of that.

Recent executive actions demonstrate how fragile and unpredictable centralized federal power can be. The cold reality is this: When the federal government is given an extraordinary amount of power across a wide range of subject areas, we put all of our eggs in one basket, as the saying goes.

If things go bad, they go really bad.

And unfortunately, trust in this federal basket is not in a good place.

The federal doom loop

We’re stuck in a doom loop of faith in the federal government. People’s trust in the federal government flips depending on the party in power, with Democrats more trusting when a Democrat is President and Republicans more trusting when a Republican is President.

While perhaps not a surprise by itself, what’s alarming is that over the course of the past 60 years, we’ve had an extraordinary long-term decline in overall trust:

Whichever party is out of power in Washington generally talks about how oppressive the federal government is and how important it is to respect state autonomy. Yet when that party wins a future election and takes office, they suddenly forget that passion and instead go all in on using a powerful federal government to push their agenda nationwide.

The good news: local and state government

There’s good news! People trust local and state government significantly more than the federal government—so despite the bleak federal picture (which we should try to reverse!), there are still units of government where the trust situation is much better.

And on issue after issue, people report feeling better about how things are going locally than nationally. For example, education:

Local and state decision-makers are also much more accessible, both in their physical and metaphorical proximity. I’ll say: I live in DC and have had multiple offices overlooking the White House, yet sometimes I think the federal government feels a world away from the DC government. I can’t imagine what it’s like for someone in Hawaii or Alaska.

This gives us an opportunity! To the extent possible, we can focus most domestic policy and services at the levels that people trust more and are more accessible: local and state.

De-risking + better governance

If concentrating certain power and services at the federal level presents a lot of risk, pushing or keeping these at the state and local level is an opportunity for “de-risking,” for two key reasons:

• Reduced risk of simultaneous failure: If a federal agency is mismanaged, the consequences are national. But if that same service is dealt with at the state or local level, then even if the probability of mismanagement at any one time is the same, such instances would likely be spread out over time in different jurisdictions, dramatically reducing the likelihood of simultaneous nationwide failure.

• Overall reduced risk of failure: State and local governments don’t operate in a vacuum—they watch each other’s successes and failures, so the problems in one place can then be a lesson for other places to avoid.

Under the infamous “Kansas experiment,” Kansas enacted massive tax cuts that were supposed to stimulate the economy but failed to do so—and led to devastating cuts to education and infrastructure. The governor became the least popular in the nation and eventually people got fed up and elected moderate Republicans to the legislature, who forced through tax increases to pay for increased government spending. (In 2018 voters elected a Democrat as governor, who was reelected in 2022 and is one of the 10 most popular governors in the country.)

Kansans learned a painful lesson, but so did the rest of the country—so states that might have considered such moves now know better. Aren’t you glad it was the Kansas experiment and not the U.S. experiment?

State and local governance offers even more benefits:

Experimentation, comparison, and inspiration: As there are 50 states and thousands of local governments, many approaches to policy and administration can be tried.

I’ve had the privilege to work with local officials from around the U.S. and world, and one of the most common pieces of feedback I’ve gotten when leading cohort learning opportunities is how much everyone appreciates being able to speak with and learn from fellow public servants in other cities: providing inspiration on things to try, tips on how to succeed, and lessons on what to avoid.

The diversity of approaches also allows for rigorous comparative research, and even casual comparisons like “The DMV worked better in the state that I used to live in; what can I do as a state legislator in my current state to make things here be more like over there?”

Choice and competition: People and businesses can often “vote with their feet,” choosing where to locate based on the policies and performance of state and local governments. This can help push decision-makers to do a good job and creates some friendly competition. It’s also an “escape valve” for people who can’t stand their state/local governments; federal control leaves you trapped unless you immigrate to another country. So concentrating power at lower levels of government helps “de-risk” at a personal level.

Customization: States and localities can customize policy and operations to the preferences and needs of specific communities, rather than one-size-fits-all nationwide approaches.

And thanks to the smaller pool of people involved, your personal energies can have a very visible impact in your local community:

Drawing clear lines

In his essay “Kludgeocracy in America,” Steven M. Teles wrote:

Even as the government expanded in the 1960s and '70s in areas ranging from the environment to education to health care, the federal government and the states continued to share the duties of governing in a complex web of responsibilities. While states and localities actually administer essentially all programs in these domains, the federal government is deeply involved as a funder, regulator, standard-setter, and evaluator. The result is the complicated “marble-cake federalism” structure that characterizes almost all domestic policy in the United States, making clear lines of responsibility hard to establish.

Focusing most domestic issues at the state and local level allows us to draw some clear lines:

Clarity: It makes it clearer to voters which level of government is responsible for what.

Focus: Elected officials can better focus their time and attention when fewer issues are on their plates. Federal leaders ought to be able to focus on issues that are federal by nature, like foreign affairs, defense, and interstate commerce, while state and local leaders would benefit from spending less time on federal compliance.

Accountability and responsibility: State and local leaders must be held accountable for the consequences of their decisions and encouraged to be fiscally responsible—rather than letting their mistakes be paid for by the rest out the country. Correspondingly, they should be allowed to take full advantage of the results of their good decisions.

Housing is a potent example of this. Certain specific regions of the country face a problem of high housing costs that’s driven by restrictive zoning, permitting, and construction rules. It’s not fair to then beg the federal government (meaning taxpayers nationwide) to subsidize housing programs in these places; instead, state and local leaders should have to take responsibility for fixing the problems that their own governments created.

Considerations and caveats

There are, of course, many key considerations and caveats—each of which could be its own post:

• Which domains?: Precisely which issues to decentralize is a good question. In general, I would focus on education, local transportation, urban and rural development, social services, and local environmental affairs—but detailed analysis on each is critical. What we can’t do is look at individual issues and decide they’re all worth it to be federal but fail to look at the big picture of the resulting excessively powerful federal government. Siloed thinking is what got us into this risky mess of accumulated power.

• Executive power: Many of the federal issues are particularly ones of executive overreach and a too-powerful presidency. Still, most would exist even without a powerful presidency.

• Redistribution of money: Federal funding can be a way to level the playing field between wealthier and poorer states. In practice, some programs do that and others don’t, so there’s ample room to embrace this while slimming down federal involvement.

• State vs. local: Which issues should be state vs. local depends on the size and geography of each state as well as the specific issues or functions in question. In practice, states vary drastically in how much autonomy they give local governments. (Frustratingly, state leaders sometimes rant about the evils of the central federal government while also denying their own localities autonomy.) Still, an imperfect split of state vs. local control is often an improvement over federal control.

Long-term benefits, short-term urgency

Concentrating too much domestic governance at the federal level creates systemic risks that we’re seeing play out right now. While the current chaos makes it difficult to think beyond the daily headlines, it’s precisely this tumult that makes rethinking our approach so urgent.

The path forward requires both immediate action and sustained commitment:

• State and local leaders must step up to provide stability and essential services where federal functions falter

• Federal lawmakers should work to deliberately and carefully devolve appropriate powers to state and local governments—instead of giving the federal government an ever-growing list of functions

• Citizens should engage more deeply with their state and local governments, where their voice and vote carry greater weight

I plan to dive into specifics in the coming weeks. Make sure you’re subscribed to hear about my posts as soon as they come out!

I used to believe that a strong federal government was the best way to ensure consistent services and protections for all Americans. But years of watching policy whiplash, declining trust, and growing dysfunction have shown that we’ve concentrated too much risk in one place and provided an avenue for one president to wreak extraordinary havoc.

The good news is that we already have a better alternative: our state and local governments. They enjoy higher trust, greater accessibility, and the ability to innovate while learning from each other’s successes and failures.

Building more resilient governance isn’t just about weathering the storms of a few months or years—it’s about creating a system that can better serve Americans for generations to come. Let’s start now!

1. Laos 🇱🇦

At the beginning of the year, I took a trip to East and Southeast Asia. One of my stops was the little-visited country of Laos.

The highlight of Laos is the city of Luang Prabang, known for its many Buddhist temples and beautiful setting at the confluence of two rivers.

I also went to the capital, Vientiane, whose icon is the Patuxai monument.

2. Vietnam 🇻🇳

The Imperial City of Hue is a walled city with lots of pretty historic buildings and structures.

The city of Hoi An has a nice historic center that becomes especially colorful at night with its many lanterns.

3. Thailand 🇹🇭

I loved how Bangkok has lots of canals winding through the city!

One fascinating thing about the elevated metro lines in Bangkok is that some of the stations have walkways directly under the tracks that extend beyond the stations, allowing you to continue walking right above the street.

4. China 🇨🇳

I went to both Hong Kong 🇭🇰 and Macau 🇲🇴, which are special administrative regions of China. Their political status is complicated, but for country-counting purposes they’re universally counted as part of China. (I haven’t been to mainland China yet, but hope to visit, which should be easier now that visa rules have been loosened.)

Macau is fascinating because it’s a former Portuguese colony. The city center features lots of classic Portuguese architecture, and you see signs in Portuguese everywhere—despite very few people speaking it.

One fun activity in Hong Kong is strolling the Temple Street night market.

By the way, one thing I liked about Hong Kong was how their metro system uses pictures to help people find the right exit for major attractions. See more:

5. Japan 🇯🇵

I walked around Tokyo early in the morning. It was cool.

I can’t post about Japan without mentioning the trains! One of my favorite things was all of the musical jingles they play both in the stations and onboard.

6. Mexico 🇲🇽

With Mexico I’ll mix things up and share two photos that could be considered daytime or nighttime, depending on your perspective!

I went to Durango for the total solar eclipse in April. It was cool—although I honestly found it a bit underwhelming, as I was expecting some sort of dramatic event that was going to shake my world. Still, I would probably travel to see another eclipse.

I also went to Querétaro, which is famous for its historic aqueduct. The city is nice around sunset—or really at any time of day or night!

One thing I love about Mexico is the way that city and state government administrations brand themselves. See what I mean:

7. United Kingdom 🇬🇧

A friend was able to get me access to some of the courtyards at the University of Cambridge!

In London, I love walking along the Regent’s Canal, which connects many neighborhoods. Camden Lock is a particularly cool area.

8. Turkmenistan 🇹🇲

Sometimes known as the “North Korea of Central Asia,” Turkmenistan is a relatively closed country that gets very few visitors. But I’m one of them!

Its capital, Ashgabat, is known for its long rows of white marble buildings lining wide streets with little traffic.

Turkmenistan’s coolest site in the Darvaza gas crater—sometimes called the “Gates of Hell”—which is a crater that has been burning natural gas 24/7 since the 1980s. It’s especially cool to see at night! A typical visit there involves staying overnight in a yurt.

I’ll share more about Turkmenistan in a future post. Subscribe to make sure you don’t miss it!

9. North Macedonia 🇲🇰

I wasn’t really sure what to expect in North Macedonia, but I ended up liking it.

In the south of the country, by the border with Albania, lies the picturesque Lake Ohrid.

Meanwhile my first impression of the capital, Skopje, was that it had clearly seen better days and was kind of run down. Yet as I explored, I ended up discovering that it was full of life. I loved it and actually extended my stay there.

10. Turkey 🇹🇷

One of the best activities in Istanbul is to take a ferry, especially around sunset. The city has many hills, making beautiful views on all sides.

The Grand Çamlıca Mosque opened in 2019 and is the largest mosque in Turkey. It lies on top of a hill, so can be seen from many parts of the city.

11. Argentina 🇦🇷

One lovely feature of Buenos Aires is the purple jacaranda trees, which bloom in November. (Mexico City also gets them in March.)

The Teatro Colón is a historic opera house in the city center. Supposedly its acoustics are among the best in the world.

12. United States 🇺🇸

And at last, home sweet home.

I went to Redwood National Park in California. Its trees are very tall!

For my last photo—the 24th of 2024—I’ll leave you with a view heading off to the next adventure:

Which one of these countries would you like to see more about in a future post? Where were your highlights of 2024? Let me know in the comments!

I’d like to show you highlights from the fascinating and historic city of Baghdad!

Baghdad was once the largest city in the entire world and a center of the Islamic Golden Age a millennium ago.

Today it stands as the second-largest city in the Arab world and capital of Iraq, with around 8 million residents.

Here are 9 key observations from my two visits to Baghdad:

1. It didn’t feel dangerous at all

At no point in my time in Baghdad (or Iraq) did I ever feel that my safety was threatened.

Many outsiders may be familiar with Baghdad in the context of hearing about the Iraq War. But the Iraq War ended in 2011 and the main conflict with the Islamic State ended in 2017.

I think Americans mentally lump together the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as they were both going on at the same time for a while—the “forever wars over there.” Withdrawal from Afghanistan didn’t happen until 2021, so maybe people have a vague feeling about there being wars “over there” recently.

To be fair, the Middle East is a turbulent region in general, and Iraq itself does still have issues, but they’re really not of the magnitude that most people imagine.

2. Baghdad has a fancy side

Baghdad has fancy malls, chic restaurants, luxury apartments, and other things that you might not have imagined.

We even visited a mall that had a fountain light show that was done with “Despacito” playing! Here’s a video:

We tried different upscale restaurants as well.

While not exactly “fancy,” we went to a fake Starbucks. (Starbucks will probably not be coming to Iraq to do trademark enforcement.)

3. Baghdad has a hip side too

We found a cool art gallery thanks to local Instagram:

We also found an interesting place that was a combination restaurant/cafe and gym:

4. Traffic is horrendous

Baghdad has the worst traffic I’ve seen of any city I’ve ever visited. On several occasions, we spent half an hour or more barely going a few blocks.

You’d think a city of around 8 million people would have developed some kind of halfway-decent public transit system. But no—there’s no metro, tram, or rapid bus.

Supposedly there are plans to build a metro, which would be fantastic! But as with all construction projects, I’ll believe it when I see it.

I suspect one issue may be that fuel is heavily subsidized by the government, so an Iraqi of a given income level has less incentive to use public transportation than someone at the same income level in a country without subsidized fuel. I’m not sure, though.

5. People live normal lives

Going around the city, you can’t help but notice that it’s largely just a place where lots of humans live their lives.

That may sound obvious, but in a context where lots of people hear “Baghdad” and think “war,” it really is remarkable how unremarkable the city is. Sure, it has a complicated past, but today you look around and people are just going about their business. Things aren’t just spontaneously exploding.

6. Tea time

Baghdad’s café culture goes back centuries. There are a zillion cafés, and locals love having tea or coffee at any time of day or night.

There’s one really interesting local variety of tea that tastes like sour lime. I first had it at an event at the Iraqi embassy in DC, and made sure to try it in Baghdad!

7. Christmas trees

When visiting in December, we saw a number of Christmas trees! They were in hotel lobbies, malls, restaurants, and elsewhere. I was not expecting that at all.

8. History is everywhere

9. Its future tourism potential is high

There’s a long road ahead in making further improvements to security and stability—and in letting the world know about these changes. But I think that the tourism potential of the city (and country) is high. I’m optimistic for its future!

They have a visa on arrival for citizens of the US, Canada, EU, UK, and Japan, among others. You can fly there on major airlines like Qatar, Turkish, and Emirates.

Consider visiting!

All of my trips were done as part of organized group tours. Importantly, they were led by good local guides, which can make a big difference in having a good experience. It’s not a place I would go solo, due to the limited tourist infrastructure and language barrier.

I realize everyone has different comfort levels with this kind of travel, and I won’t blame you if you’re still hesitant to go. But I really recommend keeping an open mind about it. It has a lot to offer!

For more dispatches from off-the-beaten-path countries I’ve visited—like Turkmenistan, Bhutan, North Macedonia, Laos, and Pakistan—make sure to subscribe to get posts straight to your inbox.

Would you go on vacation to Baghdad? What questions do you have? What else about my Iraq travels would you like to see a future post about? Let me know in the comments—it helps me decide what I show you!

And if this post gave you a window into a place you haven’t considered, share this post with a friend who might be interested.

Share

• Spoils (patronage) system: “a practice in which a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its supporters, friends (cronyism), and relatives (nepotism) as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party”

• Merit system: “the process of promoting and hiring government employees based on their ability to perform a job, rather than on their political connections”

The principles of the merit system are great! But many people—including many civil servants—feel that it often doesn’t work as well as intended, for a range of reasons, including:

• Long, complex hiring processes that often drive qualified candidates to choose jobs elsewhere or to not apply in the first place

• Difficulty promoting high performers

• Difficulty removing low performers

The topic has become more salient in the U.S. recently due to President Trump’s wish to revive the “Schedule F” system, which would allow the President to strip certain federal jobs of their civil-service protections. It’s a bad idea and is not serious civil-service reform.

Another way?

Could there be some way to create more flexibility while embracing the principles of the merit system?

In a podcast last year, Ezra Klein made an interesting and important distinction:

I think people go too quickly to the idea that if you created a lot more autonomy and flexibility within the civil service, made it easier to hire, easier to fire, that has to mean it’s easier for the political system to hire and fire, which I do think is something we should be at least a bit careful with.

Whereas, I’m talking really about the ability of the civil service to hire and fire internally unto itself, which is a different question already because they’re just different rules. That’s why in Schedule F, Trump is trying to move people from civil to political. But you could change the rules for what the civil servants can do internally and still keep—I think maybe you do want less wall than you currently have, but a pretty good wall between politics and the civil service.

In graphic form:

I think he framed things beautifully and have been thinking about it ever since.

In a recent podcast (“In This House, We’re Angry When Government Fails”), he had two guests talking about hiring.

Jennifer Pahlka described the current federal hiring process:

You have a system that is supposed to hire people on the basis of merit. But when you interpret that very, very, very rigidly, what you do is say: OK, we don’t want to have people involved in selecting candidates who aren’t familiar with all the ways in which we try to reduce or eliminate, really, bias in the process. And so what we’ll do to hire civil servants is we will have human resources people screen their resumes and look for—and I’m not kidding you—exact matches in the language between the job description and what’s on their résumé.

Because that’s—if you’re taking things very literally—an indicator that they have the exact, right skills for the job. And then once you’ve found all the people who were great at cutting and pasting, then you send them all a self-assessment questionnaire. Because it’s safer to have them self-assess than it is to have, say, if it’s a programming job, have programmers interview them—where they might bring their own biases to the table.

And then you’ve down-selected twice on the basis of their ability to copy and paste, and then essentially lie about their skills. Because if you don’t put “master” on every single level of the self-assessment, you don’t make it to the next cut. And then we apply veterans preference, and that’s the certification that gets handed to the hiring managers.

And that is not consistent with merit. You really are then hiring people just who know how to work the system. That process that I just described, where we rely entirely on self-assessments, is how 90% of competitive jobs are done in federal government. 90% we do not assess independently.

She noted:

If you use judgment, somebody can criticize your judgment. If your process has no judgment in it, what is there to criticize?

Things haven’t always been this way everywhere. The other interviewee, Steven Teles (who wrote a phenomenal essay, “Kludgeocracy in America”), noted:

My dad entered into NASA in the 1960s, and this was an agency that actually had a lot of what political scientists called bureaucratic autonomy. It had a lot of ability to organize itself, to hire, to fire on the basis of very high standards for performance.

Over time, things can get off track. He continued:

Things go wrong. There’s a scandal. We add a new process, we add a new procedure—without really thinking about how it interacts with all the rest of it. And so we shouldn’t necessarily think that the problems that Jen is describing are a result of the fact that anybody designed this thing to operate this way.

It’s really the result of just additional layers of accretion without corresponding layers of destruction.

This ties into a previous post I wrote about how a lot of things that we do to try to make government better end up making it worse:

Well-intentioned policies and procedures that try to address legitimate concerns about corruption, waste, or ineffectiveness end up creating new problems:

And that brings us to a lot of the problems we have today.

There’s a lot to be said about improving hiring and management of the civil service at every level of government—and countless people are working on it, with some exciting developments!

I just want to underscore Ezra’s point: Flexibility in hiring and managing civil servants ≠ political control or a return to the spoils system. The key is giving flexibility to civil-servant managers, not elected officials.

I’ve got upcoming posts on improving government forms, observations from vacation in Baghdad, hidden problems with ranked-choice voting, and innovations in municipal governance. Subscribe to get them straight to your inbox!

Can you think of any specific examples of where it would be helpful to have more flexibility and autonomy for civil servants to hire and manage others? Let me know in the comments!

Let’s not.

In fact, we desperately need to go in the other direction. We need government that can get things done efficiently and effectively. As Jennifer Pahlka wrote earlier this year: “[W]e are in a crisis of state capacity, and that that crisis underpins all the others.”

The Niskanen Center’s Brink Lindsey wrote in 2021:

At stake is not just the prospect for effective public policy in a wide variety of important domains; at this point, the legitimacy and continued vitality of liberal democracy are implicated as well. The fact is, around the world the fortunes of liberal democracy rise and fall with its perceived effectiveness in improving the lives of ordinary people. 

We need to make it a lot easier to hire and promote great employees, buy goods and services, and build digital technology. We need to make it easier to create, change, or scrap regulations and other policies. We need to close the gap between policy and implementation. The results of the election do not change my feelings about that one bit.

I want to highlight one thing in particular: state capacity is a net positive.

In May, Matt Yglesias wrote:

It’s important to acknowledge, at some level, that people actually do have reasons for not wanting to adopt ideas that would make the government more effective.

The main reason is that there’s a lot of substantive disagreement about what we would like the government to be effective at doing. Donald Trump, for example, has lots of ideas that I think are crazy or stupid or nonsensical or ridiculous. But he also has a handful of ideas that I think are just wrong and bad. Investing a large amount of resources in rounding up long-resident illegal immigrants seems to me like a big waste of time and money. I wouldn’t do that if I were president. But … In a country with a lot of “state capacity,” [Trump] would be able to accomplish that if he wins an election.

To me, this is an okay trade. I would rather have a government that is able to “get things done” on the basis of priorities set by democratically elected officials, even though roughly half the time the officials who win are the ones I didn’t vote for. But it is a very real trade. The first Trump administration genuinely did not accomplish very much, and part of the reason is accomplished so little is the same structure of delay and vetocracy that make it hard to build a zero-carbon electricity grid. 

That last point is important: Throwing up roadblocks government’s ability to get things done doesn’t just stop the things you don’t like—it stops the things that you like too.

But Matt actually undersells the case for state capacity here! 

The overlap on the Venn diagram

There’s a lot of work of government upon which there’s (more or less) widespread agreement that government should be doing a good job. Among many other things:

• Enforcing the law

• Responding to disasters

• Building and maintaining basic infrastructure

• Defending the country

• Managing parks and public lands

• Providing veterans’ benefits and healthcare

• Having some version of a social safety net

• Ensuring clean water and air, food and drug safety, etc.

• Issuing IDs and passports

Of course there’s disagreement on the details. But at a high level, most people do not want to blow all of this up.

Despite the partisan bickering in Congress, there’s actually a lot of bipartisan stuff that gets done, in what Matt Yglesias and Simon Bazelon call Secret Congress. They write:

[T]he current trend really snapped into view in the final two years of the Obama administration. After years of gridlock, we suddenly—with little fanfare but large bipartisan majorities—got:

• The Every Student Succeeds Act, a major rewrite of federal K-12 policy

• An overhaul of the Department of Veterans Affairs, spearheaded by Bernie Sanders and John McCain

• The FAST Act, which authorized $305 billion over five years in infrastructure spending

• A ban on incorporating plastic microbeads into health and beauty products

Then, during the Trump era, there was:

• A ban on surprise [medical] billing

• The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, which created tougher standards for shell companies and cracked down on money laundering

• A $35 billion investment in clean energy research and development, and a reduction in the use of hydrofluorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas

• Raising the age of tobacco purchase from 18 to 21

The basic math is that even if your side is only in charge half the time, a majority of what government does is likely still stuff that you agree with. Government that struggles to get things done is a net negative.

2 more reasons state capacity is a net positive

Some of the things we do that impair policy implementation and service delivery even hurt when one’s party is trying to implement its own agenda!

A great example is the “everything bagel” approach to buying goods and services that layers on too many requirements in a way that stifles accomplishment of the intended goal. It has held back a lot of the Biden administration and Democratic Congress’s legislative wins:

Finally: In a democracy, elections are supposed to have consequences. Improving state capacity helps make that happen. People who win elections need to be able to efficiently and effectively implement their agenda. You might not like the agenda, but let voters decide that at the next election.

I’ve got more to say on these issues—so subscribe to make sure you don’t miss my upcoming posts!

What areas of improving state capacity are you most animated about? What concerns you?

I always respond that between Obama, Trump, and Biden (and the changing Congresses along the way), life has changed for government-related reasons—but overwhelmingly having to do with local government, not federal.

Some of the biggest government-related changes that affect me on a regular basis have been:

• Enhancements to pedestrian safety, a significant expansion of protected bike infrastructure, and improvements to the bike-share system

• Various improvements to metro service, including cell-phone service in tunnels, more weekend service, better reliability, and an extension to Dulles Airport

• Various improvements to bus service

• Renovations of parks and libraries, including the central library

• Creation of “streateries”: restaurant seating in what used to be on-street parking spots

I’m probably forgetting some things, but notice a pattern: very little of this has to do with the federal government!

I know a lot of people who are unhappy about last week’s federal election results, and are currently spending lots of time doomscrolling on social media or freaking out about unknowable potential consequences of a level of government that they have little control over. I don’t think this is a productive use of mental energy.

I’m never going to say “don’t pay attention to the federal government”—it’s obviously important!—but there’s so much more to life than that. There’s so much more to government than that.

In City of Yes, Ryan Puzycki writes:

President Biden has the power to launch a nuclear warhead, but he can’t find you childcare, or dispatch an ambulance, or cut your property taxes, or make it easier to build more housing. He can’t pick up the trash on your street or lower your utility bill. He can’t solve your city’s homelessness problem or make the buses run on time. 

Joe Biden can’t pave your potholes.

Perhaps these issues seem trivial in the face of global catastrophes, but when you’re faced with real life-and-death emergencies—well, suddenly what’s important seems a little closer to home. Shouldn’t more people care about who we put in charge of the vital city functions that impact our everyday lives? Yet most of us focus more on elections where our vote is a rounding error and ignore the local races where … every vote counts. 

Now, more than ever, is a great time for local civic involvement.

From drawings to delivery

Several years ago, I learned that DC’s Department of Transportation was studying how to improve pedestrian safety at intersections in a certain neighborhood using quick-to-implement solutions. I attended a virtual meeting where they presented the draft list of intersections.

Upon seeing the selection criteria, I thought of two specific intersections that weren’t on the list but had safety problems that had always bothered me. Could this be the opportunity to get something done about them?!

So after the meeting, I emailed the team with detailed drawings of what I was proposing for the two additional intersections:

Several months later, the Department of Transportation released their final list of intersections—which now included the ones I proposed. What’s more, their proposed designs were nearly identical to what I suggested!

I obviously can’t take full credit, as the real work was done by their staff, and others may have also made this suggestion. But I can’t help but think that my suggestion likely made a real difference.

These were implemented several years ago—yet every time I pass them (which is multiple times a week), I still feel an immense sense of pride. I call them “my babies.” For all I know, these may have helped avoid people getting injured, and they certainly make life more convenient.

I know many other people in DC who have been able to improve their communities and address local quality-of-life issues through their Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, which are elected committees of local residents.

So see what meetings your local government is having and if there are opportunities for community engagement or feedback. Get involved in neighborhood organizations or your child’s school. Participate in volunteer activities, like planting trees. Write to your council member with suggestions of specific, achievable things that you’d love for them to advocate for.

You, too, can make a difference in your community—in ways that you can see every day!

There’s more to life than the federal government. What will you do to improve life where you live?

Leer esta publicación en español

You see them everywhere: on buildings, posters, park benches, light poles, sidewalks, and more!

Notice how these are not:

• Generic logos or seals representing the government as a whole for an indefinite period of time

• Brands representing a specific politician, such as a mayor or governor

Both of those are common and I’ve seen them in plenty of other countries—but Mexico is the only country where I can recall having seen logos for specific elected administrations but without the name of a politician.

I think the lack of a specific politician’s name helps create a sense that governing is something we do together, which is of course the reality. I’m not a big fan of creating huge cults of personality surrounding one single politician.

The use of start and end years is very interesting. To me it seems to do a few things:

• Sense of urgency: It creates a sense of having a limited time to get things done.

• Reminder of democracy: It reminds people that this specific administration governs for a particular period of time thanks to winning an election—and puts a clear end date on the current administration by stating when the next election is.

• Legacy: It allows future generations to see what was accomplished at specific points in the past.

Regarding that last point: While visiting the state of Durango, I was able to find a succession of logos for 6-year state administrations ranging from 2004 to 2028!

Do these logos actually make a difference in how these governments function or how voters perceive them? I have no idea. I just think it’s interesting!

Have you seen anything like this in another country? What do you think of these logos? Would you like to see them where you live? Let me know in the comments!

Read this post in English

Los ves en todas partes: en edificios, carteles, bancos de parques, postes de luz, aceras/banquetas y más.

Observe que no son:

• Logotipos o sellos genéricos que representan al gobierno en su conjunto por un período de tiempo indefinido

• Marcas que representan a un político específico, como un alcalde (presidente municipal) o gobernador

Ambas cosas son comunes y las he visto en muchos otros países, pero México es el único país donde recuerdo haber visto logotipos para administraciones electas específicas pero sin el nombre de un político.

Creo que la falta del nombre de un político específico ayuda a crear la sensación de que gobernar es algo que hacemos juntos, lo cual es, por supuesto, la realidad. No me gusta mucho crear grandes cultos a la personalidad en torno a un solo político.

El uso de años de inicio y fin es muy interesante. Me parece que hace algunas cosas:

• Sentido de urgencia: Crea una sensación de tener un tiempo limitado para hacer las cosas.

• Recordatorio de la democracia: Recuerda a la gente que esta administración específica gobierna por un período de tiempo determinado gracias a que ganó una elección. También pone una fecha final clara a la administración actual al indicar cuándo serán las próximas elecciones.

• Legado: Permite que las generaciones futuras vean lo que se logró en puntos específicos del pasado.

Con respecto a este último punto: ¡Mientras visitaba el estado de Durango, pude encontrar una sucesión de logotipos para administraciones estatales que van desde 2004 hasta 2028!

¿Estos logotipos realmente marcan una diferencia en el funcionamiento de estos gobiernos o en cómo los perciben los votantes? No tengo idea. ¡Simplemente creo que es interesante!

¿Has visto algo así en otro país? ¿Qué piensas de estos logotipos? ¿Te gustaría verlos donde vives? ¡Cuéntamelo en los comentarios!

Washington, DC’s main transit agency is redrawing its bus network, which provides a strategic opportunity to clean up what is currently a confusing mess of different route names. The most recent proposal is a huge step forward—but will require everyone to learn new routes from scratch.

What if there’s a creative alternative naming system that achieves the same goals but with significantly less disruption by leveraging the best of the current system?

Great news: There is. Let’s get rolling!

The current mess

WMATA is the largest transit agency in the Washington, DC region—running almost all buses in the central city and some in the suburbs. For historical reasons, their routes have three different naming schemes:

• Just a number (e.g. 42, 70)

• A letter + number (e.g. H4, J2)

• A number + letter (e.g. 16M, 38B)

You might say “So what?” But this stuff really does matter! Noted transit planner Jarrett Walker explains:

Numbers, like words, never just refer. They also connote. You can refer to a particular bus route as F, 9, J2, 76, or 239K, but those numberings will inevitably convey subliminal messages about those services, especially in relation to the other numbers around them. “239K” for example, connotes that “this is a really complicated network, where you deal with details even to remember a line number, let alone figure out the service.” Likewise, if you see a long segment served by lines 121, 123, 124, and 127, the connotation is that the 120s represent some kind of pattern that might be useful in understanding the service. It's almost impossible not to refer to this segment as “the 120s”.

After moving to DC, I was quite confused by the different naming schemes. Did they represent different types of service (e.g. local vs. limited-stop), fares, or destinations? Nope—just historical holdovers! I got used to it, but it’s still odd and can confuse new users.

Cleaning things up

WMATA is redrawing the region’s bus routes to improve the system and using the opportunity to simplify route names. I’m excited!

(By “name” I mean an entire set of numbers and/or letters, and “number” just for the numerical part; e.g. “L2” is a name, “2” is its number.)

In the most recent proposal, all route names start with a letter—referring to the main city or county it runs in—followed by a two-digit number (e.g. “D22”) or, for limited-stop routes, a one-digit number and “X” (e.g. “D2X”). Here’s a full map of DC, and more info.

In DC proper, route numbers would go counterclockwise around the city, from the 10s in the southeast to the 90s in the northwest. Some routes would start with “D” and others with “C.”

If you’re not from DC, you might not think much.

If you are from DC, you might notice something odd: A bunch of route numbers are being flipped.

There’s a deeper story here.

The status quo isn’t entirely a mess

Beneath what looks like the chaos of the current naming system, there’s a logic.

Look closely at the current map again. Going from west to east, there’s a series of routes with increasing numbers:

If we put aside the letter+number routes and just look at the numbered routes, they’re neatly numbered from west to east, going from the 30s through the 80s. The 10s and 20s aren’t used, and the 90s cut across.

This dates back to 1936! Streetcar routes were numbered clockwise, starting with east-west route numbers in the 10s and 20s, southeast-northwest routes in the 30s and 40s, and so on through the 80s, plus the 90s cutting across.

Over the years, new transit routes have been added—most using a “letter+number” format—leading us to today’s system:

You can still see the “bones” of the historic numbering system underneath the chaos.

Why does WMATA’s proposal seem to swap so many route numbers? The centerpiece of the plan is to flip the entire numbering system from the current (and historic) clockwise system to one that’s counterclockwise. Imagine a simplified diagram of routes radiating out from the city center: 

Is this big flip really necessary?

• As an abstract matter: I don’t see any major reason why counterclockwise is superior. If anything, clockwise numbering has the benefit of most routes increasing in number as you read a map from left to right, the same direction you read text in English and most other languages.

• As a practical matter: People have become familiar with the existing system over decades; asking everyone to tear up their mental maps is a very heavy lift.

Moving forward by keeping what works

Here’s an alternative idea: Maintain the route renaming’s stated goal of having a clean, geographic numbering system—but implement it by keeping the current clockwise numbering system and adapting the letter+number routes to match it. It could look like this:

For example: The L2 becomes the 40, as it’s between the 33 and 42. The S2 becomes the 50, as it’s between the 43 and 52. Though some route numbers will change, they align with familiar numbers, and many routes stay the same.

Here’s an animation:

(Here’s a slower version and one with only the before-and-after of current vs. unified.)

Two more issues emerge:

• Crosstown: The clockwise system works for routes to/from downtown, but what about those that go perpendicular (“crosstown”)? Since most of them only serve a certain sector of the city, I numbered them to match other routes in the same area.

• East of the Anacostia River: The river forms a large natural barrier, so many routes connect to rail stations rather than going downtown. I put these routes in the 10s and 20s, as those numbers aren’t currently used; this also keeps to the historic clockwise numbering system.

I based these images on existing routes because the new routes aren’t yet final. But much of the proposed network resembles the current one, and the principles I outlined here can be applied to whatever final route network WMATA selects. To show this, I took the draft map that WMATA released earlier this year and renumbered all the DC routes:

Check out the full map and a spreadsheet with route-by-route name justifications. (I submitted a version of this map during the public-comment period in July.)

‘X’ marks the spot

Currently, limited-stop route numbers take the corresponding local route and swap in a “9” as the last digit. 70 becomes 79, S2 becomes S9, and so on.

New riders can easily miss this. So WMATA’s proposal—which I support—is to use an “X” instead.

But one tweak would make things easier to understand: putting the “x” after the number, rather than replacing the last digit. So, the limited-stop 70 would be the 70x, not 7X. This clarifies which route is being referenced, and is the method used in cities like New York (e.g. B46, B46 SBS) and San Francisco (e.g. 38, 38R).

Speaking of letters…. 

D and C

WMATA’s proposed route naming scheme introduces a clever idea: using letters to indicate which city or county a bus primarily serves. For example, Montgomery County routes would start with “M” (e.g. “M62”).

This is also the system used for buses across NYC’s boroughs. I generally like it!

But there’s a wrinkle with DC: They propose using both the letters “D” and “C”:

The idea is that routes oriented to/from downtown get a “D” while crosstown routes get a “C.” 

Philosophically it’s cool; in practice, it may cause more problems than it solves:

• Undermines simplicity: The painful renaming of routes aims to create a simpler, more consistent naming system. “The letter = the jurisdiction, except in DC where two different letters are used based on another factor” undermines that.

• Highlights an often-unimportant aspect: Many trips aren’t to/from downtown anyway—even on downtown-serving routes—so knowing whether the bus goes there doesn’t always add value. Also, many routes are squiggly, go toward downtown but not all the way, or go to the edge of downtown, making them hard to classify.

• Adds mental burden: Needing to remember an extra character in the route name adds mental burden to the already-enormous task of getting to know the system.

A simpler alternative is to use even vs. odd numbers: even = route goes downtown, odd = crosstown. With a few exceptions, that’s already the case for WMATA’s proposed route numbers! And mine could easily be adapted. This way, the info is available for those who value it without forcibly burdening all users.

It would be much better to use just one letter, like “D.”

But why not go a step further and drop the letter altogether for DC routes—but keep it for suburban ones? Consider:

• Simplicity for most: 70% of WMATA’s top bus routes by ridership primarily serve DC. Including a letter on DC routes adds unnecessary clutter for most passengers.

• Highlighting the core: DC is the economic, cultural, and social heart of the region, so “DC vs. suburbs” is a meaningful distinction.

• Already open to it: WMATA’s “C” vs. “D” proposal is already a “generally geographic, but DC is a slight exception” one.

Leaving the letter off DC routes while keeping it on suburban ones balances competing priorities: providing simplicity for most passengers while still providing geographic information.

Jarrett Walker writes:

[L]ower numbers feel simpler. Using lower route numbers in the central city, as many big regional agencies do, helps this core area, where ridership is highest, feel more navigable without reference to the more complex networks that the suburbs require.

I see “letters vs. no letters” as a variant of this.

Lessons from New York

In 2010, New York’s MTA proposed merging the historic “M” line with the newer “V” line, upsetting many riders.

So the MTA revised the plan, keeping the same route but naming it the “M”—garnering a much more positive public response!

The New York Times reported:

The changes … were announced earlier this year. But the new route had been expected to be called the V, with the M train disappearing. An outcry at public hearings led transit planners to rethink the nomenclature.

“People were more comfortable with the M designation, being an older and more historic train designation than the V,” said Charles Seaton, a spokesman for New York City Transit. (The V was born in 2001; the M dates back decades.)

Explaining the change, the MTA wrote:

While some members of the community were supportive of the service pattern change, many people expressed objection to the elimination of the ‘M’ designation.

People are more comfortable using familiar names.

WMATA acknowledges this. In their video explaining the proposed new route names, they note:

You also told us that it’s hard to learn new bus route names from scratch, so it would be nice if new route names tied back to existing names.

We have an opportunity to do just that!

The route ahead

So here’s the deal:

1. The status quo of bus naming is a mess.

2. The effort to clean things up is exciting, and a lot of great effort is going into it!

3. The specific most-recent proposal is going to cause an unnecessary level of disruption and chaos.

4. There’s an alternative way to achieve the same goals but with a much smoother transition.

This alternative naming scheme is to:

• Keep what works (the numbered routes) and only change what needs fixing (the letter+number routes)

• Rename routes using the existing clockwise geographic numbering system, helping people understand the new names using ones they already know

• Use no letter, or just one letter (e.g. “D”), at the start of DC routes—but don’t mix “D” and “C”

• Signal limited-stop routes by adding an “x” at the end of the full route number, rather than replacing the last digit

I love WMATA and am hoping for the best with the renaming and the network redesign overall. I would not have thought of these ideas unless I had the existing proposals to react to, so I thank them tremendously!

With any luck, some version of this proposal can help smooth the transition to the new bus network. And when it’s done, people will finally be able to form an easy mental map of DC’s bus system—without needing to re-learn every route from scratch.

— 

What do you think? Leave a comment below!

If you live in DC and think some version of this is a good idea, reach out to your councilmembers and ANC commissioners today.

Finally, subscribe to get my upcoming posts straight in your inbox!

[Note: I originally posted this on my old blog in 2017, but am resharing it here because it’s still relevant! I made a few small updates but otherwise left it as-is; message me if you think there’s anything else that needs updating.]

If you enjoy the great outdoors, you may have heard of many types of lands with “National” in the name. What do they all mean?

These designations can be traced to the four primary land-management agencies in the U.S. federal government: the Bureau of Land Management (managing 248 million acres), the U.S. Forest Service (193 m.a.), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (89 m.a.), and the National Park Service (80 m.a.). Note that while the National Park Service is the most famous, it actually manages the smallest amount of land.

The key distinction between these agencies is their mission:

• The Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service both focus on a combination of resource preservation and compatible recreational uses. Park Service units in particular tend to have a lot of rules and restrictions, as well as more developed visitor facilities.

• The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have a multiple-use mission: land is explicitly supposed to be used not only for conservation and recreation but also mining, oil and gas drilling, logging, cattle grazing, and renewable-energy production. These extractive uses are managed using sustainable-yield principles. These agencies also often allow a wider range of recreational uses, including hunting and off-road vehicle use.

All of the agencies are part of the U.S. Department of the Interior—except the Forest Service, which lies in the Department of Agriculture. Here’s a map of each agency’s land:

I will now discuss each agency’s lands in detail.

National Park Service (NPS)

The NPS manages the National Park System. Despite the name, this system is more than just the 63 “National Parks”—it has over 400 units with over 30 different designations.

National Parks and National Monuments are, for all intents and purposes, the same. They are the most restrictive; they usually ban resource extraction, off-road vehicle use, and sport hunting. Monuments tend to be smaller than Parks, but there’s a lot of variance. See my previous post for more detail on National Monuments.

Most National Recreation Areas either surround reservoirs (and focus on water-based recreation) or are located in urban areas. NRAs, National Preserves, National Seashores, National Lakeshores, National Rivers, and certain other units are similar to National Parks and National Monuments, but in some cases they have looser regulations. The NPS also manages many historical and cultural sites, but those are usually much smaller areas.

The units designated as National Parks are not considered by the NPS to be on a “higher tier” than other units—although in practice that’s how they’re perceived by the public. There is no “system” of 63 National Parks; rather, 63 units of the National Park System happen to carry the title National Park. Unit titles are given by Congress, and which ones are National Parks is intensely political.

About two-thirds of the NPS’s land lies in Alaska, although those parks get few visitors.

(Note that some National Monuments and National Recreation Areas are managed by other agencies; the descriptions above only apply to NPS-managed ones.)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

The FWS manages the National Wildlife Refuge System. Most units are designated as National Wildlife Refuges, but some go by other names, like the Patuxent Research Refuge and the National Elk Refuge.

National Wildlife Refuges are intended “for the protection and conservation of our Nation’s wildlife resources”—with a recognition that “wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation [are] the priority public uses of the Refuge System.” Extractive uses may be allowed if deemed compatible.

Most FWS land (86%) is located in Alaska. In the rest of the U.S., most refuges are located in wetlands.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

The USFS manages the National Forest System, which includes National Forests and National Grasslands. The USFS also has land designated as National Monuments and National Recreation Areas, but these are overlay designations on National Forests/Grasslands, not independent units (as is the case for the NPS). Each National Forest/Grassland is divided into ranger districts.

Each National Forest/Grassland has an authorized boundary within which the USFS is allowed to own and acquire land—key word: allowed. Significant amounts of private (or state-owned) land, called inholdings, exist within authorized forest boundaries; the USFS has little control over land use and activities in inholdings.

Because most National Forests/Grasslands were established when the West was sparsely settled, only 10% of the land in Western forests is inholdings. By contrast, forests in the East were established after widespread settlement, resulting in 46% of their land being inholdings.

The USFS is the only one of the four land-management agencies that owns a significant amount of land in the eastern U.S.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

The BLM manages the National System of Public Lands.

The very idea of land ownership and naming at the BLM is fundamentally different from the NPS, FWS, and FS. Generally speaking, the BLM doesn’t manage a collection of discrete, encapsulated, named units of land like the other agencies. Instead, it owns a bunch of land whose management is divided among a number of state offices (which are further subdivided into districts and field offices), and its ownership pattern is often more patchwork-y than that of the other agencies.

The basic notion that all BLM lands even constitute one “system” is quite new; the “National System of Public Lands” name was only created in 2008.

BLM land is often left off of maps. Here’s how Google Maps depicts Northwest Wyoming:

See that “blank” area in the center-right? Much of it is actually BLM land, including a number of off-the-beaten-path sights.

The other agencies are defined by land that was specifically set aside, but the BLM’s land is land that generally wasn’t—the “leftovers” that were inherited from the General Land Office. Federal policy used to focus on disposing of this land, but over time, the focus shifted away from disposing of federal lands and toward keeping them. This culminated with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which effectively ended homesteading.

As a result, much of the BLM’s land is desert, shrubland, and tundra, because areas with more hospitable climates and more water were more attractive for human settlement and agriculture or were more likely to be included in the National Forest System.

The BLM has a very clear two-tiered treatment of lands: while much of the BLM’s land is nameless and intended for multiple uses, the National Landscape Conservation System represents lands intended primarily for conservation and related uses. These are discrete, named units, with a variety of names, including: National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, Outstanding Natural Areas, Wilderness Areas, and Wilderness Study Areas. The BLM places a heavy public marketing focus on these lands, and these units generally have entrance signs.

In addition to the NLCS, the BLM does have some other named areas, including the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and a number of recreational areas. But otherwise, BLM land is generally anonymous. Most the BLM’s public-facing resources, like websites and social-media accounts, come from the state offices and not specific land units.

Almost all of the BLM’s land is in just 11 Western states. It also has broader authority to acquire and dispose of land than the other agencies.

Land designations that span agencies

There are some land designations that can apply to multiple agencies.

National Monuments can be managed by any of the agencies—and can even span multiple agencies. I wrote a detailed post about them. NPS monuments tend to have more restrictions than those managed by the BLM and USFS.

National Recreation Areas can be managed by the NPS or USFS (or in one case, BLM).

Wilderness Areas are part of the National Wilderness Preservation System and are generally undeveloped lands where the only activities allowed are non-motorized recreation and scientific research, and where human influence on the landscape is supposed to be unnoticeable. They require Congressional approval. Wilderness areas are overlay designations, and can span lands managed by multiple agencies. (The BLM has the authority to create Wilderness Study Areas, which carry similar protections to Wilderness and are intended to be temporary while officials study the area to determine whether or not to recommend it for permanent Wilderness protection.)

Finally, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and the National Trails System both feature management by multiple agencies.

Other random things to know

• There are also a variety of marine areas under federal control/protection. These are managed by agencies including the FWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

• Annual passes cover entrance and day-use fees not only at NPS units but also at those managed by the other agencies.

• Smokey Bear is a product of the USFS, the Ad Council, and the National Association of State Foresters. It has nothing to do with the NPS.

• NPS units tend to have more visitor information and maps available than lands managed by the other agencies. And the maps are much better, thanks to the people at the Harpers Ferry Center.

• NPS units often have restrictions on dogs. USFS and BLM lands are a better bet for dog allowance.

• Many portions of USFS and BLM land allow you to camp for free almost anywhere you want. There are also usually no entrance fees, just day-use fees at some recreation sites.

• Just because the USFS and BLM have a multiple-use mission, that doesn’t literally mean that each piece of land does; different areas have different emphasized uses and sometimes different regulations.

• The BLM also manages underground mineral rights for all federal lands, totaling about 700 million acres.

• Land management is not the only activity of the land-management agencies. They all have other roles too.

• Unless otherwise cited, most numbers in this post come from this Congressional Research Service report.

• Also check out the Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers, which (among other things) maintain a number of dams and reservoirs that are surrounded by recreational lands—though those lands are often managed by other government agencies.

We talked about:

• How best practices in human-centered design, user experience, civic tech, and more can be adopted by small government teams—not just the big ones that get featured in a lot of case studies

• How these practices can be applied not just to forms but also to operational service delivery

• How to bridge the differences in language that people from different backgrounds and teams use

Listen to the episode here or on your favorite podcast platform!

And thanks to Ryan for having me on the show. Check out the full list of episodes to see the many other awesome people who have been featured!

If this seems too good to be true, it’s because it is too good to be true.

The latest example came when I recently saw a press release from the Sierra Club titled “Leading Environmental and Allied Organizations Champion Emissions Reporting Rules for Federal Purchases”:

The Federal Supplier Climate Risks and Resilience Rule represents a major step towards the development and implementation of sensible public purchasing policies to tackle climate risk. Under the rule, federal contractors with more than $50 million in annual contracts would be required to disclose their Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions, their climate risk assessments, and their science-based emissions reduction targets. Contractors with annual contracts between $7.5 million and $50 million would be required to disclose their Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas inventories. By focusing on these large federal contractors, the rule places the onus for compliance on merely 1.2 percent of registered government contractors that, according to the FAR Council, are responsible for 86 percent of federal supply chain emissions.

The rule is clearly well-intended, and I think climate action is important, but layering new requirements on government contractors can have serious unintended consequences.

We often look at these rules in isolation: “How much harm could this one rule cause?” That’s wrong. What matters is the collective impact; we layer on rule after rule after rule—so potential government contractors have to comply with hundreds or even thousands of rules to bid on contracts.

These kinds of rules add costs in numerous ways, such as:

1. Operational cost: when rules require contractors to do something differently in their operations 

2. Cost of proving compliance: data collection, legal analysis, and paperwork

3. Costs of reduced competition: when vendors decide that the rules aren’t worth it, declining to bid altogether and leaving a smaller pool of bidders

I want to discuss the second and third points in more detail.

Death by data

In her book Recoding America, Jennifer Pahlka writes:

MACRA [the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015] was designed to pay doctors more for high-quality care, so the law directed [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] to change some of the ways that it would calculate payments to doctors. …

[A] table estimated that 87 percent of solo practitioners would … make less under the proposed new rules than under the old ones. Just 13 percent of solo practitioners would make more. For the practices with a hundred or more clinicians, the effect was reversed: 18 percent of these large practices would make less under the new rules, and 81 percent would make more. It was right there in black and white, in the Federal Register. If the draft rule went into effect, it was going to make more money for large health care systems. And it was going to hurt small medical practices.

There is no correlation between the size of the medical practice and the quality of care. You are just as likely to get great care from a doctor in a one- or two-person private practice as from a Kaiser or HCA Healthcare facility. Programs designed to pay more for better quality care, therefore, should reward independent doctors on average just as well as they reward large health systems. They don’t. As a member of the policy team on MACRA told me, large health systems consistently benefit more from value-based medicine programs. It’s not because they are delivering better quality care but because they are better at understanding program rules, choosing the right options, and reporting the right data. “We were not really measuring the quality of care doctors provide,” he admitted. “We were measuring them on how well they do administrative tasks.” (p. 162–163)

This is what I worry will happen with programs that seek mandatory reporting on government vendors’ greenhouse-gas emissions or other climate-related data. It will just end up advantaging firms that specialize in compliance paperwork.

This example here wasn’t actually about procurement, but its lesson still applies. As Jen then notes:

Procurement regulations are meant to make the process as fair as possible, but the very existence of those intricate, voluminous rules means that large government contractors—who have the resources to master them—have an advantage over smaller firms, as well as over firms that don't specialize in government clients. (p. 164)

She sums up the lesson as: paperwork favors the powerful.

Even though the climate rule that I mentioned only applies to firms with over a certain volume of contracts—thankfully excluding smaller ones—it still disadvantages medium-sized firms who exceed the reporting threshold but don’t have the scale resources of much larger firms. It also hurts firms that are considering competing on government contracts but don’t already specialize in it.

Competition is good

Instead of putting up with the hassle and costs of compliance, many companies choose an easier route: avoid bothering with government contracts at all.

You might say “too bad for them” but the reality is more like “too bad for all of us”: it’s not just that a business lost out on a potential business opportunity, it’s that we the citizens lost out of a bidder who might have offered lower prices or higher quality.

When you have fewer companies competing on a contract, you are left with less competition on price and quality, meaning that we get less for our money.

If we want a more diverse contracting ecosystem—and the benefits of more competition—we need to claw back some of these rules, or at least stop adding more of them.

Beware the ‘everything bagel’ approach

In his essay “The Problem With Everything-Bagel Liberalism” in the New York Times, Ezra Klein writes:

You might assume that when faced with a problem of overriding public importance, government would use its awesome might to sweep away the obstacles that stand in its way. But too often, it does the opposite. It adds goals—many of them laudable—and in doing so, adds obstacles, expenses and delays. If it can get it all done, then it has done much more. But sometimes it tries to accomplish so much within a single project or policy that it ends up failing to accomplish anything at all.

I’ve come to think of this as the problem of everything-bagel liberalism. Everything bagels are, of course, the best bagels. But that is because they add just enough to the bagel and no more. Add too much—as memorably imagined in the Oscar-winning “Everything Everywhere All at Once”—and it becomes a black hole from which nothing, least of all government’s ability to solve hard problems, can escape. And one problem liberals are facing at every level where they govern is that they often add too much. They do so with good intentions and then lament their poor results.

He continues:

[T]here is a cost to accumulation. How many goals and standards are too many? And why is subtraction so rare? It is impossible to read these bills and guidelines and not notice that the additions are rarely matched by deletions. Process is enthusiastically added but seldom lifted.

The result is that public projects—from affordable housing to semiconductor fabs—aren’t cost competitive, and that makes them vulnerable when a bad economy hits or a new administration takes over and the government cuts its spending.

Finding a balance

Procurement will generally be more complicated in government than eslewhere for accountability reasons. We want to make sure that public officials are not handing out contracts to their friends and family, and that money is being spent well. This often means extra processes and paperwork.

As I discussed in a post about what I call the “paradox of government accountability,” this alone can have significant consequences in reducing the efficiency and effectiveness of government:

So I think we need to be extremely careful when tacking on additional requirements for unrelated policy goals. For those policy goals, there are usually many other avenues for achieving desired government action, but for procurement there’s only one avenue: the procurement process itself.

Personally, I favor really trying to limit additional complications to ones that we think will help the larger contracting ecosystem, such as programs that help small businesses have a better shot a contracts as a way of (hopefully) maintaining a diverse vendor pool—ultimately increasing competition and reducing the risk associated with being dependent on a single vendor or small group of vendors.

Beyond that, my default position is to be skeptical of other proposed requirements and complexities.

By the way: I’m organizing and will be speaking on a panel for Nava next Tuesday, May 21, that continues the conversation from my previous posts on public-policy education! Joining me will be Emily Tavoulareas (who wrote this follow-up) and Nick Sinai (whose course I highlighted). We’ll discuss how universities can help address the disconnect between policy and public service delivery. You can attend online or in person (with lunch provided) in DC.

RSVP today!

As always, subscribe to get notified when my next post comes out!

Let me know in the comments: What do you think about rules like the proposed one on reporting greenhouse gas emissions? Are there any kinds of rules whose benefits you think outweigh their costs in procurement compliance and potential reduced competition?

Who would you hire to help you out?

There’s a funny situation: There are (at least) two different professions focused on this—and as far as I can tell, they have very little contact with each other.

One is “concerned with the optimization of complex processes, systems, or organizations by developing, improving and implementing integrated systems of people, money, knowledge, information and equipment.”

The other focuses on “planning and arranging people, infrastructure, communication and material components of a service in order to improve its quality, and the interaction between the service provider and its users.”

These are Wikipedia’s definitions for the fields of industrial engineering and service design. They’re not identical, but the similarities are striking.

Service design’s focus is fairly obvious: the design of services. But the name “industrial engineering” can be confusing, as it’s not what many people think of when they hear the words “industrial” or “engineering”; it’s not about designing factory machines.1 In fact, it’s not about physical products at all—it’s about processes, systems, services, and workflows. It might be better to pair or even replace it with “operations engineering,” “management science,” or “service engineering,” and indeed you can find those terms in use.2

Adding to the confusion is the similar-sounding field of industrial design, which is not super related industrial engineering. Industrial design is about the design of physical products, whereas industrial engineering is explicitly not focused on that.

Both service design and industrial engineering look at improving both the internal operations of an organization and the experience of the people they serve, with the former usually driving the latter. And both involve detailed analysis of existing conditions to information possible avenues for action.

They came from different places but ended up focusing on similar things. As I understand it, here’s how they evolved:

• Industrial engineering emerged from traditional engineering, asking if engineering approaches could be applied to processes too, not just physical stuff. Initially this was manufacturing processes, but now a large part of it is focused on human-facing services. Industrial engineers tend to have a background in engineering, either having competed a dedicated program in industrial engineering or having transitioned from another branch of engineering. Research methods tend to be quantitative.

• Service design emerged from asking if methods of product design could be applied to services too, applying principles and practices of design thinking and human-centered design to the scale of entire services. Service designers tend to have a background in design—these days often digital product design, but sometimes in physical product design, graphic design, or other areas. Research methods (arguably) tend to skew qualitative, though it can vary.

Let’s see what they have to offer each other.

Why service design needs industrial engineering

Industrial engineering adds two key pieces of value to service design: a quantitative focus and subject-matter expertise on operational issues.

In my experience, the types of teams and departments that employ service designers often have staff in these disciplines:

An important part of any design work is first doing research. A lot of service designers personally have a background that is more rooted in qualitative research, though some do have a mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) background, and others work together with data scientists. But certainly when it comes to the actual design side of things, my experience has been that service design tends to be overwhelmingly qualitative. It seems that there’s often a gap on the quantitative side.

Including more math has a lot of value to add to help take (already amazing!) service-design work to the next level. As basic example: If you’re reimagining how services and processes might be improved, quantities like money and time aren’t just implementation details—they make a high-level difference between whether something is viable or not.

Industrial engineering takes a much more quantitative approach, one that can be helpful to create more well-rounded design solutions. It can help fill in the gap that I showed above, in a manner something like this:

The second major attribute that industrial engineering offers—specifically its key sub-field of operations research—is subject-matter expertise on operational and managerial issues.

A lot of the researchers and designers who work in the service-design space used to work in other subject domains. Product designers have expertise in both design principles and their specific physical or digital product domain. Data scientists have a methodological foundation plus (often) specific knowledge and experience with health data, political data, environmental data, or whatever.

Organizational management and operations is its own subject domain, and operations researchers and industrial engineers have been producing a rich research literature on it for decades.

Let’s say you’re looking to improve wait times for a particular service. Data scientists and qualitative researchers from any subject background can definitely provide value in trying to unpack the causes for wait times! But did you know that operations researchers have a specific field of study focused on precisely this problem?

Industrial engineers and operations researchers usually have training on a number of subjects relevant to operations and management, such as:

• Modeling, analysis, and optimization of processes and workflows

• Economics and finance

• Human factors and ergonomics

• Layout of physical facilities

• Production control

• Logistics and supply-chain management 

People with a background in these operational and managerial issues can be very useful for looking at service delivery. (Of course there’s also value to including people whose subject background is elsewhere, to bring in new ideas and avoid groupthink.)

Why industrial engineering needs service design

Industrial engineering has been around for a lot longer than service design. It can be tempting to look at service designers and say, “They’re just the new kids on the block, reinventing something with a new name yet without much mathematical rigor” but I don’t think that’s fair.

Companies and governments have been in the business of serving people forever—yet the principles and practices of human-centered design have made enormous positive improvements to our world over the past couple decades.

Qualitative research can be really helpful in learning about the human nuances of services and processes, and makes a great addition to the quantitative work that is often the focus of industrial engineering.

It’s easy to get lost in the spreadsheets and mathematical models and operational analysis. The types of work that user researchers and service designers do—and particularly the artifacts they create, like user personas and journey maps—can do an incredible job of really putting a human face on things and help people remember and prioritize the goal that we’re trying to deliver on in the first place: serving people.

I have taught many workshops on human-centered design and personally witnessed the kinds of “aha!” moments that people have when introduced to these kinds of concepts and methods. This stuff can make a big difference!

Better together

This isn’t an issue of one being better than the other. Both fields have a lot of value, and could be an enormous complement to each other—creating an opportunity to increase impact!

A joint area of work might be defined as: Analysis, planning, design, and optimization of processes and systems of human, physical, and information resources to deliver a quality service to end users.

Perhaps you call it “service engineering” (there’s a book with that title), perhaps “service design and operations engineering,” perhaps something else.3

Here are some concrete things that can be done:

• Interaction: Service designers and industrial engineers should talk to each other more and read about each other’s work.

• Teams: Organizations should build teams that bring together people from both of these backgrounds, and provide professional development in the areas of each other’s skills.

• Education: Universities and other institutions should offer programs that combine the two—aiming to create people who can bridge the gap. (Of course there will always be a role for people who specialize in just one side of things.)

There’s a lot more to say on this issue, so I’ve got some upcoming posts in the works, including:

• Details on what a joint curriculum could look like

• Thoughts on how this might be incorporated in government and policymaking

• A closer look at how service design was originally intended to have a more quantitative side

• A comparison of job descriptions for service designers vs. industrial engineers

Make sure to subscribe to find out when they’re published!

Can you think of any opportunities for increasing impact by bringing these approaches together? Are there other related fields that you also think are relevant to include here? Let me know in the comments.

Sometimes they don’t include letter abbreviations for days of the week, instead using roman numerals: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII:

Sometimes, they dispense with day labels altogether—instead using a visual separation between weekdays and weekends:

Another sign that I found used a change in color to indicate both which days were the weekend and also the fact that those days had reduced hours:

Sometimes they use a partially-filled dot to show that there are reduced hours on a certain day:

At one place I went to, they didn’t have any labels for days of the week, but did still use roman numerals—for months:

So far I’ve been to 36 countries across multiple continents and have never seen anything like this anywhere else. I just couldn’t help thinking to myself: What the heck… this is so bizarre!

I have no idea why they do this, and haven’t been able to find any information online. Perhaps it simply developed as a cultural custom and the locals don’t even notice.

To be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about it. One the one hand, it’s sort of a cool visual method of communication. On the other hand, I find it kind of a headache to look at and try to figure out, especially if there are no day labels or separation between weekdays and weekends—though Lithuanians are probably used to it, so maybe it’s no problem for them.

Nevertheless, it’s delightfully fascinating. 🙂

For more observations from our world—plus commentary, proposals, interviews, and more—make sure to subscribe to hear about the latest posts!

By the way: Lithuania is awesome, and I highly recommend visiting if you get the chance!

One of the most delightful things about visiting other countries is getting to see the cultural differences.

Whenever I visit a new country, I always keep a note on my phone of all the things I observe that are different from home. I encourage you to do it too! It’s so fascinating to be able to look back later.

Have you noticed anything totally fascinating or bizarre when traveling? Let me know in the comments.