Gets Results |

This post is authored by various writers. Please donate to for the “streets to the max” day! Thank you for your support.

streetsmn logoCities are subject to the observer effect, the observer cannot observe the city without changing it.

So, as we approach our 4th Birthday, what have posts on done to change the landscape in the Twin Cities?

Success has a 1000 fathers, but authors will claim victory for the following, which took place after poking and prodding. We can never know what would have happened in the alternative mirror-world universe where only advocates for freeway expansions, but we believe our work might have made the crucial difference, serving as a critical link in the great causal chain we call reality.

  1. The new Mn United Stadium proposed in Put the MLS Stadium on the Snelling-University Bus Barn Site
  2. Metro Transit’s new Bus Stop Signs advocated in Towards a First-Class Bus System 
  3. Faster times on the Green Line, proposed multiple times, notably in Speeding up the Green LineGreen Line Signal Priority Q&A (certainly Metro Transit wanted this as well, but public pressure, from to local newspapers and TV stations, probably accelerated the work of City Public Works departments to get the signal timings in place to avoid further public scrutiny)
  4. Real-time information at LRT stations, griped about in Three More Green Line Station Gripes, (although admittedly this change was planned, “Please Check Schedules” would have hung around longer in the absence of complaint)
  5. An exempt sign on Franklin Avenue identified in Buses and railroad crossings 
  6. Saint Paul parking policy presaged in How Much is Saint Paul Leaving on the Table with its Backward Downtown Parking Policy?
  7. Vikings share in funding after The Met Council is Spending $6,000,000 on this Unnecessary Pedestrian Bridge? (though not nearly enough)
  8. Washington Avenue through downtown will have a cycletrack and one fewer lanes after it’s rebuilt in 2016. played a pivotal role in offering analysis of the traffic prediction reports for the project. Those were foundational for a Minneapolis Bicycle Coalition blog post that had sway with elected officials and project staff.
  9. The Hennepin-Lyndale Bottleneck is also slated for reconstruction in 2016. Initially planned as simple curb-to-curb rebuilding of the stretch as is, lots of visioning and writing on (plus even-longer-term community organizing around it by the surrounding neighborhoods) has resulted in a significant change of plans. From the side, it was a group effort with a slew of posts. The most effective posts were the ones that highlighted the need for public engagement to force more than redoing the current design by highlighting the meeting dates and times, plus offering specific comments people could make to shift the conversation at them. A multitude of inspiring visions added momentum.
  10. On a neighborhood scale, there are the new protected bikeways and pedestrian medians on 26th and 28th. provided some good ideas and a call to action (meeting 1 and 2), and a design for the stretch
  11. has expanded and enhanced the conversation around land use helping new voices engage in the planning process. The example of 2320 Colfax, is important not so much because of the specific project, but because it helped people who want increased density know about the proposed project and how to engage — if readers wanted to. Stepping back, at the time Minneapolis was at a tipping point between more urban vs. status quo decisions. If this project could happen without political catastrophe, it showed other elected officials that they could risk it, too. See post 1post 2 (with info on engaging), post 3
  12. Saving Dinkytown from surface parking lots [With lots of activity on the Forums]
  13. Posts about quarter-mile bus stop spacing have seemingly influenced some of MetroTransit’s decision-making and consideration of route planning
  14. Changes to the ITDP BRT Scorecard as recommended by a Critique posted on the site. Including
    1 – Bus only shoulders (in the form of queue jumps) receive one point on the BRT Basics section of dedicated right-of-way as they accomplish the goal of reducing traffic delay in most situations.
    2 – Frequencies were removed from the scoring section of the scorecard and added to deductions.
    3 – Clarified where sliding doors had to be placed in stations
    4 – Removal of some BRT only sections such that the entire transit system can work together (Branding not only other BRT routes)
    5 – Removal of specific times for rush hour
  15. The series (by Anne White) (1) (2) about access to the Green Line. There was quite a bit of discussion generated in the comment section with those posts, discussions generated at did inform the discussion at those meetings.

Anne White writes:

The reason I write for is because I hope to contribute to the discussion in a way that helps lead to change. Usually my articles are inspired by work that is already being done to try to improve walkability and pedestrian safety. In the case of the articles cited by Monica on access to the Green Line, I wanted to call attention to the report and video produced by the District Councils Collaborative, to introduce people to the MN Olmstead Plan and to invite participation in a meeting that was scheduled to discuss access issues. I don’t know if I succeeded in getting more readers to attend the meeting or to follow the progress of the MN Olmstead Plan that was recently accepted by Judge Donovan Frank, after having been sent back several times to be strengthened.
The one result I am aware of came about because I shared these articles with my son, Chris White, who lives in New York, and is the Executive Producer of POV, the documentary division of PBS. I thought he would be interested in the short video produced by the DCC. It turned out that he was very interested, because of his enthusiasm for a film that was featured as the opening film of the 2014 POV season. When I Walk documents the filmmaker’s life after being diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and introduces an access mapping app he developed to allow people to rank the accessibility of stores and restaurants in his Brooklyn neighborhood. My son shared the DCC film with Jason DaSilva, the filmmaker, and introduced us by e-mail.
After corresponding with Jason by e-mail and viewing his film, I recommended it to some key people in Saint Paul, including staff at the DCC and the Olmstead Project office. I also told them about the AXS Map system and suggested we might want to begin using it here in Saint Paul as a way to measure and set goals for improving access to shops and services. Then when I was back in New York a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet Jason and his wife Alice Cook (their love story is one of the themes of his film) the day after When I Walk was awarded an Emmy. Of course, Jason and Alice were excited about winning the Emmy, but they were not just resting on their laurels. Instead, they hoped to use the publicity to build awareness of their AXS Map system. Now they’ve launched a Kickstarter campaign to fund the expansion of AXS with Map-a-thons in towns and cities throughout the world. Here is the link to the Kickstarter e-mail that includes a trailer for When I Walk and a description of the AXS Map system.

If we missed any, please post them in the comments, and we can update the list.

Of course that leaves well over a thousand ideas that have yet to be implemented, and on which the long struggle continues.

We are also familiar with the Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc fallacy (and we at also believe our readers read Latin). However we also understand Granger causality, and we think there is a causal mechanism (people read the blog). So we have no reluctance in claiming gets results, and our posts have some predictive causality in changing the subsequent decisions in the real world.

Thanks especially to Janne, Chris, Anne, Bill, Joseph, and Monica for their input on this post, and all the writers for writing posts that continue to make Minnesota, and the world, better.


Cross-posted from

Summary of Civic Caucus Interview and Responses

As noted previously, I was interviewed by the Minnesota Civic Caucus. In addition to the interview, there are responses to the interview now available, from many different folks, including Margaret Donahoe of the MoveMN lobby. Well worth reading to see the various perspectives on transportation.
David Levinson interview of August 7, 2014


Overview:  Minnesota does not need new transportation projects in order to be competitive, according to David Levinson of the University of Minnesota. There are some bottlenecks that could be addressed, he says, but the primary problem is that we’ve been spending too much on new capital projects and not enough on operating and maintaining the existing system of federal, state and local highways and roads.


User-fee revenues for highways, mainly gas-tax revenues, have been declining in recent years because of fewer trips, more fuel-efficient cars and political resistance at both the federal and state levels to raising the gas tax, he says. Also, a large share of federal Highway Trust Fund revenues have been diverted to pay for transit capital projects, although transit serves only about two percent of all trips nationally.


Levinson discusses a broad range of actions he believes will successfully address these transportation issues.

For the complete interview summary see: Levinson interview

For individual responses to interview see: responses to Levinson


Prison vs. Airport

Prisons and Airports are both among the most secure places we have on earth, protected by guards, so that their residents (inmates, passengers) don’t mix with everyone else.

The Transportation Experience: Second Edition (Garrison and Levinson 2014)
US Domestic Enplanments: Source The Transportation Experience: Second Edition (Garrison and Levinson 2014)

The core difference is that the prison is isolated so that the bad guys stay in, while the airport is isolated so that the bad guys stay out. To get into the airport, you must demonstrate you are safe, while to get into prison, you must be proven to be unsafe.

US Incarceration Timeline, from wikipedia
US Incarceration Timeline, from wikipedia

In the US prison populations and airport passengers have both increased over the decades, though seem to have leveled off in the past few years, such that we are perhaps at both “peak aviation” and “peak prison”.

Perhaps isolation is not the key to safety.




The Transportationist is on MPR’s Daily Circuit. Today 10 am Central.

I got invited back.

I will be having a live in-studio conversation with Kerri Miller on MPR’s Daily Circuit Today (Tuesday October 14 at 10 am Central Time). The other guest is  Adie Tomer of the Brookings Institute/Metropolitan Policy.

Topics are likely to include transportation issues in the midterm elections,  big ideas for transportation’s future, how those ideas get paid for, and who the constituents are in that conversation.


In the Oct. 9 gubernatorial debate, Gov. Mark Dayton and his two opponents named transportation on their list of priorities for the next four years.

Dayton proposed a gas tax increase to pay for his transportation plan, but how to pay for all that’s needed for roads and bridges is a problem that vexes politicians nationwide.

On The Daily Circuit, we talk with two transportation experts about the economics of transportation planning.

Future of the Federal Role in Transportation (webinar now online)

Future of the Federal Role in Transportation

MAP-21, the 2012 federal surface transportation authorization bill, is set to expire later this year. Meanwhile, the Highway Trust Fund faces an insolvency crisis due to rapidly dwindling gas tax revenues, and there appears to be little agreement in Congress on how to fund the federal transportation program. Some say that makes this year ripe for a reconsideration of the federal role in transportation and have proposed devolution of the federal program to the states.

Many states continue to rely on the federal government for a significant portion of their transportation spending, however, and might be challenged to come up with revenues on their own from a limited tax base. This eCademy examined the pros and cons of devolution, the future of the federal role in transportation and what it could all mean for state and local governments.

Future of the Federal Role in Transportation
CSG eCademy
May 29, 2014



Dr. Rohit Aggarwala
Principal, Bloomberg Associates
Full Bio >>
James Corless
Director, Transportation for America
Full Bio >>
Emily Goff
Policy analyst, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation
Full Bio >>
David Levinson
Professor, University of Minnesota
Full Bio >>

Download the slides in PDF.

Download Prof. David Levinson’s slides in PDF here.

Attachment Size
 RTA short bio.pdf 205.97 KB
 James Corless bio.pdf 134.25 KB
 Goff Bio.pdf 290.28 KB
 DLevinson bio.pdf 148.76 KB
 eCademy2014_FutureFedRoleTransportation (1).pdf 1.62 MB
 FIF-Levinson-CSG.pdf 3.81 MB

Seven types of urban redevelopment sites |

Cross-posted from Seven types of urban redevelopment sites.

Seven Types of Urban Redevelopment Sites

Riding the #16 back from the Writers Conclave, one sees that the Green Line (nee Central Corridor) has left a path of destruction in its wake. From downtown Minneapolis to past the edge of the University of Minnesota, parking ramps, the Star Tribune headquarters, the Metrodome, and WaHu are just some of the largest redevelopment sites oriented toward this line as Minneapolis strives to become Manhattan(or perhaps we should say Maxiopolis).

Green line train on Washington Avenue

Before we are too quick to credit transit investment as the cause of the development, note that even off the line, in places like Uptown, the Wedge,  and Dinkytown, the 2010s say out with the old and in with the new.

Yet regardless of the causes of redevelopment, it is here, it is generating controversy, and that controversy in part is a result of insufficient policy tools.

Hierarchy of Redevelopment (with examples)

I will propose these guidelines for seven types of urban redevelopment sites:

  1. If it’s a vacant lot – Build on it. [Example: 2700 University Avenue (now) ]
  2. If it’s a parking lot – Build on it. [Example: Latitude 45 ]
  3. If it’s a parking ramp – Tear it down and build on it. [Example: 4th and Nicollet ]
  4. If it’s an urban-hostile building (e.g. fast food restaurant with surface parking and a  drive-thru) – Tear it down and build on it. [until we get to the last one]. [Example:WaHu Student Housing (contra: Save the Hat)]
  5. If it’s a really, truly about to fall down building (formally: 5(a) structurally deficient and not cost-effectively  remediable or 5(b) functionally obsolete and not cost-effectively adaptable – and thus abandoned leading to 5(a)) – Tear it down and build on it. [Bad example: Minnesota Multi-Purpose Stadium (leave aside what you should put there, and who should pay for it)]
  6. If it’s an ugly but structurally sound building (i.e. occupied or occupiable) with little or no historic or architectural importance –  Wait until all of the above sites have been completely used up, see if you can do adaptive reuse and improve its attractiveness, then consider tearing it down and building something new on it. [Example: House of HansonDinkytown Hotel/Mesa Pizza, ]
  7. If it’s actually a viable (i.e. occupied or occupiable), attractive or historic, functional building – Wait until all of the above sites have been completely used up, see if you can do adaptive reuse, before even considering tearing it down. [Example: Marshall High School,  Wesbrook Hall]

Nicollet and Fourth, Parking Ramp coming down for Xcel Energy HQ (photo: UrbanMSP)

The examples are far from a complete list, and certainly there will be debate about what constitutes 5, 6, or 7, and lots of nuance and qualitative decisions.

Nevertheless, I think we are far too quick on type 6 and especially type 7 sites when there are so many sites still remaining in categories 1-5 in much if not most of the city. An aerial view of Dinkytown, e.g. will show that surface parking lots are disappearing. It will also show they have not already disappeared (the block between 14th and 15th Avenues and 5th and 4th Streets is more than half parking).

This hierarchy is not simply my personal preference (although it is my personal preference). It is a hierarchy that will lead to better urbanism. As I have written before:

The Marshall - Site old Marshall HS and UTEC

A key lesson is that it is often easier to grow an urban neighborhood from an existing lattice of structures than try to plop one down on a brownfield site. … Thus we should try not to destroy viable structures or neighborhoods until we have considered renovating them and we have exhausted vacant parcels. Of course, one might say, that is the obvious lesson from urban renewal some 50 years ago.

But this still happens: The old Marshall HS in Dinkytown, e.g., or the Colonial Building at Emerald and University on the Central Corridor that has been a vacant parcel for about 7 years now. While construction is well-underway on the Marshall HS site, the Emerald and University site (variously 2700 The Avenue or City Limits Apartments) sits fallow. Things might happen between demolition and construction, so that construction which was planned falls through mid-project.


Economic rationale for the hierarchy

Consider a simple two-block walking route. One block (X) is a functional, occupied one-story building (with doors and windows) and one block (Y) is a zero-story parking lot. To go from A to B one passes the building (which might be interesting), and a parking lot (which probably is not). Now a developer comes in and wants to build a non-awful six-story wood frame apartment building. Where would you rather have him build this. The answer is block Y because then when you are walking, you will walk past two buildings, instead of one building and a parking lot. This improves walkability, which is a good value to have, since it likely increases walking, personal connections with the city, and even retail sales;  but it also improves accessibility (the number of places which can be reached in a given unit of time), which produces positive economic spillovers in the interim. A six story building plus a one story building is better than a six story building and a parking lot.

In the end, both blocks may have apartment buildings, that is fine. But you want to develop the empty lot first because “in the end” is not “right away”, as the recession of 2008-09 showed, and we are losing urbanism in the interim as projects can get deferred a long time. The sequence of development matters. In the interim, the walk accessibility (local density) will be higher when the empty lots are developed before existing buildings are torn down and replaced.

[For the math-inclined, if we integrate accessibility over time, it will be larger if we defer tearing down #6 and especially #7s until after filling all the vacant or vacuous #1-5 sites.]


Improving the sequence of development

Site of the former Wesbrook Hall which was leveled so Northrup Hall could have an outdoor gala space (er, Breathing Room)

Property is private, and developers should  (in order to maintain political stability by ensuring a consistent legal framework (i.e. the US Constitution) that guarantees property rights) be allowed to develop what and where they are legally permitted. But cities intervene in these markets all the time, both through zoning codes (police powers) and subsidies (purse powers).

There are a number of solutions to improve the sequence of development. The land value tax is one, but that has political difficulties in that it creates winners and losers compared to the baseline.

Another idea in this regard is the awarding of Transferable Development Rights on existing #6 and #7 sites that are built less than code allows, which can be transferred to vacant lots to allow those parcels to be developed more intensely. (Thus compensating the sellers for not developing right-away).  These would temporary rights, so if sold, the selling parcel would not be able to be redeveloped more intensively than its current structure (for a period of time (e.g. 10 years)) without either buying rights from other properties, or waiting until the expiration. Of course the buyer would get to build somewhat more intensively than current zoning allows as a permanent structure (so even after the rights expire for the seller, the buyer does not need to unbuild their building).

These kinds of rights are used for agricultural parcels in many places, to preserve agricultural uses in places where it might otherwise be developed into a subdivision as a matter of right. These are also used for air rights developments.

So imagine our scenario above. Instead of redeveloping right-away, the owner of Parcel X sells to the owner of Parcel Y a TDR that defers development on Parcel X for 5 years and gives Parcel Y one extra story. Parcel X gets enough revenue to put off development. Parcel Y may now be slightly more financially feasible with the density bonus. The community gets more walkability in the interim five years.

The only prospective downside is if you don’t like the additional density. TDR donating / receiving areas can be downzoned as part of the package to ensure the end state is no denser than it otherwise would be (so the as-right development would only be 5 stories, with the 6th story coming from the TDR).

Transit Revolution or a Streetcar to Heck? | The Theater of Public Policy

I am scheduled to appear at The Theater of Public Policy where they will be improv-ing Transit Revolution or a Streetcar to Heck?

The University of Minnesota’s resident civil engineering guru is known around the world as The Transportationist. Professor Levinson will join us to talk about the Twin Cities, traffic, streetcars, and why we don’t yet have hover bikes?

Doors at 6:00 – Show at 7:00

Tickets: $10 at the door OR $7 in advance, or $7 at the door with student I.D., kids under 12, or with a Fringe Button.

Buy Tickets here!

  • Monday, April 7, 2014
  • 7:00pm – 8:00pm
  • Bryant Lake Bowl (map)

  • 810 W Lake St

  • Minneapolis, MN 55408

Jurisdictional Overload |

Cross-posted at Jurisdictional Overload :

Jurisdictional Overload


The Minneapolis-St. Paul region has many, many municipalities. Though I hear at international conferences that we have metropolitan government here, that seems a Viking marketing myth (much like the naming of Greenland).

In fact, depending on how you count, the region has 189 Minor Civil Divisions (MCD).


Each is a local unit of government, which may have police, fire, roads, schools, parks, libraries, and many other public services (the scope of services varies, and some jurisdictions share services, and school districts have other boundaries).

Is this too many or too few? In Maryland there are 23 counties (including Baltimore City), and very few incorporated cities. For most people, the county is the smallest unit of government. Thus there is one less layer of government, and the counties achieve economies of scale.

On the other hand, the Tiebout Hypothesis (wikipedia) says:

“[M]unicipalities within a region [offer] varying baskets of goods (government services) at a variety of prices (tax rates). Given that individuals have differing personal valuations on these services and varying ability to pay the attendant taxes, individuals will move from one local community to another until they find the one which maximizes their personal utility. The model states that through the choice process of individuals, jurisdictions and residents will determine an equilibrium provision of local public goods in accord with the tastes of residents, thereby sorting the population into optimum communities. The model has the benefit of solving two major problems with government provision of public goods: preference revelation and preference aggregation.”

Thus we can dial-up the mix of public services and taxes we want by “voting with our feet”.

I am mixed about this. While I am skeptical there are a lot of economies of scale to be had at larger units of government (and there are many diseconomies of scale to be had as well),there are some. But it doesn’t make sense to me that we need 3 layers of government in the roads operations business (state, county, and city), and a fourth (metropolitan) in the roads planning business, when many places get by with 2. We seem to get a lot of buck-passing, and remote governance. Now this isn’t inherently a flaw with minor civil divisions. It is an argument that either cities give up their roads to the county, or the county turns back its roads to the local jurisdictions within.

The difficulty with this is, as many Streets.MN readers know, that e.g. the Hennepin County public works agency is not very innovative or progressive, and tends to resist things likebike lanes and roundabouts, which the city sometimes supports. So why are there Hennepin County roads in Minneapolis, surely the City can manage things adequately? The evidence for this is that most counties are smaller (in population and tax base) than the City of Minneapolis. To do this the City would need to be given the funds the County would have spent in the City anyway. This comes back to highway finance formulas at the State level, and allocation of country property tax revenue. We should of course have a higher state gas tax to replace the local property tax for local roads. But even without that, allocation of funds is a political problem, not a law of nature, and can be overcome if people can agree we are over-governed.

Minneapolis is one thing, what about a smaller municipality, like Richfield, or Lauderdale? If an MCD is too small to manage its roads, it can join with neighbors, just as municipalities often join for libraries or schools, or police. Or there can be some cities which manage all their roads, and others which let the county manage all their roads.


Technical solutions for policy problems; Policy solutions for technical problems

The transportation sector is rife with technology/policy mismatches. We often seek new to develop or deploy technologies to solve what are ultimately policy problems; and we often try to implement policies to solve what are ultimately technical problems. Attaching the correct domain to the problem is the first step in solving it.

As an example of the first, consider any transportation investment aimed at expanding capacity to address congestion. The policy failure here is the lack of peak-period pricing (and secondarily location-specific pricing) that would ration scarce capacity. Instead we move to a ‘predict and provide’ mode, and where we fail to provide, we ration by queueing. Whether or not we should build a project to expand accessibility from a place, we should not expand capacity to expand accessibility only at a given time-of-day until we have properly priced the network, so that travelers consider the externalities they impose and pay the full marginal costs of their trip.

The best illustrations include your typical freeway widening. A widening by definition just expands capacity (which is only relevant in the peak hours), and does nothing to expand accessibility during the rest of the day, since no new places are connected. The road may very well be congested, which is what you would expect when you give something valuable away at below marginal cost. The capacity expansions often don’t have the desired effect on congestion reduction due to induced demand in the short run, and induced development in the longer run.

Transit projects are often billed as “congestion reducing”. This is the one of the worst reasons to invest in transit. It is as if we said a new highway reduces crowding on the bus or the bike lanes. Transit investments should be justified by the benefits they provide to existing and new transit users, not on some marginal third-party actor. Yet we see this claim all the time. [I know, the claim is marketing to induce non-users to see a benefit for the enormous subsidy they are providing, but it is intellectually dishonest]. I won’t say there is never a highway congestion reduction by-product, as if the project does gain new riders, at least some of them may have otherwise been driving a car during peak times, but that is a third-order effect that often does not appear in the traffic statistics.

As an example of out-of-sync policy approaches to technical problems, consider emissions reduction. Automobile emissions are a problem for many reasons, not the least of which is public health. Emissions can be thought of as a logical chain of calculations like this:

Tailpipe Emissions = (Number of Motor Vehicle Trips) * (Average Trip Length (Miles)) * (Fuel Efficiency (Gallons / Mile)) * (Emission Rate (Pollutants/Gallon))

The land use and transportation planning side of things (policy) tries affect behavior to reduce number of vehicle trips and average trip length. The technology side of the equation tries to improve fuel efficiency and reduce pollution per unit of fuel burned. There are policies that can encourage the development of the technology (CAFE standards) and technologies which can reduce average trip length, like elevators and skyscrapers. But the opportunity to practically eliminate emissions can only come from driving one of these numbers to zero.

Electric cars at Imperial - 2

My bet would be that it is far easier to change the power plant on the fleet (through electrification), and the pollutants per gallon through more efficient combustion if you continue to burn liquid fuel, than to get number of motor vehicle trips or trip length close to zero. In the US, we might be able to take baby steps towards behavioral change, but we are starting from an existing built environment, an existing economic make-up, and existing transportation networks that took a century to build and will take a century to unwind. We have climbed Mt. Auto, and atop Mt. Auto, Mt. Not-Auto is very distant.

In short I claim the vehicle fleet, which turns over every 10 or so years, is more malleable than land use, which turns over every 50 years, or road networks, which effectively don’t turn over, or travel behavior in the absence of pricing.

This is not to say people should not be encouraged to walk (or bike if masochistic) and locate near jobs if feasible. Similarly, developers should not be needlessly discouraged or prohibited from high densities so long as they internalize costs or pays off the losers. But the reasons behind that are fundamentally private (that is what people prefer) rather than for the good of the environment. Preferences too are malleable, to a point, but reprogramming 300 million individual, customized brains takes time and effort, and the population only turns over generationally.

I walk (even in the snow and ice). There are many reasons people may want to not drive their car, or not drive as much. Personal cost and pleasure are among them. But to promote those policies as serious efforts to address pollution problems, when technical solutions are available is Sisyphean. Induced demand rears its beloved head. A large part of the reductions in VMT from one set of sources will be eaten by another, even if we have macroscopic trends working (very slowly) in a favorable direction, like peak travel.

There are potentially effective travel demand management (TDM) strategies. Pricing (as per above) is the most effective, if only it could be implemented. By all means, impose a carbon tax, but that will have very small effects on overall behavior unless the tax itself is very large.

Sadly, most policies, short of pricing, aimed at TDM have been dismally unsuccessful. Land use changes are slow at best, and there is little guarantee that new development will do much to actually reduce vehicle emissions, most people don’t work or live on site, and new transit oriented developments are not in dense environments to do enough to enable people to forego much auto travel.

Similarly, improving the efficiency of roads (transportation systems management or TSM) through strategies like improved signal coordination and ramp metering are modest in their gains.

This is the classic hammer/nail conundrum. Some people want to help save the world. This is a wonderful and potentially socially-productive endeavor. Yet, their only tool is a hammer. Their conclusion is that saving the world is a nail, when it is really a snowglobe. We would be better served by finding nails for the hammer users, and rags for the snowglobe tenderers.

To get meta about this, policies which provide proper incentives can help match the wannabe heroes with the real Penelope Pitstops . Technologies can help with the matchmaking market as well, as has proven so popular in the dating world.