I am optimistic that over the medium term (3-4 years) about new forms of more flexible ridesharing such as Avego (uses the iPhone). There have been 15 failed flexible ridesharing pilots in the past, but penetration of GPS enabled smartphones will be increasing rapidly over the next few years. The latest flexible ridesharing ideas are pretty different than previous attempts. I’ve found that there are a large number of folks who are interested in ridesharing 3 rather than 5 days per week, so they need much more flexibility than a traditional permanent carpool arrangement can offer.

So, nothing currently works very well for suburban commute alternatives, but that surely just means that we need to come up with something better than what we’ve used in the past. That doesn’t mean that nothing will ever work.

http://dynamicridesharing.org/ is a good web site that tracks carpooling innovations.

I can’t quote Moving Cooler tonite because I’m shutting down, but I think one main point is that transit investments aren’t super effective, whereas pricing is super effective. So, again, Moving Cooler, a peer reviewed report with a really big, prominent review committee says 28% GHG reduction for $5 per gallon gas tax. It’s a conclusion from a very solid and recent report. I think it should be required reading.

ZA, do you have a peer-reviewed report suggesting a $XB US transit investment will decrease Y% VMT? It would be great if there was a super transit path to sustainability, but I don’t think it’s easy.

It sure would be nice if we could become more of a biking society. I do think that really high gas prices could bring about a big shift to biking. But the pain level has to sadly be really high for Americans to bike around.

Europe can achieve that because there are often (not always) convenient alternatives in mass transit built on the ruins of war. The US, by comparison, has all of its original legacy infrastructure, and when selectively ruining areas for subsequent development (e.g. minority neighborhoods, undervalued farmland, ‘wilderness’), opted for highways, not more-efficient systems.

Earmarking gas taxes to immediate transit improvements is imperative, and the bus and bicycle seem the most relevant transition technologies available, for the infrastructure we have.

Here’s a look at how low US gas prices (compared to the rest of the world) encourage driving: http://www.cities21.org/gasPriceVsVMT.htm

I think it’s very interesting to see this argument being made that there is political will to “price out driving.” Politically we are definitely seeing the opposite sentiment, where we had Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton “pandering” about keeping gas prices low during her campaign. I’ve done some primary research on willingness of folks to pay more, and I’d say that the topic is extremely nuanced, but there’s a chance of bringing about political will by making a fair pro/con argument and explaining the “Tragedy of the Commons.” In general, policymakers are not asking folks to undertake any inconvenience to protect the climate (or reduce congestion).

I’d like to believe that this means that people would pay a bit more to have better transit option that would shorten their commute (i.e. more bus, train service). However, I think this is more I bet if I pay $10, the guy next to me on the road won’t so there is one less car on the road. If I pay $15, the guy on my other side won’t so there are now two more spots for me on the road.

The reason I think this is because people already can pay a more up front cost for a house that isn’t in the far flung suburb (I’m think of the bay area as an example) but they don’t. They’ll purchase the $400k home in Tracy and commute 2+ hrs into the bay area without truly taking transportation time/money into account.

But then again, maybe I’m looking at this from the wrong angle.