Over the years on this blog, we've spoken a lot about dynamic pricing when it comes to roads and traffic congestion. And in this instance, the principal intents are to price congestion, improve traffic flows, and encourage other modes of transport. It follows the logic that if you're going to tax things, tax the things you want less of.

But what about using dynamic pricing for the opposite purpose -- to induce demand?

Diana Lind recently wrote about this here and talked about how London is exploring using dynamic pricing on its transit system. But rather than increasing prices during periods of high demand, I would imagine that the idea is to reduce prices when demand is lower. Already, it is piloting reduced fares on Fridays when its ridership drops by about 10%.

It's an interesting idea because, if done correctly, it should get more bums into seats on transit. And maybe it's actually a more equitable pricing model.

Here is an argument that Philadelphia-based Diana Lind recently made on her blog, The New Urban Order:

I believe we’re at the beginning of the end of private car ownership in American cities. This idea came from thinking about the next steps when our RAV4 dies in the coming year or so: not only shouldn’t we replace it, but we won’t want to replace it. Right now only about a quarter of Americans do not drive to work, and only 9 percent of Americans do not have access to a car at all. But I think that in the coming decade there’s going to be a ton of potential to convert people living in dense cities and neighborhoods away from private cars.

There are a number of reasons for why she believes this is going to be the case and, to quickly summarize, they are: remote work, declining birth rates, more old people, Uber and other services, and autonomous vehicles. And generally, I would agree that there is a strong case to be made here.

But one thing that she does not explicitly talk about is the relevance of built form in this move away from private car ownership. She does mention "people living in dense cities" (see above), but does this mean that we are to assume density will remain a prerequisite, as it mostly is today?

Urban density dictates so much of how we move around. When I was driving around Paris during the summer, I couldn't wait to return our car and get back on foot. You should have also seen the gymnastics we pulled off to refill the tank. Driving in the city was annoying. Paris is designed for walking, taking the metro and, now, cycling.

On the other hand, when I land in Salt Lake City (Park City), the first thing I do is head to the car rental area. The city is getting better at trying to reorient itself, and there is a tram (Green Line) that runs from the airport through downtown, but it very much remains a driving city. And ideally you want something like a Toyota 4Runner that will take you through snow and up steep pitches.

So while I agree that, directionally, Diana is right, I think the question remains: What does this mean for individual cities and their built environments? In a city like Paris, it is obvious. Private car ownership is highly likely to continue declining. But in a place like Salt Lake City, I think it's going to be much more challenging and take a lot longer.

Photo by Chris Henry on Unsplash

A good friend of mine in Philadelphia just recommended a new book to me by Diana Lind called, Brave New Home: Our Future in Smarter, Simpler, Happier Housing. I haven't read it yet, so I can't in good conscience recommend it to you all or comment with any sort of precision.

But the New York Times seems to think that Diana has convincingly argued that the single-family home is at least partially to blame for a whole host of our societal challenges -- everything from economic inequality to loneliness.

This is, of course, not an entirely new narrative. But it is perhaps a timely read given that we are living through a period of time where loneliness seems to be on the rise and people are allegedly fleeing our urban centers in search of space and distance.