(9/n) The set of policies proposed at the Federal level are so risky that it's very possible, probable even, that they will tank the US economy, which will generally reduce VMT and GHG emissions (see: COVID). It will also be interesting to see how much influence Musk is given in transportation policy and whether Tesla-style electrification becomes part of Trumpism. That would also reduce GHG emissions. These are not fun things to hope for but they might be all the silver lining we get

(8/n) The Internet is no longer a viable place for community action nor organizing of any kind, really; even without the threat of online harassment and a surveillance state there's the tidal wave of AI slop and bots to contend with. Unfortunately, it probably won't be safe in the streets either, whether you're staging a protest or simply riding a bike. A totally separate network of paths and plazas would be ideal--reconsider tearing down skyways, re-evaluate alleyways, build trails.

(7/n) When critical social services and basic rights are under attack, we probably won't be able to defend them using traditional means such as voting, lawsuits, lobbying, or protests. What remains are local community organizing, boycotts, and strikes of various kinds, as well as mutual aid. All of this requires rebuilding local networks and relationships. Urban designers and placemakers should create spaces for community gatherings, both large/public and small/private.

(6/n) Transit service operators are in for a bumpy ride. Expect a lot of talk about privatization and driverless taxis. Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) and community vanpools might need strengthening if the FTA and its funding are no longer reliable (farebox revenue has been falling and never reliably covered costs). If employers are going to demand that employees return to work, they can take steps to make commutes bearable. Expect general strikes to become common.

(5/n) COGs, therefore, seem likely to survive, and the smart ones will probably expand their role because they can offer collective purchasing power to cities and provide services rather than just planning what other agencies should do. Functions like travel demand modeling and regional land use forecasting will still be performed by COGs even if the federal government doesn't require them, because these are regional-scale problems that can't be well-solved by individual cities.

(4/n) However, many MPO's are also regional associations or Councils of Government (COGs) funded by their member jurisdictions. The Met Council of the Twin Cities, where I used to work, is an interesting example because it is technically a state agency, but also a transit service operator, so in addition to its federal funding and long-range transportation planning mandate it has a diverse set of other funding sources and ongoing activities.

(3/n) The future role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) is less clear. Technically, these agencies are funded by the Federal government and their power to evaluate and prioritize transportation projects within urbanized areas could be yanked away and given to State DOTs, who may also be pressured to hand over their role to the private sector. The MPO's role in checking long-range transportation plans for air quality conformity is also likely in the crosshairs.

(2/n) Lower governmental bodies can continue doing what the federal government was supposed to do if local political will is sufficient. This has already been the default mode of operation in California for decades. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative created by a group of northeastern states to limit CO2 emissions in the power sector is another promising example.

(1/n) Now is not the time for blind faith in Federal institutions. It's irrational to expect the US EPA, HUD or DOT to persist in recognizable forms. These agencies will either be completely re-organized and repopulated with loyalists, or simply eliminated.