European urban regions are becoming more similar to American low-density metropolitan areas in the organization of space and in people mobility. On the other hand, in North American cities, high-density neighborhoods and renewed European-like downtowns have become popular. Everywhere in the Western world, it is difficult for any politician to refuse further development. Therefore, although the most innovative planners in the most environment-concerned cities focus on issues such as neighborhood life and go for mixed-use zones, they are not quite successful in limiting urban and traffic growth. Contemporary society is actually formed by several social groups with preferences, experiences, and values often radically diverse. Thus, we cannot offer one single option for urban mobility to respond to a variegated demand. Nonetheless, the mass-society/mass-transportation paradigms still dominate planning and transportation policies in most urban areas in the world. Because of the major public works funding system, it is difficult to avoid the approval of mobility infrastructure, no matter how detrimental, helpful or useless they are. The public finance problem of how to pay for mobility infrastructure is related to: (a) the production system and technologies; (b) basic political values; (c) administrative geography. According to a common planning approach different scenarios for future city and traffic developments are designed. Then, one of them is selected. Another solution is possible: instead of selecting only one of the scenarios, we should respond to citizens’ diverse needs. This approach responds to the opportunity to favor creativeness in administration.