California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic
Federal, state, and local governments have ignored &quot;induced demand&quot; for 50 years and the result has been endless highway building. This is an effective subsidy for &quot;sprawl&quot; and is a huge driver of why the US built environment looks the way it does. Most of the US is &quot;car dependent&quot; - ie you must have a car to reasonably participate in the city - yes there are buses but they are not as convenient as having a car, yes there are bike lanes but they are dangerous and sparse.<p>I think the thing that we have to get through our heads is that sprawl is the result of many subsidies - NOT just peoples&#x27; preference to live that way. Take a look at any place where zoning hasn&#x27;t required such high parking or low maximum densities; any place where government housing loan guarantees were equally available to dense developments as new single family home developments; or any place where governments have made reasonable attempt to add the cost of negative externalities of driving to fuel taxes. You&#x27;ll see a lot less driving and a lot more walking, transit, and biking. For example - Canada or Spain.<p>Every time one of these articles comes up on here there are lots of Bay Area folks saying &quot;but I like to drive my own car&quot;. That is fine, but don&#x27;t make everyone else subsidize it.<p>We&#x27;ve dug ourselves into a major hole with car dependence. Lots of cities are digging out and building density especially in their abandoned downtowns - this is doubly amazing considering how stacked the deck is against them.