The population is only increasing by immigration. Without immigration, there would be fewer people in the US.
Without exception, whenever the public bitches about congestion, they vote in more taxes to build more roads. This always leads to more development, which leads to a bigger problem than what we originally had. The problem is not solved, but aggrivated.
If the "problem" of government deficits needs to get solved, what do we do? Raise taxes, which makes politicians spend more money which creates higher deficits, or have them reduce spending, and allow the existing taxes to come in line with the current spending.
You can pave every square mile between San Francisco and LA. All you will do is create a bigger, unhealthy mess. Is that what we want?
You operate under the assumption that traffic can be cured. I operate under the assumption that we will always develop in excess of what the infrastructure can support. The question becomes: "How big do you want the mess?"
However, if someone wants to move to an area and pay the taxes to build the infrastructure necessary to support his chosen lifestyle, should we be in the business of telling him to find somewhere else to live?
I thought the gist of this article was that the government was using tax dollars to fund public transportation which would not meet the needs of the community but would instead try to channel the citizens into living a lifestyle they would not normally choose. And, allowing the govenment tell us how to live is a bad thing.
As for curing the traffic problem, I prefer to look for solutions that decrease government involvement in our lives and increase personal freedoms. The idea of a sliding-scale charge for the use of roads based on peak traffic times sounds interesting.
If I want to spend the $$ to commute two hours each way, why is it your business?