The author makes the same mistake as so many others in assuming that people's behaviour cannot change and that car traffic will always be present. The reality i

The author makes the same mistake as so many others in assuming that people's behaviour cannot change and that car traffic will always be present. The reality is that when car infrastructure is correctly priced and alternatives are available, the behaviour of people changes and car use declines. There's no need for any of this elaborate separation of traffic. The answer to Austin's traffic problems is the same as for all cities. Reduce space for cars (roads and parking) and put that space to better use, whether it be for more efficient transportation options (ie. bicycles and public transit) or for housing and amenities. The author cites Vancouver's grade separated Skytrain as a model to follow but didn't bother looking at the real success of Vancouver's transportation system, which is that as of 2014 only 50% of trips are taken by car. This milestone was achieved not just due to Skytrain, but due to huge gains in walking and cycling trips. Vancouver built a great transit system yes, but has also densified the city, built a great deal of separated bike lanes, never built a freeway, and most important of all has not expanded road capacity at all for decades. Traffic entering the city decreased by 5% since 1996 and entering downtown decreased 20%, while the population living and working in the area has dramatically increased. The amount of cars entering Vancouver's downtown has been unchanged since the 1960s.