> and so the result is more traffic. Sure. Freeways aren't art installations -- the freeway is built to service drivers. A newly expanded freeway can now serv

> and so the result is more traffic. Sure. Freeways aren't art installations -- the freeway is built to service drivers. A newly expanded freeway can now service even more drivers before getting congested. It would be pretty pointless to build a freeway, just for no one to use it. > If you want to reduce traffic and get people to their destination faster you need to halt and/or reverse road network expansion Those are two different things, one of which is inherently untrue by definition, for the same reason that "If you want faster internet, you need to halt or reverse fiber deployment" is untrue. Traffic is transportation. If your goal is to reduce transportation, then sure, tear down roads and it will be much harder for people to move around. But that's going to suck for most of the people living there. If your goal is to improve transportation, a freeway is one method of doing that. Improvements to public transit and/or bicycling infrastructure is another method of accomplishing that (obviously one you would prefer), but that doesn't make investments in freeways bad too. It's possible to be pro-public-transit without being anti-personal-transit. LA can need a new freeway and more light rail, those two things are not actually in any conflict.