The policies you suggest to protect parking are exactly what make traffic worse. 1. Less dense development creates suburban sprawl. This means new people live

The policies you suggest to protect parking are exactly what make traffic worse. 1. Less dense development creates suburban sprawl. This means new people live farther away from their jobs than existing residents. 2. Those new people have to drive more miles each day than existing residents. ie traffic congestion is super linear on population growth. 3. The intersections that become bottlenecks get worse every year. Texas style sprawl spreads out the offices more so their average commute times go up every year at a slower rate (but they still go up). The only proven solution is to allow housing that's dense enough for public transit to work efficiently. I'm not saying your motivations are based in classism, racism, and fear, but the people motivated enough to engage in the political process "protecting the suburbs" generally are. They're smart enough to educate themselves on these issues, see the consequences, and say, "yes, this is what I want". Residential zoning creates geographic segregation between rich and poor. In America that also means the housing crisis is making racial segregation worse(https://belonging.berkeley.edu/roots-structural-racism https://belonging.berkeley.edu/roots-structural-racism). With the way public services are primarily administered at local level, once people are segregated then richer, whiter areas get the best schools, better parks, better maintained infrastructure, faster emergency response times, etc Ironically, early residential zoning had explicitly bad intentions, but the impact was limited because there was so much land available to build on. 75 years later the consequences have escalated.