It's a zero sum game. More lanes/roads for commuters means less land for other productive uses. And given the geometry and passenger density of cars (how many t

It's a zero sum game. More lanes/roads for commuters means less land for other productive uses. And given the geometry and passenger density of cars (how many traffic jams are moving 1 person per X cubic feet/meters?) Adding another lane doesn't give you much for the amount of land it uses compared to alternatives. It's unfortunate that low-density areas and the highways they depend on are subsidized by more productive uses of land. It's a tragedy that the people benefiting from that subsidy feel entitled to it and prevent society from developing the land in more sustainable ways. Part of it is a chicken-and-egg problem though... even my city where I live is not immune. Those who live in less developed areas vote against public transportation solutions and stymie progress at every turn while voting for more roads/lanes. It appears rational: they can't get to the public transportation where they are since every amenity is incredibly far (due to cars and road infrastructure, wah wah). So who has to suffer more while we figure out the solution? From a larger ecological perspective, we need to reduce car infrastructure. It's a significant contributor to climate change, air pollution, and unnecessary deaths every year and there are ways to avoid a good deal of those problems (or at least reduce them).