In the SF Bay Area (which is mentioned in the article), they have repeatedly cut back or held capacities constant for both the freeway system and public transit.

This benefits no one except people that own houses near job centers (since it increases real estate pricing discrepancies).

Due to the local political structure, small town governments are able to sabotage the entire region's transportation network, perpetuating the problem.

The NIMBY's that support this use studies liked the linked one to justify this behavior (which is rent-seeking at best and racial/economic discrimination at worst).

I believe things are better where you live; I'm just trying to explain why your comments are controversial with the HN crowd.

Personally, I'd like more roads, parking, public transit, and bike lanes. It would alleviate some of the housing pressure in Silicon Valley, lowering real estate costs, which would improve the quality of service industries, increase the efficiency with which VC money is spent, and generally enable more startups.