But, also, a 50% increase in housing supply means higher density of population, with higher buildings instead of single family homes and therefore more comercial space in large populated areas, meaning more jobs will be at walking/biking/short-bus-ride distance.

There are limitations on current build rates though; we'll have to massively increase the construction work force to do anything like this, as it's already not quite able to meet demand here.

Also, given that cars are inherently dangerous, cause environmental harm, and take up a lot of space, it seems like it's in the public interest to discourage car ownership/use.

You must not know a big cross section of people then. Maybe in the downtown core, but a trip across the city will show very little available street parking and most houses with garages filled with cars.

It's a small minority of the city that don't have cars.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/08/15/car-free-households-are...

"Census: 95% of New SF Commuters Since 2006 Don’t Drive Solo"

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/09/25/census-95-of-new-sf-com...

My point is that in many cases, there exists a reasonable city design and style of living where car ownership feels unnecessary and is better seen as a luxury than a right. Certainly there are many situations where car ownership makes sense, but I worry that people are sometimes too attached to the idea of car ownership and either incorrectly view it as a necessity or assume that everyone else needs a car as well.

[1] https://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/08/15/car-free-households-ar...

This is a solved problem.

https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ebt-l... - and that's only the most urgently needed stuff. There are many more rail rights of way and tunnel sites that are easy to build on, like the Permanente Quarry branch line.

Run BART the short way between SF and SJ, build many clusters of high density along heavy transit routes. Let the current freeway dependent population continue to use them, but build housing so that people can get to jobs without using single-occupancy passenger cars.

Also, compared to most other places, traffic laws out here are ridiculously inefficient. For example, light cycles that include a “yield on left turn” step and then skip the left arrow if the lane has cleared are incredibly rare. Also, instead of “left lane fast, right lane slow”, the law is “use whatever lane you’re comfortable in”.

Simply ripping out the “improvements” made in the last decade and bringing traffic laws in line with the rest of the US would increase road capacity by double digit percentages.

(The lack of progress on public transit is also embarrassing, especially given the tax and income levels around here)

Right now local regulations require large amounts of parking, which means large amounts of the most valuable space devoted just to cars, and forcing people to pay for the car. If you're forced to pay an additional 10% in rent to cover the space used for parking, then you're probably going to get a car.

If people were allowed to make the decision to not have cars and reap the financial benefits, we'd see a bigger shift.

As it is, car use is regulated into the way that we build things.

That sounds miserable. Caltrain has much more reasonable rolling stock (i.e. with seats) for that trip.

I don't think we can stop that assumption until we have much better public transit. Cause if the trains aren't running where I need to go, when I need to get there, I have to drive.