> no one copulates based on the national availability of housing[...]

The GP's point is nonsense, but people most definitely do start families based on the overall cost of having kids, and housing plays a major role.

Again though I would say house prices are locally decided, not nationally. San Francisco house prices aren't influenced by $cheap_area_across_country

Vast majority of people don't drive just because a road got wider either. Build a 2x3 highway pointing nowhere and you'll get just a dozen of enthusiasts hold an illegal race on an empty road...

Actually, that nowhere place then becomes possible to develop. And that development will increase traffic, on the new road and on the roads it connects to.

That's the real reason you build more and wider roads. But it's for some reason sold as a way to reduce traffic.

On this side of the world usually it's vice versa. Developers start building on cheap land with little infrastructure. Then increasing population forces government to improve infrastructure decades later. By the time construction is done, it's already outdated and overcrowded.

Even if it happens your way... Is it wrong that an interesting location opens up at the end of new road? E.g. a restaurant or trailhead? Yes, it would increase traffic. But on the other hand, this would also let people do things.

No, but your commute is probably bounded by time, not distance. If you can only travel 5 miles in X time, you'll get the best job in that radius. If you can travel 60 miles, the odds are your job will end up being further away. Rinse and repeat for shopping, socialising, etc, etc, etc.

Cool. Now you have more job opportunities, can keep up with your friends further away and have wider choice of shopping/eating out/etc place. No need to stick to shitty place next door.

really cool