> ultimately more traffic as people realize they need the expense of a car to fully get around.

Well, IMO that’s an indicator of a misdesigned rail system. In a properly designed rail system, one should prefer using the subways instead of cars, and use them most of the time. They should not use the car most of the time, for example commute.

> I also wonder whether it has led to more people moving here, increased rents, and ultimately more traffic

This argument applies to anything that improves a city.

By that logic, any movement to decrease rents will degrade a city.

This inverse statement is not equivalent to the parent comment. The logically equivalent contrapositive is "something to degrade a city will decrease rents". Though, this might be an intentional confusion.

The same argument applies to highways or any other type of transportation infrastructure improvements.

For what it’s worth, I’ve been in LA 25 years, and the perennial traffic jam around downtown (say, the 110 west of DTLA, and the 10 west of DTLA) was getting bad long before the light rail system was built out. It’s the cars.

I've been in L.A longer than 25 years. I'm a bit confused by your comment as the the light rail system has been around for more than 25 years.

Additionally, traffic today is very different than what it was in 1995 and I would shocked if you disagreed. We also have another million people.