> Yes of course the 20-lane highway is mostly empty. And your experience is fine, but in terms of actual statistics, of how long actual people are stuck in traffic it is actually very relevant. There is constant political demand and pressure to expand capacity, to add more lanes and so on. Because when most people see the roads they are full.

I've been through many cities including Nashville, Atlanta, NYC, Miami, Chicago, LA, LV, Dallas, Houston, etc. & have not encountered a 20-lane highway...but yes, some are very wide at junctions. I used to live in LA & the traffic was bad during rush hour, which encouraged me to avoid the commute...or any commute for that matter since I now WFH. The main issue re: traffic is with the junctions where people have to change lanes & going into/out of cities.

> The problem is that you are forcing poor workers, who need to go to the city, in order to live the have to go to ever further sub-developments and travel ever further, forcing them to have a car and to spend a lot of money on gas.

I'm not forcing anyone to do that & am in favor of public transportation. I'm not in favor of discouraging car traffic, as the United States is very large, federated, & has varied geography. Many people live in the country & small towns as well. Public transportation is an option in many of these areas but not really used because it is far more practical & cost effective to own a vehicle. Many people in the country also have trucks to haul goods & engage in trade.

> This is why the Living&Transport share of peoples income is ever rising. You have land that is worth insane amounts with the best companies in the world having office close buy, but many that work there have to do a 1-2h commute to get there.

The high prices of housing are largely due to speculation & easily available credit. If there can be a solution to home ownership close to the corporate office & a WFH policy, then less commuting travel would be required.

> Maybe in the US, not in most of the world. And even if you do school at home, I think childhood where you are in car depended suburb and you never get to leave sounds horrible. There is a reason so many movies get made in the US about teenagers stuck in suberibia, and only hoping to get a car so they can finally do something.

I think you are making too much out of suburbia. I for one do not want to live in the burbs as there are building restrictions & it requires large amounts of credit to own a home. Home schooling does not necessarily mean being cloistered in the house. It means freedom to choose the method of schooling, which includes getting together with other children/families of your choosing. I've been through the public school system and it was heavily institutionalized & felt like a prison. I would never subject my child to that psychological torture.

Movies don't necessarily reflect reality for many people. My wife grew up in the country on her grandfather's farm & she loved it. The people were friendly & the air was good. I grew up on Maui. The environment there is very nice & there are things to do outside.

> You seem obsessed with credit markets. Short term credit market changes have nothing to do with it, these are systematic problems built in the pattern of development.

I mention credit often because having easily attainable credit drives up home costs leading to your dreaded suburbs as the only option to afford a home while commuting to work. When I had to do it, I took BART from Oakland to SF & it sucked. There are violent people there, I saw shootings, & was attacked while riding my bike. It was far more economical than driving into SF but it would have been better to WFH.

> And the idea that most land is owned by large institutions and government is wrong.

To clarify, I said most of the unavailable land is owned by large institutions & the government. For example, some states such as Utah have a sizable & of land owned by the government & made into the park system. This land is unavailable for home ownership.

> Because you normally don't drive in all those suburb unless you live there. And partly why inner cities are so bad, is because while they make money they use that money to fix roads in the suburbs.

No...these inner cities have a poorly functioning government & are rife with corruption. If they operated more efficiently, then the facilities would improve. For example, SF has a large tax base, yet has bad roads & a high crime rate. Much of the money is spent on cleaning up poop, handing out needles to drug addicts, high government worker salaries, etc. Seattle has riots & even had an "autonomous zone"...all while crime increased.

The suburbs in the Bay Area were a relatively sane place to live. I went to high school for a couple of years in Pleasanton in the East Bay. Having a car was very beneficial. It had a bus system & I rode on it, but it was not something that was very desirable. I commuted from Stockton, CA to San Jose, CA. I got up early a few times to ride the Ace Train but it was about an hour faster to drive...during rush hour...I could wake up later.

> 1. Suburbs are economically terrible for cities and are subsidized

Suburbs have a large tax base. I'm not aware if they are any more subsidized than cities.

> 2. Property tax system gives intensive for low value building

Low income people in Texas are bitterly complaining about the tax increases from the increases of property value largely caused by the inflow of people coming from states such as California.

> 2. The US road network is pretty unsafe

I agree that the road network is unsafe. On my recent trip with a camper, I had to cut across to make the left turn on a junction a few times. Driving through Atlanta metro reminded me of a video game. It was very intense.

> 3. The US has incredibly low numbers of pedestrians and cyclists

For good reason. The US is very large, people want to own land, & there is plenty of land available. We still hike, ride our bikes, & walk, but it's not to travel places...it's simply to get out into the fresh air.

> 4. The US has an incredibly badly develop public transit network

It does. It can improve. It would be great to have a bullet train network travel the US. I hear that there is an underground network of high speed rail but that's considered "conspiracy theory" at this time. Passenger rail would be great to improve. Amtrak receives federal funding but it's badly managed by the government. I have used Amtrak, the NJ rail, & NYC metro subway system from NJ to NYC. That was probably the the most extensive system I have used in the US. It's not very good, it's dirty, & there's crime, but it worked. It works well in NYC & parts of NJ such as Jersey City, but as you go farther from NYC, you still have to drive to the train station because the transportation network cannot handle the bifurcation of supporting everyone's housing preferences.

> 5. Suburbs measure badly when it comes to environmental factors, people that live like that have incredibly high rates of driving. With many trips being less then 5 miles.

Since WFH, there are days where I don't drive even though I live in a rural area. When I lived in Texas, trips to a decent grocery store (Whole Foods) took over an hour. We stocked up & made the trips as infrequently as possible. Again it mainly comes down to cost. People don't like commuting, but are forced to commute to afford rent or home ownership. Again, credit drives up the price of the housing market.

> 6. US roads on avg are not as well maintained as countries with comparable GDP, Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands.

This is mainly a phenomenon of geography & politics. The USA is a much larger company. Also the US provides military to these countries among other costs of Empire. There also an entrenched bureaucracy which has counterproductive environmental laws (that don't actually help the environment) & other expensive requirements. Once the US Empire declines, it will look inward & focus on improving infrastructure.

> 7. US zoning codes with functional separation and overwhelming amounts of single family zoning, is a huge part of the homelessness crisis.

I disagree. Many homeless people are drug addicts & have psychological issues. Many people cannot afford to leave their situations in the city. Rent is very high in metro areas. There is inexpensive land available, but it's difficult to find & expensive and/or disruptive to change one's life to find the right area to live in.

End part 1...