You're saying that highway construction encourages building of new housing, enough to use up all the new highway capacity, but that this doesn't bring down housing costs. This is quite an extraordinary claim that goes against basic economics. I don't believe it.

I think you and others have convinced yourselves that this is true because you like the conclusion: that we should stop building highways. But it's a tortured argument that doesn't make basic economic sense.

> They could have better lives with transit.

Then build the transit! I am all for building better public transit! I am all for dense urban development, downtown residential highrises, mixed-use walkable neighborhoods, etc. We can do all of these things -- and also expand highways. With all the options available, people will choose what's actually best for them. If you're right, then people will stop using the highway and it won't be congested anymore. Win win!

I really do not believe in refusing to give people what they want because we think they'd be better off with something else that we're also not building.

Highway and car infrastructure are the most inefficient way to use land in urban environments. The higher density, the worse cars are. I can't really justify using cars except for interfacing with rural areas.