Poor analogy. More bandwidth does not occupy more physical space. Wider highways, very much so, to the point of producing an environment hostile to peaceful living, more noise and pollution, barriers to walking and nature etc.
The grandparent wasn't making a general case for the net benefit of added lanes, they were addressing the narrow argument of "induced demand" somehow proving that improvements are futile. And for that purpose the analogy was pretty good.
People are going to drive to work. Attempts at carpooling have been utter failures. Wider highways means more capacity means more people will take them, which is actually better for noise and pollution and safety, than driving on surface streets. Idling waiting for a red light is far worse, emissions-wise, than 15-20 mph in a freeway "traffic jam". People don't expect to walk across a freeway, they do expect to be able to walk across the streets near their home, which becomes nearly impossible when traffic is so bad on the freeway that everybody starts taking the off-freeway "shortcut" or "bypass" that your kids ride their bike on.
lol, what?
You’ll be happy to know traffic accidents and fatalities have been on a much steeper decline in the Netherlands than in the US, ever since in the 70s they implemented their transit&bike-first policies and started demolishing freeways. Also, ever hear of roundabouts? :)
Obviously most US cities are extremely car-centric today but that's hardly evidence that it necessarily must always be so.
Having everyone use individual vehicles for all transportation needs is generally fine when cities are small but it scales very poorly. That's what we're witnessing here.