You're ranting at the wrong group, they are just trying to get the most done in the least amount of time and disruption, hence lowest cost.
I dunno, I have three cats, a big part of my life revolves around them, and it's pretty great.
(I know, I know...)
When there are little cars you wouldn't say that there is traffic. That's just how the language is.
Also, cars create mobility issues by injuring people.
This is how train networks the world over were built, with train companies buying up land and then developing or leasing it out after their railways made it valuable. It's how successful transit companies operate in Asia and remain profitable, building shopping malls and hotels on and around their stations.
It doesn't require population density (that comes after the development), it doesn't require government support (although it helps, especially if the government is subsidizing roads), but it does require investment and long-term planning.
People have a right to travel the way they want, and pay tax money to do so.
Climate change isn’t some doomsday. Relax about it, I promise you that you and billions of others will be fine. Many of us are tired of living our lives for the Doomsday Climate Cult.
What you want is a train.
decades of peer reviewed, real world verifiable evidence against your recommendation exists, and every single municipality responsible for maintaining roads the world over now plans for this actuality.
Can yu provide a single example of expanding lanes on a public thoroughfare reduced congestion? SEE: LA, Baltimore, etc.
...as long as they only want to travel by car.
And the way to do that is to give people alternatives to driving.