The first two paragraphs of this article are crap, typical of the "journalism" of today.
A groundbreaking study ... has pinpointed a small group of
drivers making Bay Area freeways miserable for the rest of
us...
You mean the other drivers, incremental vehicles coming from other sources, are simply not contributing to traffic misery? Who knew?! At least the solution is both obvious and simple: the "small group of drivers" should clearly be "gotten rid of" so the misery of the virtuous is removed. Line 'em up against the wall...
...they come from a few outlying neighborhoods and travel
long distances together in the same direction like schools
of fish -- clogging up not only the roads they drive on,
but also everyone else's.
You mean, they're "everyone else's" roads, and these cheeky interlopers are taking what rightfully belongs (only) to "everyone else"? And the other commuter vehicles are not traveling together "like schools of fish"?
Why do the (government) planning departments bear NO responsibility for the results of _their_ decisions? Specifically, they have the final say regarding where houses, apartments, roads, shopping centers, ad infinitum, are built. Yet the ultimate fault is with people who simply chose to live in certain locations, rather than bad capacity planning prior to their homes being approved to be built?
The rest of the article discuss government solutions and metered lights though. Misleading, populist headlines and first paragraphs are staple of modern journalism.
Why do the (government) planning departments bear NO responsibility for the results of _their_ decisions? Specifically, they have the final say regarding where houses, apartments, roads, shopping centers, ad infinitum, are built. Yet the ultimate fault is with people who simply chose to live in certain locations, rather than bad capacity planning prior to their homes being approved to be built?