It's sort of funny that you think you're making some sort of argument. If your only concern is roads, then stick to that topic; there was no reason to bring up liberals, light rail and to directly ask me:

"I'm also wondering if you realize you are directly countering your own arguments on light rail lines with this obstructionist thinking.".

I'm not a liberal. I have mixed feelings about light rail and therefore never mentioned it but I know why you brought up both: it's rhetoric. It's the same reason every comment you make in any reply is a sort of negative pseudo intellectual dismissal in your reply: You don't seem to have the self discipline or skill to make a dispassionate, reasoned argument. So you resort to rhetoric.

But if you really want to bring light rail into the equation, based on the rule of "induced demand" which suggests that increasing capacity increases congestion, then yes, the increases capacity created by some drivers switching to trains will ultimately be replaced by other drivers. There likely is no improvement for drivers by adding light rail, but what light rail does give is an alternative to sitting in the same amount of traffic with more people (in more lanes). Other benefits of course are environmental: at least in the short term, it can help reduce green house gas emissions by getting more cars of the road (im allowing for the fact that alternative fuel sources are a pro car pro environment solution).

Let's also be clear that being pro "something other than building more roads" is not anti car or anti spending infrastructure money on roads. Congestion can be alleviated by improving existing roads; Mn has plenty of cloverleaf intersections connecting freeways and they're a terrible design that do nothing but: increase congestion and contribute to unsafe driving conditions. Further, technological improvements such as self driving car and "smart roads" are also areas of improvement that are not "anti car".

Now let's go back to your one rebuttal:

"Meeting the needs of the people. If a road is expanded and traffic is still issue, that'sa clear sign that the expansion was needed.".

Let's start with your second assertion; no it's not a clear sign the expansion is needed. It's also a sign of "induce demand" which you're not going to solve with more new roads putting you back at square one: same congestion followed by another expansion with years of construction and hundreds of millions spent.

Second, "Meeting the needs of the people". What does that even mean? Define it. Quantify it as something measurable so we can evaluate if it's an effective policy.

Finally, regarding my link to the cal trans funded white paper synopsis - so you think caltrans and the US Department of Transportation are some sort of fringe "anti car" think tanks? Ok. That's very debatable and sounds like a pretty lazy assumption of yours.