[twelvechairs]

The real solution to take the edge of these sort of impacts is some kind of regional 'Bay Area' or 'NorCal' planning and funding, somewhere between the state and the cities. America is a little unique in the developed world for lacking decision bodies at this level as well as having very local ('city' based) taxation decisions [n.b. I generally think this is good].

[eropple]

Depends on where you are in the country. Some states, particularly ones with executive-style county governments, have started making these stronger forms of government, and in others the spread of the transit network is functionally tying municipalities together more strongly in a similar way.

[hedora]

California has a statewide mandate to reduce commuter miles driven over the coming decades (it's an already outdated CO2 measure).

They've been at it for a while now, and the main result has been intentionally crippling the road system at great expense (without fixing public transit). So, I'm not convinced allowing a regional authority more power to sabotage transportation networks is a good idea.

There are also mandates to add affordable housing, but those are either ignored or lead to boondoggles. (Construction is ridiculously overpriced in California. They may as well be mandating affordable dollar bills.)

One way to fix it would be to streamline permitting, etc for new housing (they did this for ADUs, but that's explicitly limited to housing that's inappropriate for families).

Typical permitting delays in south bay are something like 3 years for new construction (enjoy those double mortgage payments!), and nonsensical requirements add at least 50% to construction costs on top of that.

This could be solved in a few months by Sacramento outlawing such practices, then closing and replacing any non-compliant planning departments.