As a city planner, this is an example of many things that we do wrong with planning our built environments; but it's also an example of choices having negative consequences.
Our built environments do not take into account enough transit-oriented development. We rely on fragmented mass transit with questionable efficiency, while our road network creeps out in unplanned and unregulated ways. Our new built environments need to do much more to orient new development around key transportation hubs, both for the use of mass transit and the more efficient use of automobiles, by increasing density and including mixed-use development.
But we as consumers need to make smarter decisions about where we buy. A million considerations go into where we decide to live, so I don't mean to call the OP out, but people in general do a poor job of considering elements related to their commute/transportation. Too often the size and cost of the house are the primary (or only) consideration. People want to get as much house as they can for their budget, and that often pushes them into new development, or into areas that are decentralized. While cost is a critical consideration, we as human beings need more than just the biggest house for our budget. By choosing these homes, we incentivize the further development of decentralized residential, so we're feeding the beast. The result is miserable commutes and a frustration that we get charged for parking in our dense urban areas. Consumers need to be more holistic in their approach towards housing, adding the commute to their list of priorities and working the costs of a commute into their budget. Consumers also need to factor in their time spent commuting/being stuck in traffic; is that four bedroom house with 2.5 baths worth being stuck in traffic 45 minutes a day, five days a week, for years? Regardless of the answer, you at least need to ask the question.
