Overall, Alex Karner’s central argument was the problems that were created due to the SB 375 Act. In the article, he uses the SB 375 Act, which is a 2008 California law that requires each of its regions to develop 30-year plans to reduce the number of miles’ people drive each year, to explain how this act never anticipated the consequences of these projects. The SB 375 simulated future travel patterns to evaluate the 30-year plan, but it was very easy for new unanticipated problems to arise. For example, “The San Diego region placed most of its projected investment in public transit near the end of its 30- year planning period to show that it would reduce driving in the future”. This wasn’t a good idea because the environmental harm this would produce would be much greater than the purpose it would serve. Rather than doing unnecessary planning, they should have focused on plans that would benefit California. For example, “With so many people on the road, it’s no wonder that the entire Valley fails to meet federal standards for ozone and fine particle air pollution”. The destinations people need to reach are not close but all their driving is harming the environment. In conclusion, Karner simply wanted people to think of the consequences before they act.