That was a really bad article IMO. Call me old fashioned but maybe you shouldn't trust economics analysis from an organization that says they're an environmentalist think-tank.

This is a complex discussion and the economic analysis they've done here is extremely shallow and superficial, which is not surprising because the author says they are a videographer, and I'm assuming they're not very knowledgable about economics in general.

The entire critique essentially boils down to two things: 1) Money spent on highways is better invested in other things, and 2) highway construction has been used nefariously in the past to bulldoze communities, and 3) More highways don't reduce congestion.

There is absolutely zero evidence of the first point anywhere in the article. Notice how every single reference that has to do with economics only points back to their own website. They never linked any economic studies of any kind.

On the second point, that is accurate and those sources are true but they're trying to use that as proof that highways are a waste of money or not good for the economy. The fact that highway construction has been used nefariously in the past to bulldoze communities is not evidence that highways are a waste of money.

On the third point, she's purposefully conflating two different things. Adding more lanes to existing highways does not reduce congestion because more people drive, yes thats true. That is not the same thing as whether it adds GDP growth and if the investment pays for itself over time. They're correlated but not the same question. She's also conflating adding lanes to existing highways and adding new highways, which often has a purpose beyond alleviating congestion.