I think he means that those areas would not have developed or be developing in the ways that they have because the people who decided to stick around in those areas would have moved out to sprawlville a long time ago if we had all freeways.
I definitely see Jaybee's point, but at the same time I think sprawl is almost inevitable for a metro area, if not now then later. Freeways/toll roads may encourage that, but fundamentally it is an issue of land. If there is open land, then the tendency of people is to keep expanding and spreading. The US has historically had an abundance of land. If you look at other countries, the situation is not quite the same. I was born in Mumbai and that city is pretty well contained on Mumbai Island. Only recently have newer areas began to develop that might be considered sprawl. India is a large nation as well with plenty of land, but the concept of sprawl has not been a key factor in its history the way it has in the US.
As I type that, I am suddenly reminded of a quote from "The Matrix" about humans being like a virus, moving from area to area and using up every available resource before spreading to another area.