TLDR there is a service/good that is useful (point-to-point personal transport) and in high-demand. This whole notion of "induced demand" seems like a suspicio

TLDR there is a service/good that is useful (point-to-point personal transport) and in high-demand. This whole notion of "induced demand" seems like a suspicious artificial label used to position roads as a negative. The reality is that roads provide something people want - the ability to get around quickly, on one's own terms, without dealing with waiting times or trip planning, and without some of the unsavory experiences that can sour public transit (e.g. https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-5...). Building roads doesn't "induce" demand. Rather, it _fulfills_ it. There is a limit to that demand - it's not like supplying infinitely more of something would infinitely scale the associated behavior. There are only so many humans and only so many trips they are willing to make in a day. And an area that is 100% roads obviously would not have any destinations worth traveling to (leaving aside edge cases like race tracks). So as far as I can tell, this is just regular supply-demand: people want something, and supplying it satisfies that need. Why is this noteworthy except that it lends dubious credence to a narrative Vox likes to push?