4 ms·

I have yet to receive a convincing answer why induced demand does not similarly apply to/or is not a concern for welfare programs, homeless shelters or public t

I have yet to receive a convincing answer why induced demand does not similarly apply to/or is not a concern for welfare programs, homeless shelters or public transportation. I find it suspect that this theory is apparently only applied to roads, and largely by people who commute by bike.

sofixa 5y ago
The article literally discusses that in the second part.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  I said convincing answer. My read is that by the theory of induced demand the best way to eliminate bike deaths is to eliminate bike lanes and therefore people on bikes.
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    The best way to eliminate car deaths is to eliminate cars, too. But obviously we're not doing that either. I'm not clear what you're trying to accomplish by juxtaposing induced demand with transportation fatalities, when the two concepts don't seem to have any special connection.
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      > The best way to eliminate car deaths is to eliminate cars, too. But obviously we're not doing that either. As far as I can tell that is exactly the outcome the induced demand folks are hoping for, or something close to it.
      - crazygringo 5y ago
        I'm sorry, who are "induced demand folks"? What does that even mean? And I'm unaware of anyone proposing the elimination of cars as serious policy. At most it's limiting vehicles in parts of dense pedestrian city centers. People who are generally "left-leaning" on transportation envision a healthy mix between public transportation, cycling, and cars. They simply want car usage to be balanced with alternatives, rather than cars dominating by default. Virtually everyone recognizes that cars are necessary for a wide variety of uses. They're not going away, so I don't think you need to worry about that.
crazygringo 5y ago
> why induced demand does not similarly apply to/or is not a concern for welfare programs It does in certain circumstances, like when you'd get 90% of your paycheck if you quit your job, and so people quit. Which is why smart welfare programs provide benefits in a gradual way rather than at a single cutoff -- e.g. how the Affordable Care Act subsidies were designed. > homeless shelters Again, it does. Cities with excellent homeless shelters and care literally attract homeless people from parts of the country without. Remember the scandal about cities literally buying homeless people bus tickets to send them somewhere else, to try to address the problem? This is a known issue, and a good justification for why social services funding ought to be provided at the national level rather than at the city level. > or public transportation It does absolutely. Entire cities spring up after a rail line is built. I guess my question to you is -- what are you trying to argue? Induced demand isn't just a property of roads, and I don't know any author who says it's exclusive to roads. It seems like a straw-man you've constructed. But the concept is often raised in conversations about roads, because many people naively believe that widening a road will solve congestion.
burlesona 5y ago
It gets applied to roads because people keep trying to “solve” traffic without pricing roads. Nobody likes being stuck in traffic, but unfortunately it seems most people are also angrily opposed to tolls which would balance supply and demand and allow roads to flow smoothly (for those willing to pay). There’s a faction of people who _swear_ that if we just built one more highway we’ll _solve_ traffic. That’s who the “induced demand” argument is aimed at. To your broader point, all services work like this to a point; if you first suppose there’s insufficient supply to meet demand, then adding supply can induce more demand. There’s an eventual saturation point for everything though. Tear down all the buildings downtown and replace them with parking lots. There will be plenty of unused parking and no more rush hour as there’s no longer a reason to go downtown.

sofixa 5y ago

The article literally discusses that in the second part.

willcipriano 5y ago
I said convincing answer. My read is that by the theory of induced demand the best way to eliminate bike deaths is to eliminate bike lanes and therefore people on bikes.
- crazygringo 5y ago
  The best way to eliminate car deaths is to eliminate cars, too. But obviously we're not doing that either. I'm not clear what you're trying to accomplish by juxtaposing induced demand with transportation fatalities, when the two concepts don't seem to have any special connection.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    > The best way to eliminate car deaths is to eliminate cars, too. But obviously we're not doing that either. As far as I can tell that is exactly the outcome the induced demand folks are hoping for, or something close to it.
    - crazygringo 5y ago
      I'm sorry, who are "induced demand folks"? What does that even mean? And I'm unaware of anyone proposing the elimination of cars as serious policy. At most it's limiting vehicles in parts of dense pedestrian city centers. People who are generally "left-leaning" on transportation envision a healthy mix between public transportation, cycling, and cars. They simply want car usage to be balanced with alternatives, rather than cars dominating by default. Virtually everyone recognizes that cars are necessary for a wide variety of uses. They're not going away, so I don't think you need to worry about that.

crazygringo 5y ago

> why induced demand does not similarly apply to/or is not a concern for welfare programs It does in certain circumstances, like when you'd get 90% of your paycheck if you quit your job, and so people quit. Which is why smart welfare programs provide benefits in a gradual way rather than at a single cutoff -- e.g. how the Affordable Care Act subsidies were designed. > homeless shelters Again, it does. Cities with excellent homeless shelters and care literally attract homeless people from parts of the country without. Remember the scandal about cities literally buying homeless people bus tickets to send them somewhere else, to try to address the problem? This is a known issue, and a good justification for why social services funding ought to be provided at the national level rather than at the city level. > or public transportation It does absolutely. Entire cities spring up after a rail line is built. I guess my question to you is -- what are you trying to argue? Induced demand isn't just a property of roads, and I don't know any author who says it's exclusive to roads. It seems like a straw-man you've constructed. But the concept is often raised in conversations about roads, because many people naively believe that widening a road will solve congestion.

burlesona 5y ago

It gets applied to roads because people keep trying to “solve” traffic without pricing roads. Nobody likes being stuck in traffic, but unfortunately it seems most people are also angrily opposed to tolls which would balance supply and demand and allow roads to flow smoothly (for those willing to pay). There’s a faction of people who _swear_ that if we just built one more highway we’ll _solve_ traffic. That’s who the “induced demand” argument is aimed at. To your broader point, all services work like this to a point; if you first suppose there’s insufficient supply to meet demand, then adding supply can induce more demand. There’s an eventual saturation point for everything though. Tear down all the buildings downtown and replace them with parking lots. There will be plenty of unused parking and no more rush hour as there’s no longer a reason to go downtown.