4 ms·

I wish we could put the induced demand idea to bed. There are a finite number of people so eventually more roads will help. There are a certain class of ideas

I wish we could put the induced demand idea to bed. There are a finite number of people so eventually more roads will help. There are a certain class of ideas that make people feel superior in conversation so they just stick around no matter how true.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I don't take issue with the concept of induced demand but when people trot it out like it's a bad thing and is a reason not to build something it makes me want to buy a bulldozer and a welder and pay them a house call. Trips are a good thing. They're economic activity. They're people going to visit friends/family. Each trip is a case where the benefit outweighed the cost of the trip. The really infuriating part is that 99.999% (yes, 5 9s) of people who complain about induced demand on roads talk about it like it's a good thing when the context is literally any other form of infrastructure. You can induce demand for parks and subways by carpet bombing a city with them too or making the existing ones more attractive. The concept isn't just for public infrastructure. All sorts of business can induce a lot of demand if you plop it down in the right spot where a lot of potential customers were letting the need go unfilled because the opportunity cost of the next existing best option was too high.
- ForHackernews 5y ago
  > Trips are a good thing. They're economic activity. Spoken like a true capitalist. Not all "economic activity" is good. Sitting in traffic driving to an out-of-town shopping centre to buy groceries because there are no local shops in walking distance may be economic activity, but I'd struggle to call these boring, wasteful trips I'm forced to make a good thing. More like an irritating waste of time and gas.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I have a neighborhood grocer in easy walking distance. The best way I could describe it is “imagine a tiny Whole Foods, except more expensive”. So, we drive to the neighboring, more suburban town to grocery shop.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    If people's local options didn't suck they wouldn't travel. Time isn't free, nobody gets more of it and people love convenience. The fact that the local grocer has to compete with the out of town grocer may be derided by the whole foods crowd but it's a boon for the price sensitive masses. If the local grocer doesn't exist then why? It's either going to boil down to the population density not supporting it or local regulatory oddities making the business economically non-viable.
    - ForHackernews 5y ago
      Often times I feel like every HN comment is just restating the is-ought problem but with $TECH or $MONEY jargon. This is another one of those times.
op00to 5y ago
“Eventually” = all pavable land is dedicated to roads or parking I feel superior because I also have an urban planning background, and I’ve literally done the reading on this.
maccam94 5y ago
People are not finite. They change addresses, have kids, get different jobs, etc. The flows of people shift around over time, and the transportation infrastructure is one factor that influences those flow patterns.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

I don't take issue with the concept of induced demand but when people trot it out like it's a bad thing and is a reason not to build something it makes me want to buy a bulldozer and a welder and pay them a house call. Trips are a good thing. They're economic activity. They're people going to visit friends/family. Each trip is a case where the benefit outweighed the cost of the trip. The really infuriating part is that 99.999% (yes, 5 9s) of people who complain about induced demand on roads talk about it like it's a good thing when the context is literally any other form of infrastructure. You can induce demand for parks and subways by carpet bombing a city with them too or making the existing ones more attractive. The concept isn't just for public infrastructure. All sorts of business can induce a lot of demand if you plop it down in the right spot where a lot of potential customers were letting the need go unfilled because the opportunity cost of the next existing best option was too high.

ForHackernews 5y ago
> Trips are a good thing. They're economic activity. Spoken like a true capitalist. Not all "economic activity" is good. Sitting in traffic driving to an out-of-town shopping centre to buy groceries because there are no local shops in walking distance may be economic activity, but I'd struggle to call these boring, wasteful trips I'm forced to make a good thing. More like an irritating waste of time and gas.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I have a neighborhood grocer in easy walking distance. The best way I could describe it is “imagine a tiny Whole Foods, except more expensive”. So, we drive to the neighboring, more suburban town to grocery shop.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  If people's local options didn't suck they wouldn't travel. Time isn't free, nobody gets more of it and people love convenience. The fact that the local grocer has to compete with the out of town grocer may be derided by the whole foods crowd but it's a boon for the price sensitive masses. If the local grocer doesn't exist then why? It's either going to boil down to the population density not supporting it or local regulatory oddities making the business economically non-viable.
  - ForHackernews 5y ago
    Often times I feel like every HN comment is just restating the is-ought problem but with $TECH or $MONEY jargon. This is another one of those times.

op00to 5y ago

“Eventually” = all pavable land is dedicated to roads or parking I feel superior because I also have an urban planning background, and I’ve literally done the reading on this.

maccam94 5y ago

People are not finite. They change addresses, have kids, get different jobs, etc. The flows of people shift around over time, and the transportation infrastructure is one factor that influences those flow patterns.