3 ms·

Induced demand has been thoroughly debunked [1]. If you build a 20 lane no-stops highway from Fresno to Reno, you might see some use shift from other routes, bu

by mike_d 3y ago

Induced demand has been thoroughly debunked [1]. If you build a 20 lane no-stops highway from Fresno to Reno, you might see some use shift from other routes, but it does not spur a horde of people to buy cars so they can drive the route. It is just a convenient thought experiment to point at for people who don't want to invest in infrastructure to meet current demand. You could make a genuine argument that demand should not exist because people should be taking busses, trains, submarines, or whatever. But continuing to kneecap public infrastructure only furthers the perception that trains might be a good idea, but will become unreliable and packed when NIMBYs decide to turn their attention to noise or whatever and demand we build less track. I've been in the Bay Area 20 something years now and I have never seen 101 or 280 meaningfully expanded, so no we haven't actually tried it. 1. https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth

acdha 3y ago
> If you build a 20 lane no-stops highway from Fresno to Reno, you might see some use shift from other routes, but it does not spur a horde of people to buy cars so they can drive the route. That’s misunderstanding the concept: in our hypothetical superhighway, it’s true that people who already lived on that route wouldn’t buy more cars to drive it but that was never the claim. What was claimed is what we saw throughout the 20th century: people would favor car commutes along that route because it’s faster so they could get more house for their budget by living further out of the cities. That’s fine at first but inevitably hits the spatial inefficiency of cars unless the local economy isn’t active enough, at which point you can’t afford road maintenance.
- mike_d 3y ago
  Thank you this is a great example of my point. Induced demand, despite having no hard evidence to support it, feels like it should be the answer. We could talk all day about the concept of going out and seeing for yourself in a large field there is no curve and how the "concept" just makes sense, but flat earth has the same amount of evidence.

by mike_d 3y ago

acdha 3y ago

> If you build a 20 lane no-stops highway from Fresno to Reno, you might see some use shift from other routes, but it does not spur a horde of people to buy cars so they can drive the route. That’s misunderstanding the concept: in our hypothetical superhighway, it’s true that people who already lived on that route wouldn’t buy more cars to drive it but that was never the claim. What was claimed is what we saw throughout the 20th century: people would favor car commutes along that route because it’s faster so they could get more house for their budget by living further out of the cities. That’s fine at first but inevitably hits the spatial inefficiency of cars unless the local economy isn’t active enough, at which point you can’t afford road maintenance.

mike_d 3y ago
Thank you this is a great example of my point. Induced demand, despite having no hard evidence to support it, feels like it should be the answer. We could talk all day about the concept of going out and seeing for yourself in a large field there is no curve and how the "concept" just makes sense, but flat earth has the same amount of evidence.