3 ms·

Exactly! If building a new lane doesn't immediately ease congestion then demand hasn't been "induced" it's just that the already existing demand has been demons

Exactly! If building a new lane doesn't immediately ease congestion then demand hasn't been "induced" it's just that the already existing demand has been demonstrated as being insufficiently addressed. That's the case most of the time anyway. There are situations where making travel along a road better does improve the situation at first, but it leads to attracting the development of new destinations along that route which can increase the demand for travel on that same road. For most places the amount of redesign required to fix our terrible traffic infrastructure is going to be a huge problem, but there's hope for new developments and growing cities to avoid these problems and provide amazing public transportation, bike lines, walkable spaces, and better zoning.

waveBidder 3y ago
that's called latent demand, not induced. induced demand is people changing e.g. housing in response. like all those businesses that start around train stations.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  I would argue that is still latent demand, just on a geographically larger scale. If demand were met (globally) then adding a train line (or highway, or stroad) would have a neglible impact on traffic and business development patterns - because everyone can already get to their needs and wants in a timely and economic fashion and therefore has at most casual incentive to use the new infrastructure. For instance a literal "road to nowhere" may 'induce demand' but only because there is unmet demand elsewhere.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bluGill 3y ago
  Even as the world population starts to decline (expected in the 2080s according to the UN), cities are likely to expand for a while as people move out of rural areas. Which means that just population projections for your lifetime imply that your city will be growing in population for your lifetime. Therefore there will be more demand for travel over time (unless you build so much that you get ahead - good luck as this is expensive)
  - waveBidder 3y ago
    there's nothing wrong with inducing demand; the point is that cars are extremely inefficient at meeting that demand
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ravetcofx 3y ago
Latent demand is still a poor argument to widening. Those people either wouldn't have traveled as much or taken alternative transportation. Dumping money into the least efficient, effective and most expensive form of infrastructure is not a good model going forward. Highways bring a fraction of economic benefit compared to trains, bus lanes and pedestrianized communities.

waveBidder 3y ago

that's called latent demand, not induced. induced demand is people changing e.g. housing in response. like all those businesses that start around train stations.

thereisnospork 3y ago
I would argue that is still latent demand, just on a geographically larger scale. If demand were met (globally) then adding a train line (or highway, or stroad) would have a neglible impact on traffic and business development patterns - because everyone can already get to their needs and wants in a timely and economic fashion and therefore has at most casual incentive to use the new infrastructure. For instance a literal "road to nowhere" may 'induce demand' but only because there is unmet demand elsewhere.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bluGill 3y ago
Even as the world population starts to decline (expected in the 2080s according to the UN), cities are likely to expand for a while as people move out of rural areas. Which means that just population projections for your lifetime imply that your city will be growing in population for your lifetime. Therefore there will be more demand for travel over time (unless you build so much that you get ahead - good luck as this is expensive)
- waveBidder 3y ago
  there's nothing wrong with inducing demand; the point is that cars are extremely inefficient at meeting that demand

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ravetcofx 3y ago

Latent demand is still a poor argument to widening. Those people either wouldn't have traveled as much or taken alternative transportation. Dumping money into the least efficient, effective and most expensive form of infrastructure is not a good model going forward. Highways bring a fraction of economic benefit compared to trains, bus lanes and pedestrianized communities.