> the connotation is different Of course. One speaks to the potential demand before something changes, and one speaks to the potential demand converting to act

> the connotation is different Of course. One speaks to the potential demand before something changes, and one speaks to the potential demand converting to actual demand after something changed. We went over this already. > We don't say more low-income housing created demand for low-income people. We don't say building a school created demand for children. Of course. More low-income housing does not create demand for low-income people. Building a school does not create demand for children. And expanding a road doesn't create demand for driving. It merely induces it, hence why we call it induced demand, not created demand. > Flipping cause and effect for expansion of roads is wrong. There's really nothing to flip. Whether you use latent demand or induced demand just depends on the point in time you are referring to. In the case of roads, one applies pre-construction, one applies post-construction. It's not like anyone thinks that if we turn the countryside dirt road that sees little more than the occasional tractor into a multi-lane highway that the cars are magically going to show up in droves. It is well understood that we only expand the roads that actually show strong indication that more use will occur when expanded. Hence latent and, later, induced demand – never created demand.