6 ms·

i think the point of "induced demand" is that you sometimes can't really fix -- specifically -- traffic or parking congestion problems by building more. if you

i think the point of "induced demand" is that you sometimes can't really fix -- specifically -- traffic or parking congestion problems by building more. if you widen the roads, in many cases it won't make your commute any quicker. if you add more parking spots downtown, more people will drive downtown. it's not that there's no benefit to the wider road or parking spots, just that the benefit people really care about -- less traffic and quicker trips, less time searching for a parking spot -- often fails to materialize.

rufus_foreman 2y ago
>> if you add more parking spots downtown, more people will drive downtown But that's good if you wan't more people to drive downtown, isn't it? What am I missing here?
- Jensson 2y ago
  > What am I missing here? That downtown is now a concrete hellscape instead of a pleasant place to be. Your solution ensures that always happens, overall people prefer less infrastructure built for cars, but if it is there of course they will use it.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    This just isnt true. Every metro area in the US has highways. Including the dense ones. NYC and Chicago are not concrete hellscapes
    - Jensson 2y ago
      You say NYC and Chicago has enough highways to fill demand so there is no congestion? I am fairly certain that isn't true, I've read so much about congestion problems in NYC at least. Adding enough roads to fill all demand leads to concrete hellscapes, that was the point, the guy I responded to thought it was reasonable to add roads until all demand was satisfied.
      - HDThoreaun 2y ago
        No one is saying no congestion. The idea of highway expansion is to allow more people to travel while keeping congestion about constant. NYC and Chicago's highways allow the massive suburban areas and the tens of millions that live in them to semi conveniently go to the city. To do that with trains would require driving to a commuter rail station and then transferring to the metro to get where you want to go. Suburbanites just wouldnt go to the city in that case unless the destination is easily accessible on the commuter rail
        dangus 2y ago
        Chicago and NYC have huge commuter rail networks that accomplish exactly what you’re claiming is impractical. The Metra commuter rail in Chicago handles over 2.5 million trips per month. 59 percent of the people who commute to Manhattan do so via public transit. People commute to work to Manhattan from Connecticut and New Jersey by train. Penn Station is the busiest transportation facility in the Western hemisphere, serving 600,000 passengers a day, primarily commuter rail and regional rail. And that’s just one station. One subway tunnel with two tracks is equivalent to something like a 15 lane highway in passenger throughput. That’s where highway expansion truly falls apart: it only really scales up to a small to mid-sized cities before the land waste becomes a burden. A lot of urban highways have no way to add lanes because there is no more physical space, or you have to destroy the actual destinations that the highway is supposed to serve to expand it. I will also add that there are a decent amount of suburbs with walkable downtowns along those NYC and Chicago (and Boston!) commuter rail networks where you can buy a condo, rent an apartment, or even a buy a single family home within walking or biking distance of commuters rail and go downtown. In addition, suburban bus lines that feed people into commuter rail stops also exist. So it’s not all park and rides. And park and rides still help spread traffic across the metro area highway network instead of sending all traffic into to a handful of highways going downtown. If I drive to my town’s commuter rail stop my car is probably not even getting on a highway.
        HDThoreaun 2y ago
        Commuter rail only works if you want to go within a mile of one of the stations. No one wants to take the commuter rail and then get on another train. The people who use commuter rail in Chicago at least all also have a car that they use to get to the city whenever they’re doing anything else since the train only goes to the business area
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- zip1234 2y ago
  At some point when you clear out all the actual places to go in order to add parking and make it easy to drive there, people realize there is nothing down there and stop going, at which point you just have what happened to Detroit.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    Have you been to downtown Detroit lately? It's beautiful (and easily navigable by car anytime the Detroit GP isn't going on...)
  - foobazgt 2y ago
    My experience is the opposite. The harder it becomes to visit a locale, the less likely I become to visit it. Eventually I decide it's not worth visiting at all.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- crooked-v 2y ago
  I think the counterpart question to that is, given how space-inefficient cars are, how many actual people do you enable by adding that car capacity, and how does that number compare to even basic public transit options?
- currymj 2y ago
  the dream is that if i already have to drive downtown, if only there were more parking spots, i could always find one easily instead of driving around searching. but this often won’t happen.
- seadan83 2y ago
  If it means way fewer people took alternative means, then perhaps it is not good. Particularly when OP mentioned the original goal was to reduce travel times - which the widening did not. "it's not that there's no benefit to the wider road or parking spots, just that the benefit people really care about -- less traffic and quicker trips, less time searching for a parking spot -- often fails to materialize."
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
  That the roads were added based on a request to make it quicker for existing commuters, not to get more commuters there in the same amount of time. And that if you’d used that time, space and money for a dedicated bus lane, a train, a tram or whatever, you might have done better on both adding to the number of people downtown and making it quicker to get there.
- albedoa 2y ago
  I simply would have refrained from writing multiple paragraphs about how good induced demand is until I understood the answer to this question.
- isthatafact 2y ago
  Of all the times I have been downtown, I have never once wished there were more cars. A downtown without cars could be so much better.

rufus_foreman 2y ago

>> if you add more parking spots downtown, more people will drive downtown But that's good if you wan't more people to drive downtown, isn't it? What am I missing here?

Jensson 2y ago
> What am I missing here? That downtown is now a concrete hellscape instead of a pleasant place to be. Your solution ensures that always happens, overall people prefer less infrastructure built for cars, but if it is there of course they will use it.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  This just isnt true. Every metro area in the US has highways. Including the dense ones. NYC and Chicago are not concrete hellscapes
  - Jensson 2y ago
    You say NYC and Chicago has enough highways to fill demand so there is no congestion? I am fairly certain that isn't true, I've read so much about congestion problems in NYC at least. Adding enough roads to fill all demand leads to concrete hellscapes, that was the point, the guy I responded to thought it was reasonable to add roads until all demand was satisfied.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      No one is saying no congestion. The idea of highway expansion is to allow more people to travel while keeping congestion about constant. NYC and Chicago's highways allow the massive suburban areas and the tens of millions that live in them to semi conveniently go to the city. To do that with trains would require driving to a commuter rail station and then transferring to the metro to get where you want to go. Suburbanites just wouldnt go to the city in that case unless the destination is easily accessible on the commuter rail
      - dangus 2y ago
        Chicago and NYC have huge commuter rail networks that accomplish exactly what you’re claiming is impractical. The Metra commuter rail in Chicago handles over 2.5 million trips per month. 59 percent of the people who commute to Manhattan do so via public transit. People commute to work to Manhattan from Connecticut and New Jersey by train. Penn Station is the busiest transportation facility in the Western hemisphere, serving 600,000 passengers a day, primarily commuter rail and regional rail. And that’s just one station. One subway tunnel with two tracks is equivalent to something like a 15 lane highway in passenger throughput. That’s where highway expansion truly falls apart: it only really scales up to a small to mid-sized cities before the land waste becomes a burden. A lot of urban highways have no way to add lanes because there is no more physical space, or you have to destroy the actual destinations that the highway is supposed to serve to expand it. I will also add that there are a decent amount of suburbs with walkable downtowns along those NYC and Chicago (and Boston!) commuter rail networks where you can buy a condo, rent an apartment, or even a buy a single family home within walking or biking distance of commuters rail and go downtown. In addition, suburban bus lines that feed people into commuter rail stops also exist. So it’s not all park and rides. And park and rides still help spread traffic across the metro area highway network instead of sending all traffic into to a handful of highways going downtown. If I drive to my town’s commuter rail stop my car is probably not even getting on a highway.
        HDThoreaun 2y ago
        Commuter rail only works if you want to go within a mile of one of the stations. No one wants to take the commuter rail and then get on another train. The people who use commuter rail in Chicago at least all also have a car that they use to get to the city whenever they’re doing anything else since the train only goes to the business area
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
zip1234 2y ago
At some point when you clear out all the actual places to go in order to add parking and make it easy to drive there, people realize there is nothing down there and stop going, at which point you just have what happened to Detroit.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  Have you been to downtown Detroit lately? It's beautiful (and easily navigable by car anytime the Detroit GP isn't going on...)
- foobazgt 2y ago
  My experience is the opposite. The harder it becomes to visit a locale, the less likely I become to visit it. Eventually I decide it's not worth visiting at all.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
crooked-v 2y ago
I think the counterpart question to that is, given how space-inefficient cars are, how many actual people do you enable by adding that car capacity, and how does that number compare to even basic public transit options?
currymj 2y ago
the dream is that if i already have to drive downtown, if only there were more parking spots, i could always find one easily instead of driving around searching. but this often won’t happen.
seadan83 2y ago
If it means way fewer people took alternative means, then perhaps it is not good. Particularly when OP mentioned the original goal was to reduce travel times - which the widening did not. "it's not that there's no benefit to the wider road or parking spots, just that the benefit people really care about -- less traffic and quicker trips, less time searching for a parking spot -- often fails to materialize."
lazyasciiart 2y ago
That the roads were added based on a request to make it quicker for existing commuters, not to get more commuters there in the same amount of time. And that if you’d used that time, space and money for a dedicated bus lane, a train, a tram or whatever, you might have done better on both adding to the number of people downtown and making it quicker to get there.
albedoa 2y ago
I simply would have refrained from writing multiple paragraphs about how good induced demand is until I understood the answer to this question.
isthatafact 2y ago
Of all the times I have been downtown, I have never once wished there were more cars. A downtown without cars could be so much better.