Maybe I have misunderstood the argument this entire time (or maybe we’re all misunderstanding one another’s arguments for a variety of reasons), but I always in

Maybe I have misunderstood the argument this entire time (or maybe we’re all misunderstanding one another’s arguments for a variety of reasons), but I always interpreted the “induced demand” argument as asserting that adding additional capacity for cars will not reduce or relieve problems with traffic congestion. Note that is a distinct argument from the article’s framing of it, which suggests that “induced demand” is asserting that building additional capacity is somehow counterproductive because it will just fill up with more traffic. Both things are true, but note that the former argument implies a broader goal of reducing the problems inherent with traffic congestion. The article also seems to ignore that the people and organizations who put forth induced demand arguments generally come equipped with alternative solutions, not just blind opposition to additional car-focused capacity and a pair of magic words.