I always feel like these induced demand arguments are suggesting that adding more lanes means the same number of people are just choosing to do more driving. Maybe, as you add more lanes you create the infrastructure for a city to grow, and it adds more people which then fill up the new lanes. People aren't just going out and buying a new car or rolling an existing car out of the driveway that they were previously not using because a new lane is built. These are net new drivers, who would not be in that city if the infrastructure for them hadn't been built.

[–] Sightline@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Exactly, thank you. If you build a 6-lane highway in Montana it's not going to magically fill up with traffic, thus one can conclude that context is missing from the Reddit-tier explanation of induced demand or that the entire idea of induced demand is wrong.

[–] Vrtrx@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Induced demand actually means that more people drive now because the people that didn't drive in the past / lived somewhere else because it was less convenient because of the traffic to commute by car or live somewhere else where they would have needed a car now decide to commute by car / actually move (yeah that also something we have observed) because the widening temporarily improved traffic. In the end traffic ends up the same if not worse. Induced demand isn't something the Internet has come up with. It's actually a real thing that has been studied and researched. We know it exists. It functions on the basic principle of: If you improve something and make it more convenient to use that something, more people will actually use it.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

But the demand was always there. They wanted to move, they just didn't. So the lane didn't induce it. The choice of that word was intentional. It was to argue against more lanes. It is really unserved demand that they just ignored originally.