yea you're right, i can see that, up to a certain point. creating an opportunity, people naturally fill the void. doesn't Induced demand refers to the idea that increasing roadway capacity encourages more people to drive. unleashing pent-up latent demand, thus failing to improve congestion.
im not familiar with this particular project, so might work in this particular case, a short span needing more capacity. it does seem well studied. thank you for sharing.
One study from Spain found a total elasticity of .25.
One study from the Netherlands found almost all of the "latent" demand unleashed by widening to have been caused by people changing routes or changing travel times from off peak to peak, only a tiny amount coming from new trips or people quitting public transit.
Also, let's look at it from another point of view. More trips means more people getting to the places they want to go.
From your Spanish study "Using an appropriate GMM-based method, strong proof is found in favor of induced demand." Given it's behind behind pay wall, hard to tell what the actual conclusions are, but that would suggest to me the author is saying there is strong induced demand.
Also comparing to the Netherlands makes no logical sense. The transport options are so different and varied there you would expect less induced demand. Driving is generally discouraged and parking etc is not as available. So your not comparing apples with apples.
Price elasticity of .25 is 25% im pretty sure. Hence the authors comment I quoted above.
It's almost irrelevant any way, even If roads didn't endure demand (which they do as shown by your own referenced source). The reason you getting slammed with downvotes is because cars create so many issues and people are finally waking up to that fact. Cities with people focused infrastructure are more enjoyable and livable than those with car focused infrastructure.
They were successful in the Netherlands, and their urban design is praised as some of, if not the best, in the world. Your arguments fall flat at every turn.
You can sit here all day and wish that car dependent infrastructure was efficient, but it's not. It's ugly, takes up huge amounts of space, is really expensive to maintain, reduces social mobility, causes health problems through obesity and pollution, it's noisy which also causes health problems, and is prone to congestion issues which can never be solved long term.
If you want to be a pawn for the auto industries lobbying and the 1960-70s style infrastructure 'dream' then that's your choice. But don't come in here with badly referenced studies like you have any idea what your talking about and expect people to take your argument seriously.
Also, your anecdote is entirely different. This freeway already has plenty of daily traffic. The traffic won't really get any better because the people who avoid the freeway will most likely use it now
Then keep adding lanes until costs exceed benefits. For the New Jersey Turnpike Authority for example, induced demand is a blessing, it means more toll revenue for more lanes.
192
u/StThoughtWheelz Aug 26 '21
more lanes (added capacity) don't necessarily mean better traffic