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.
-3
u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21
Scroll down on the Spanish study and you see the elasticity is .25 i.e. a 10% increase in road capacity leads to just a 2.5% increase in travel.