I agree that induced demand is nonsense, but for a different reason. Demand either exists or it doesn't. It is either fulfilled or unfulfilled. Building more lanes into a road doesn't "induce" demand. It fulfills it. People use up that road space because they genuinely get a benefit from it. It's really that simple. After all, if you built 100 lanes there wouldn't magically be 100 lanes of traffic. Demand is fulfilled only up to the point that the demand exists. There's no magical induction that urbanists vaguely gesture at.
It's not. This is a fact. It sounds like you are trying to reason about this from pure logic, and are not aware that this is an empirical fact.
You can only go so far armchair guessing about how city planning "ought to" work.
> Demand either exists or it doesn't.
To get to the place, yes. To get to the place in a car, no.
If you double the capacity of a road network, that means more people will choose to drive.
Example: If the city I live in doubled the car capacity, I would buy a car and drive it. But since everyone else would too, it'd actually stabilize to the same congestion. (I forget, but the actually observed phenomenon has a name)
Or let's say you had some billions of dollars to improve the situation of the I-101 in California. What do you think will happen if you add a lane? More people who currently take a tech company shuttle will start driving instead. More people who currently take Caltrain will start driving instead.
And then you're back. I'm not guessing, this is established knowledge. No matter how hard people try to double down on a failed strategy (see Katy Freeway), it just doesn't help traffic. It just makes more people drive.
Now spend those billions on making the Caltrain experience better, and you'll start seeing existing lanes on the 101 free up.
> After all, if you built 100 lanes there wouldn't magically be 100 lanes of traffic.
A 100? Maybe not. But apparently 26 lanes is not enough (Katy Freeway).
But there are other aspects to this too, other than roads and transit. E.g. zoning. It greatly reduces traffic on existing roads if you can just walk over to the store to buy some groceries, because it's a 5min walk. Instead of driving and being stuck in traffic for 10 minutes because it's too far to walk and crosses an 8 lane highway.
Every person who went shopping in the local store is another car not on the road, both ways.
> Demand is fulfilled only up to the point that the demand exists.
This is only true in the sense that it's irrelevant. If you widen every street and avenue in NYC to 26 lanes, then maybe that's enough. But only because there will barely be any houses left to go to.
> There's no magical induction that urbanists vaguely gesture at.
Why are you assuming you have to use a car to solve the problem. The problem is people want to get someplace in your city and currently it is inconvenient for them to do so.
If people leave your transit system for a car it is because your transit system sucks. Fix that problem. (hint, trains can easily reach speeds 3x faster than cars, stops should not take too long, and there should always been a train almost here for when you missed the last one - running good transit isn't easy)
> If people leave your transit system for a car it is because your transit system sucks.
A transit system can almost never compete with a vehicle right in your garage taking you exactly to your destination. Unless you live in very rare circumstances, friction-free car travel will be preferable to most people. But car travel is not friction-free of course. You're setting up a goal post that's impossible to reach
> Why are you assuming you have to use a car to solve the problem.
That's the opposite of what I'm doing.
> The problem is people want to get someplace in your city and currently it is inconvenient for them to do so.
I agree. And we already know that "add more lanes" is a very costly (especially maintenance forever. Again, see Not Just Bikes), and we already know it doesn't even help.
> If people leave your transit system for a car it is because your transit system sucks.
No, not sucks. They just have to be subjectively a better choice for the individual.
So yes, then we agree. Money should be spent on improving alternative transport, not car infrastructure.
