There are a certain class of ideas that make people feel superior in conversation so they just stick around no matter how true.
I feel superior because I also have an urban planning background, and I’ve literally done the reading on this.
Trips are a good thing. They're economic activity. They're people going to visit friends/family. Each trip is a case where the benefit outweighed the cost of the trip.
The really infuriating part is that 99.999% (yes, 5 9s) of people who complain about induced demand on roads talk about it like it's a good thing when the context is literally any other form of infrastructure. You can induce demand for parks and subways by carpet bombing a city with them too or making the existing ones more attractive. The concept isn't just for public infrastructure. All sorts of business can induce a lot of demand if you plop it down in the right spot where a lot of potential customers were letting the need go unfilled because the opportunity cost of the next existing best option was too high.
Spoken like a true capitalist. Not all "economic activity" is good.
Sitting in traffic driving to an out-of-town shopping centre to buy groceries because there are no local shops in walking distance may be economic activity, but I'd struggle to call these boring, wasteful trips I'm forced to make a good thing. More like an irritating waste of time and gas.
So, we drive to the neighboring, more suburban town to grocery shop.
The fact that the local grocer has to compete with the out of town grocer may be derided by the whole foods crowd but it's a boon for the price sensitive masses.
If the local grocer doesn't exist then why? It's either going to boil down to the population density not supporting it or local regulatory oddities making the business economically non-viable.