Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluGill | Hacker News Reader

I didn't see the video (I find NJB annoying so I rarely watch his stuff), but it is a common misconception in the transit world that induced demand is a bad thing. Cities should be inducing demand for getting around. The only question is what demand - build a great transit system and you will induce demand for more transit and places to live close to transit. Have a bad transit system and you will induce demand for more roads.

View on HN

> Cities should be inducing demand for getting around.

This is mentioned in the latest NJB video, "More Lanes are (Still) a Bad Thing":

> The difference for induced demand for cars, and induced for other modes of travel, is that cars are a extremely space inefficient. You can absorb a lot more induced travel demand on a subway line, tram line, or bicycle path, than you can in a car lane.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHZwOAIect4&t=15m54s

The Oh The Urbanity! channel has a good video on this, "What People Get Wrong About Induced Demand":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wlld3Z9wRc

Cars have (AFAICT) the lowest hourly through-put of any transportation mode:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passengers_per_hour_per_direct...

It sounds more like people use "induced demand" with negative connotations when referring to "induced driving demand" rather than truly meaning that any source of induced demand is bad. i.e. it's just a conventional shorthand?

I have only seen induced demand used with clearly negative connotations in my life. This article (and a couple others) are the rare exception and they are only using it in context of explaining why it isn't bad (as opposed to using it in a neutral form)

the vast majority of urbanists are referring to induced driving demand when they bring up the topic. njb is definitely a jaded man, can see why it'd potentially be offputting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com