News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Building Them. Parent comment

Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by jcranmer on Friday May 31, 2024 @10:22AM (#40535577)
That's not what induced demand is.

Imagine if there was a portal on your front lawn that allowed you instant access to downtown London. How much more frequently would you travel to London if it took you literally no time at all? All of those trips are induced demand--that is, it is extra demand that is induced by the ease of the trip. Shifting demand from one route to another is, by definition, not induced demand, since it already existed!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by someguydave on Friday May 31, 2024 @10:40AM (#40535823)
If this were absolutely true, the wide highways would be completely packed at 2am
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by turnsout on Friday May 31, 2024 @10:44AM (#40535872)
Induced demand does not turn people nocturnal
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by someguydave on Friday May 31, 2024 @11:22AM (#40536340)
Neither does it magically summon infinite traffic under all conditions
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by seadan83 on Saturday June 01, 2024 @06:36PM (#40549700)
Every time you decide to delay a trip during rush-hour, because of rush-hour - that is an example of what you are describing.

As an example, in Bellevue, Washington - the evening rush hour starts (and is really bad) at 3pm - there are that many people leaving work progressively earlier that there is still a rush hour of people leaving work early to avoid the big rush-hour.

[ Parent | on HN ]