Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think you've missed the point, going by your second paragraph.

How capacity is provisioned from A to B influences how people choose to move and, over the long term, build homes/workplaces.

Induced demand does not suggest that supply is less than demand - it implies that demand is "flexible" to meet any supply conditions. There is overwhelming evidence of this at work over 50 years and across continents.

As a consequence, the argument is not "why bother?" but rather - "build it in a way that scales". For urban areas, private transport doesn't scale well.



> "Induced demand does not suggest that supply is less than demand - it implies that demand is "flexible" to meet any supply conditions."

that's the exact interpretation i'm refuting.

of course supply is less than demand. that's because the price of using roads is (perceived to be) zero, but the cost of construction on the supply side is high (and increasing, relative to inflation). it's impossible to meet the demand for free when costs are high.

my point is that this mispricing is a political and cultural choice, not an economic one explained by "induced demand". by using an economic concept for a non-economic market, we fall prey to misinterpreting and misadvocating.

we need to make the price of private transport much more transparent (e.g., real-time pricing) and rein in costs (land prices, legal/regulatory costs) so that we can make better choices in allocating our precious and limited resources (toward more mass transit for example).

(real-time pricing should also be progressive so that roads aren't just for rich people.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: