Oh the Urbanity! has a great video about this, explaining why it isn't equivalent because induced demand is a good thing for transit even while it's a bad thing for driving.
(Side note: it took me way too long to look up the peertube version of the video instead of the YouTube one, because I couldn't remember the instance name and PeerTube instances aren't nearly as discoverable as they ought to be.)
Not to mention, transportation modes whose externalities are positive instead of negative. IMO that's the aspect that is both most important and most neglected from consideration.
6 Comments
grue@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 253d
Oh the Urbanity! has a great video about this, explaining why it isn't equivalent because induced demand is a good thing for transit even while it's a bad thing for driving.
https://urbanists.video/w/pR25CxtjRpRG7hMhbeVcxP
(Side note: it took me way too long to look up the peertube version of the video instead of the YouTube one, because I couldn't remember the instance name and PeerTube instances aren't nearly as discoverable as they ought to be.)
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 253d
Yeah, the goal should be to induce demand to higher throughput and lower total cost/additional user options
grue@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 253d
Not to mention, transportation modes whose externalities are positive instead of negative. IMO that's the aspect that is both most important and most neglected from consideration.
veganpizza69@lemmy.vg · 2 pts · 251d
"build it and they will come" ?
dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net · 27 pts · 253d
Hold on, you’re saying that if there are bike lanes that make riding safe, more people will ride bikes? Sounds sus but okay.
NarrativeBear@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 253d
Watch car brains use this as a study against bike lanes and sidewalks, arguing about induced demand.
hilljack26301@feddit.org · 4 pts · 251d