I strongly disagree, because that argument just becomes an attack on people's freedom of movement rather than an attack on the structural issues which led to long commutes being the least-worst option for many people.

This is evident in the way people immediately screech “induced demand!!!!1” the second anyone talks about widening a road, like the point of building _anything_ isn't for people to use it. Nobody ever says induced demand when we build houses and people want to live in them lol

If somebody widens a road and it's instantly filled with more cars that's not "induced" demand, the demand was clearly already there, just not being met by the narrow street.

Destinations drive demand, not traffic lanes. A road can be so inadequate that the traffic makes it painful enough that might I decide to just stay home when I'd rather go somewhere, but the demand is obviously there either way. Infrastructure should enable us to do the things we want and get to the places we want to be.

I don't understand how people view making or keeping streets so shitty that many people can't or won't use them to get to where they want to go as a good thing.

> If somebody widens a road and it's instantly filled with more cars that's not "induced" demand, the demand was clearly already there, just not being met by the narrow street.

Widening the road doesn't necessarily create demand (although it may, by making a given route more attractive to folks who would otherwise have worked/shopped/traveled elsewhere), but it does shift demand away from mass transit and towards individual vehicles.