Talk:Induced demand/Archive 1

Page neutrality
The assertion that the converse is true is not a neutral stance on the debate. Tedweverka (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no necessity of "neutrality". It is neither a "hypothesis" in the scientific sense, nor a "theory" in the colloquial sense ("I have a theory about who has been stealing the cookies"), it is an observed relationship between cause and effect, and therefore inherently factual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having observed that B may follow A does not make the statement A causes B inherently factual.--Tedweverka (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, correlation is not the same as causation, but induced demand and its converse are not about causality per se, but about correlation. Since the correlation is observable across a wide variety of circumstances, it's useful to know that A and B are related, especially since doing A over and over again results in B.  It's not causation because it lacks a coherent theory of causality, but it's nevertheless an observable, and reproducible, relationship, not a theory or a hypothesis. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Media - Vending machines
I changed the image, because has not so much image quality nor, in my opinion, pedagogical value. I added a vending machine. Vending machines are also a case of induced demand. As more items of a certain product are available in the vending machine, the consumers are more likely to acquire them. Induced demand is not limited to transport.João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is primarily about traffic. Please cite sources claiming that vending machines are an example of induced demand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not change the article to your preferred version, including changing the lede image, unless and until you have a consensus to do so in the discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, here's a compromise: since 99.99% of the article is about traffic, there's no real sense in having the lede image be of a vending machine. So I've created a new section "Induced demand other than in traffic" and put the vending machine image there, while taking the info out of the caption and putting it in the body of the article.  I hope that is agreeable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That's agreeable. My point was that this is an article about induced demand in economics, not in in the transport sector, and therefore it seemed to me with a very limited approach. And why did you remove my referral to other WP article about the effects of the car in societies? Thank you. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it, I simply put it in alphabetical order. It's still in the "see also" list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the vending machine is there because of induced demand applied to economics and not transport, then I suggest moving the image to the specific section dedicated to the economic part, as in the PC version the image is correctly placed on it but on mobile phone browsers it's seen in the transport part and has no relation at all with the paragraphs near it. Have a nice day! Ce Ele 415 (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The vending machine is there because there's a section about induced demand applying to vending machines, and the image sits directly across from that section. Placement on mobile phones is not our issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This page needs to acknowledge empirical research based criticisms of induced demand theory
For example https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth and http://www.uctc.net/access/22/Access%2022%20-%2004%20-%20Induced%20Travel%20Studies.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewMunro (talk • contribs) 01:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank, and is not a reliable source for this subject matter. The question about the Robert Cervero article (not an academic paper) is whether it represents a fringe POV or a mainstream one. At this point, I'm not convinced that it is a mainstream one, and would have to be shown some evidence that it is.  Certainly some limited mention of the Cervero article can be made as long as it is clearly stated (until shown otherwise) that it is not the generally held view of transportation specialists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the citations in this article are not peer reviewed publications. The Cato Institute piece is on par with these.--Tedweverka (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is more sophisticated than the dichotomy you present. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I intended no false dichotomy. Please allow me to elaborate.  There is a multidimensional spectrum of reliability from unsupported opinion to well researched and checked by an adversarial review process. The Cato Institute piece is well supported, and stands as equal to most of the citations in the Induced Demand wikipedia page.--Tedweverka (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Could this page be more generalised?
This page is supposed to be about induced demand or latent demand, and yet is entirely about induced traffic.

I suggest that either this page be merged with the induced traffic page, or else that it be more generalised. I came to this page after a discussion at work about latent demand that had nothing to do with traffic. 202.37.32.2 (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we have a not very good article on induced demand generally (which seems not to be considered a high priority in economics) but which could easily be a very good article on induced traffic specifically (which is certainly a very high priority in discussions of transport policy, sustainability, congestion, and roads planning). I appreciate that the question of naming has been addressed several times, but I would like to have a go at changing this back to induced traffic, some rewriting and adding new references, and then making a cross reference to what would then at best be a stub for induced demand more widely. I'll leave this suggestion here for a little while before starting, to see if there are objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackneycab (talk • contribs) 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. This article is almost exclusively about the disadvantages of increasing road capacity and private motor vehicle use, delving into irrelevant points like pollution and global warming. This is supposed to be an article about the economics of 'Induced Demand', not about the pros and cons of private transport! Booksacool1 (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Induced Demand - Incorrect assumptions
Attempts to constrict development and economic growth in order to stimulate public transport and personal bicycle transport use ignore the global economy and escape of assumed bounds. People and/or businesses can simply move to places with lower transportation and other costs. These could be exurbs, other states, or developing nations. Besides relocating, people reduce their transportation and time costs traveling to local business by ordering online, another loss to the local economy.

Examples where excess supply does not bring use or demand would be US cities like Detroit and Flint Michigan, where surplus housing, roads, factories, and workers exist. Employers failed, shrunk, or left for locations with lower cost. Areas in US states of Florida, Nevada, and Arizona experienced much housing development ahead of demand by 2008 that is projected to remain vacant for some time. Many people moved from industrial Michigan and fewer than hoped, to overdeveloped places. Mark Kaepplein (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

terminology on traffic: induced, generated, diverted
I see several terms used in development documents (generated, induced, diverted traffic), and I would like to suggest that some discussion of the definitions, distinctions and approaches to quantifying these would be helpful. Illustrations or examples might strengthen the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.79.62.18 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I attempted to clarify some of the definitions in a discussion of the sources of induced traffic. --A Melbourne (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This article states that induced demand is no different than the normal change in consumption on a supply and demand curve when the supply is changed. If that is so, induced demand need not have a separate definition from latent demand. --Tedweverka (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Braes paradox
Of course, building new roads can actually decrease traffic flow (Braess' Paradox). PML.

Braess Paradox doesn't say capacity decreases flow, it says new roads under very specific circumstances, increase travel time. (By extension, with elastic demand, demand may ultimately drop, but I think Braess's paper assumed fixed demand. someone ought to write it out ... dml

Merger with other similar pages
I expanded the induced traffic page considerably, before noticing that there were other pages for induced travel demand and induced demand. Since they all seem to be saying pretty much the same thing, they should probably be merged into one (I suggest this one).

Dave A 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge is now complete.

Dave A 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about not having induced traffic as its own entry, because it's really not the same thing as induced demand, which is a broader economic concept. Induced traffic has specific real-world policy implications. The result of the merge has been that induced travel demand and induced traffic are given remarkable prominence in the overall concept. There are other forms of induced demand, such as demand for in the US for petrol, food, and certain utilities, that are generated by inflated supply -- they have differenet policy implications. If anyone later edits this article to reduce it's traffic focus, as they would perhaps be entitled to do, we might have to re-create induced travel and induced traffic demand. Thesmothete 21:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I did consider that, but since the previous induced demand article covered broadly the same topics, I thought it best to merge them. I understand the problem though - but I would suggest recreating just one of those additional pages rather than both, if necessary. Dave A 10:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut from freeway article
(NPOV anyone) dml In the Atlanta metro area, for example, the former governor of Georgia proposed a massive 210-mile (340km) expressway encircling the suburbs, costing billions of dollars, and destroying dozens of rural farms and exurban homes (potentially hundreds if development continued in its eventual path). Some equated it to heart bypass surgery (in this case, Atlanta's original Perimeter, Interstate 285), with the patient ignoring warnings and failing to do anything to prevent it from happening again. The opponents of the expansion won out when a new governor was elected in late 2002, but it underscored the destruction which occurs anywhere with such freeways, frequently including a legacy of urban blight and suburban sprawl.

I think the articles need to be separate here, the induced travel demand should be on its own page, and induced demand should be general, not including specific examples but rather referencing them. Jamie Q

induced != latent
though they are similar, the two terms are not interchangeable. one way to think of the difference: Latent demand is a part of the phenomenon of induced demand. induced demand is an increase due to more capacity. latent demand is potential demand but is constrained because of congestion, kind of like potential energy stored until it's released. Source: ‘Suburban Nation’ by Andres Duany et al  :: “This condition is best explained by what specialists call latent demand. Since the real constraint on driving is traffic, not cost, people are always ready to make more trips when the traffic goes away. The number of latent trips is huge--perhaps 30 percent of existing traffic. Because of latent demand, adding lanes is futile, since drivers are already poised to use them up.” El duderino (abides) 06:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's because reliable sources say otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope, WP:RS beats WP:OR every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Induced demand", "latent demand", and "effective demand" are economic terms. Examples: An enlarged/upgraded street may "induce" more traffic to use that street over others (not necessarily increasing traffic in the area overall), or war mongering may induce demand for military hardware; "latent demand" is demand not yet visible (unknown) to the market, as opposed to "effective demand" or "market demand" or simply, "demand". "Induced demand" is new demand caused by some change in condition; "latent demand" already exists but is not visible (not yet effective demand) because of some current constraint: price, distribution, marketing, raw material, etc. Cmoneti (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  "Induced demand" is new demand caused by some change in condition; "latent demand" already exists but is not visible (not yet effective demand) because of some current constraint: price, distribution, marketing, raw material, etc. And if the constraint changes that's a change in condition. For instance, if the constraint is the number of lanes available to travel from A to B then an enlarged/upgraded street will create more demand.  Whether that demand is "induced" or "latent" cannot be determined without close study of the specifics of the demand.  Until that is done, "induced demand" and "latent demand" are essentially the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The inability (in some cases) to determine whether "induced" demand derives from a transformation of "latent demand" to "effective demand" rather than the creation of a new demand does not make "induced demand" the same as "latent demand".  "Induced demand" is part of actual, i.e., "effective demand"; those two may be thought of as the same in some general contexts. But, "latent" demand" is the conceptual opposite of "effective demand", so "latent demand" and "induced demand" cannot be the same. Cmoneti (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source that says any of this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The prefix terms of Induced, effective, latent, market, derived, etc., all denote a type of demand. Their purpose is to help distinguish the origin, evolution, or current state of the "demand" being discussed. "Induced Demand" -- https://nacto.org/references/lee-douglass-b/  "“Induced” is a term implying that a particular condition is indirectly caused by another condition. In the case of traffic volumes, the term arose from the phenomenon that improvements to a highway -- especially capacity improvements -- seemed to result in more traffic choosing to use the road than would be the case if the highway were not improved."  "Latent Demand" -- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/latent-demand  "Derived Demand" -- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/derived-demand  "Market Demand" -- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/market-demand?q=%22market+demand%22  "Induced Demand" -- (N/A. But see "Induced Investment", same concept) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/induced-investment  "Derived Demand" is the more traditional economics term for the recently popular "induced demand"; they are the same. Cmoneti (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, dictionary defintiions aren;t going to do it. That's WP:SYNTH.  Because the subject-specific source we have at the moment says otherwise, we're going to need a citation from a reliable source that says what you're saying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I'm new to editing and I don't understand. Since we are talking about established terms and definitions (as opposed to, e.g., opinion or description of events), why is the dictionary not an acceptable source? And what's wrong with the nacto.org source (National Association of City Transportation Officials)? Cmoneti (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Got any reliable sources that say that "induced demand" is the same as "latent demand"? Maybe that will help me understand. Cmoneti (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I finally read the whole article. Nowhere did I see a section offering a clear definition of "induced demand" as the page title suggests. There is only the very clumsy first sentence with no sources. The rest of the article is specifically about the phenomenon of induced traffic in the discipline of traffic engineering. Seems to me that lengthy discussion deserves its own page. Cmoneti (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the page should be short, including a concise definition of "induced demand", noting that it is a term primarily from traffic engineering that is analogous to "derived demand" from economics; there could additionally be 1-3 paragraphs to expand/characterize the phenomenon in traffic engineering that the term refers to, including a reference to Braess's Paradox and other terms perhaps already existing on wikipedia. Cmoneti (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not find a clear definition of "induced demand" in the Cervero article on page 3 or anywhere else. There is a clear definition in the first sentence of my previously suggested source: https://nacto.org/references/lee-douglass-b/ "“Induced” is a term implying that a particular condition is indirectly caused by another condition." Cmoneti (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Douglass Lee definition is valuable. The Cervero definition is on page 4 line 8 where he writes that "Most have embraced definitions of induced travel similar to that of Schmidt and Campbell (1956):'The added component of traffic volume which did not previously exist in any form, but which results when new or imporved transportation facitilities are provided'."--Tedweverka (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An inaccurate definition, in my opinion. Induced demand is as likely (or more so) to be traffic drawn from other streets as it to be completely new demand. Cmoneti (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is precisely his point. The intent of excluding from the definition of "induced traffic", the traffic that changes  modes in response to increased capacity on a particular freeway is to separate the measure of "induced demand" from the number of trips that merely change mode.  It is part of the definition that Cuervo claims "Most have embraced".--Tedweverka (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"Induced demand" and "latent demand" are distinct terms: in name, in use, and etymologically. An online survey of the terms' use quickly and thoroughly confirms this. I have found no source that suggests otherwise. No source is needed to assert that "induced demand" is different from "latent demand" any more than to assert that an infant is understood to be smaller than an adult. One can talk about "induced demand" without mentioning "latent demand"; the onus is on the person who asserts that "induced demand" is the same a "latent demand" to show those terms are the same or analogous. Cmoneti (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, what is the reliable source that backs this up? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that reads like a non sequitor to what I wrote. Cmoneti (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because all you keep doing is repeating your opinion, which is OR and SYNTH and therefore, frankly, useless. You need a reliable source, and you cannot provide one.  Why not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me make this perfectly clear: no matter how many people come here and express their unsupported personal WP:OR opinion, "latent demand" will not be removed from the article, because it is supported by a reliable source, and the opinions of the so-called "consensus" are not -- they are not only not supported, but rely on a WP:SYNTH argument: that because the words "induced" and "latent" have different dictionary defintiions, therefore "induced demand" and "latent demand" must be different concepts. For this reason, the "consensus" here is not a legitimate consensus, but is an example of a WP:Wrongful consensus.If anyone has a reliable source which supports the removal of "latent demand", then the consensus would be legitimate and can be put into effect, but we simply do not recognize personal opinions as legitimate material for articles, in fact, it is expressly forbidden by WP:Original research.  All of the opinions above are WP:OR, therefore none of them can be used to justify the removal of information supported by a reliable source.I'm putting everyone here on notice that continuing to edit war over this will not end well. Your choice is baldly simple:  get a reliable source . Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmoneti -- with their handful of edits to Wikipedia, almost all of them to this talk page -- is incorrect, and does not understand Wikipedia policy. The equivalence is sourced, and that's all that's needed.  Get yourself a reliable source, and this discussion is over in your favor.  As it is now, the article stays in the WP:STATUSQUO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the source for the equivalence? I don't see it on the page. Cmoneti (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Beyond My Ken -- refuses all offered sources, and insists the induced/latent equivalence is sourced, yet does not provide it. Well, I believe I have found the initial source for this article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqqjT3Xq620 . If one listens to the audio while viewing this article, one can clearly identify the same structure and much of the same sentences or whole paragraphs, including the exact same contested statement at the beginning of this article. 'The source is nothing more than a Youtube click bait video, hardly a reliable source.' Cmoneti (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken -- removing the offending clause, "or latent demand," removes an assertion (and without impact on rest of the article). A source may be required to add an assertion, not to remove it. Cmoneti (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is not the case, you really don;t know what you're talking about -- but why shouldl you? You made one edit 14 years ago, and then didn't edit again until you started here.  The bottom line is: you need a reliable source to support your opinion, and you still haven't got one.  Get one, and this argument is settled, in your favor. That you haven't provided one strongly indicates that either (1) you're not trying, or (3) there is not one to get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I had an impeccable source 14 years ago on economist J.B. Say's so called "Say's Law": his own words in his own language from his original 1832 treatise publication. Don't know why it was removed, but economics is political. Cmoneti (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for you to declare your source. What's the hangup? Cmoneti (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're drowning in sources, friend, every single one of which says that while there is a technical distinction to be made between "induced demand" and "latent demand", the two terms are used interchangeably.You want more, 'cause I can keep plucking them, they're out there to be picked. Where's your source that says they're not used interchageably? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes! I want more! You say you can "pluck" them, but you haven't shown any. Where's the one you've been claiming all this time? Cmoneti (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Could it be that "latent demand" and "induced demand" are the same thing, but the phrase used depends on one's POV with respect to the desirability of the commodity in question? Latent demand is the unsatisfied demand for a commodity that one approves of, released when supply of that desirable commodity is increased - whilst induced demand is the unsatisfied demand for a commodity that one disapproves of, released when supply of that undesirable commodity is increased. Just a thought. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They are basically the same thing, which is why the terms are used interchangeably. Latent demand cannot be satisfied because of constraints in the system -- such as the lack of roads, or roads that are in bad condition, or do not have enough capacity -- and when those constraints are released -- by new or improved roads, for instance -- the new traffic that was called "latent" when it was pent-up is called "induced demand".  I don't believe that approval or disapproval has anything to do with it, it's entirely about the throughput of the system, before and after.  The latent demand is latent because it needs constraints to be removed, and when they are removed it become induced demand.  Two sides of the same coin, but latent demand is mostly theoretical (the problem being how to accurately determine it empirically -- perhaps by surveys and polling?) while induced demand can be seen, counted, analyzed, etc.The point is, they are two names for the same thing, mirror images on either side of the removal of constraints.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I'm suggesting that they are the same thing, but named differently depending on personal bias. You seem to be defining them as two subtly different things - one as the unsatisfied demand resulting from lack of supply and the other as increased consumption following supply increase. Under your definition the two may not be equal, especially if the increased supply is insufficient to fulfil all of the unsatisfied demand. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree with that description. They are the same thing if the additional capacity of the channel (or the additional supply) is sufficient to satisfy all the Latent Demand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Put it this way:
 * If Latent Demand = additional capacity of the channel (AC), then Induced Demand = Latent Demand
 * If Latent Demand < AC, then Induced Demand = Latent Demand + any new Generated Demand
 * If Latent Demand > AC, then Induced Demand = Latent Demand, and New Latent Demand = (Old Latent Demand - AC) [i.e. there is unsatisfied Latent Demand]
 * But, again, these would be technical definitions, and -- as the citations provided show -- "Induced Demand" and "Latent Demand" are very often used interchangeably, probably because of the extreme difficulty in determining what the Latent Demand is in any particular case before removing the constraints on the system, while the Induced Demand can be empirically counted once the channel has been modified. That makes Latent Demand a much less useful, and much more theoretical, concept.  Of course, if you're going to build a new road, it's probably a good idea to have some sense of what the existing Latent Demand is, given the cost of building roads, but I suspect that, given the difficulty of determining that, they probably estimate the Latent Demand by the seats of their pants and various "tricks of the trade".It's interesting to note that much of the criticism of the concept of Induced Demand is ideologically-based, not scientifically- or empirically-based. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My point about term selection based on bias is that those who object to the increase in supply of a particular commodity will argue that it is the provision of extra supply which creates (or induces) the demand, hence they use the term "induced demand", whereas those who support the increase in supply will argue that the extra demand already exists (it is latent), hence they use the term "latent demand".
 * For example, political support or opposition for the provision of extra supply of a particular commodity can hinge on whether the demand is considered to be latent or induced! For instance, governments may choose to support calls for improved infrastructure to reduce broadband network congestion as it will satisfy the latent demand, where they would oppose calls for improved infrastructure to reduce road network congestion as it will create induced demand and soon become congested itself. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Great discussion. You have demonstrated in your own word usage a repeated distinction between "latent" and "induced" demand, namely that "induced demand" is transformed from "latent demand"---or the presumption of this conceptual quantity. There are several defined types of "demand"; they are all demand but not equal; they exist to distinguish and clarify the causal and temporal context of the subject at hand. In other words, infants and adults are both human beings, but they are not the same; one evolves into the other, just as "latent demand" may be transformed into "effective demand", of which "induced demand" is a part. Cmoneti (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Great discussion. You have demonstrated in your own word usage a repeated distinction between "latent" and "induced" demand, namely that "induced demand" is transformed from "latent demand"---or the presumption of this conceptual quantity. There are several defined types of "demand"; they are all demand but not equal; they exist to distinguish and clarify the causal and temporal context of the subject at hand. In other words, infants and adults are both human beings, but they are not the same; one evolves into the other, just as "latent demand" may be transformed into "effective demand", of which "induced demand" is a part. Cmoneti (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

induced demand != demand
The current page defines induced demand by its consquence, but it refers to a phenomenon due to plain old "demand". Plain old demand is the phenomenon that after supply increases, more of a good is consumed.--73.229.196.41 (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is a rambling list of associations. It needs a rewrite.--73.229.196.41 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

ENGVAR
I've made today per MOS:ENGVAR (particularly MOS:ARTCON) from "travelled" to "traveled" and "travelling" to "traveling", as it appears to me that most of the article is written in US English. At the same time I changed "vehicle-kilometres" to "vehicle-miles" as the rest of the article states distances in miles... there is only one use outside a quote (200 miles) and I am not sure whether this would benefit from a ), and I'm also not sure if "vehicle-mile" needs the hyphenation (it is not hyphenated in a quote). 94.21.10.214 (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've linked, a targeted redirect to Units of transportation measurement, and removed the hyphens in "vehicle miles" as it is defined there unhyphenated. 94.21.10.214 (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm wrong... the definition is for "vehicle-mile" with a hyphen, but the redirect itself has "vehicle miles" without one. I'll leave it without, for now, following the usage in the quote. 94.21.10.214 (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did some google ntrans on this and "vehicle miles" beats "kilometres" about five to one, but I am not sure that tells us much. I put in variant spellings of "kilometers" and singular "mile" but I regard the results with suspicion as I cannot believe "vehicle-mile" or "vehicle mile" was never used in a book. Certainly all four terms shot up in use after about 1970. We should probably stick to miles as that is in the quotes and so on, except one British reference uses vehicle kilometres which is actually a bit odd since in the UK distances on roads must by statute be measured in miles (one of the few things that MUST be in Imperial, the other being a pint of beer (or half or third or multiples thereof), cider or perry on draught. Milk and orange juice may be sold in pints if delivered in returnable containers. I worked for many years as a barman and milkman in the UK.... 22:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.10.214 (talk)


 * "Draught beer and cider may only be sold in a third of a pint, two-thirds of a pint, half a pint or multiples thereof". NIST in the US allows milk to be sold in various US Customary sizes, ranging from a third of a pint to two gallons. There seems to be a distinction that I believe in UK law it is simply "returnable containers" whereas NIST seems occasionally to state "glass containers (bottles)" and contrariwise says "bottles or plastic". As far as I can see, neither requires the container actually to be returned, only that it be returnable. 94.21.10.214 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Demand
"In the short term, increased travel on new road space can come from one of two sources: diverted travel and induced traffic."

No. Over-density & over-development lead to a repression of possible travel. When roads appear, they are used. This is why we are headed towards a major disaster as we have people who think they know, when they don't.

Nantucketnoon (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-reliable source
An editor is attempting to add material sourced to a bachelor's theses. WP:SCHOLARSHIP has this to say:

"Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."

Clearly, a bachelor's thesis does not qualify as a reliable source under these criteria. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The blockquote you cite is about whether the source is primary or not. Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Clearly this source is a review of the published literature. That makes it most valuable as it is precisely the secondary source that Wikipedia is asking for.Tedweverka (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No, WP:SCHOLARSHIP is part of WP:Reliable sources, not WP:Primary. It lays out what kind of scholarly sources are considered to be reliable.  Bachelor's theses are not included, so the source you cited is not reliable.  Please self-revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, do not change a section heading without good reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 *  A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Economics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC) ' Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  A pointer to this discussion has been placed on WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC) 


 * BMK is correct (well, mostly correct, but correct enough). It's only reasonable to cite a literature review used as an undergraduate thesis if that review was also published in some reputable journal.  I'm assuming this one was not, as the proponent would have mentioned if it was.  However, it may be useful to discuss that thesis on this talk page if it contains useful references not currently in the Wikipedia page. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 00:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The cite was to the Delft University of Technology's repository. not from a published source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Powera, we can't use this source but it's worthwhile to see if we can use the sources contained within. (This source would be very helpful if it was reliable given the relative scarcity of review-type papers in economics, but alas...) 15 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)