>>1305824I don't really agree with the term "induced demand" since its kinda a bad faith argument but I can see the reasoning behind it a little.
Driving away from infrastructure for a bit "induced demand" in a supply and demand scenario in the roughest sense of the word would be the same as a business encouraging the demand for more people to buy their product by finding ways to sell said product at a lower rate.
Back to highways, maybe I've been misrepresenting what most people say when they cite "induced demand", but the most reasonable(ish) train of logic that's not "Muh Roads ar bad" has been along the lines of
>Since it's not run as a business, the government has no incentives to meet the most optimal equilibrium point of supply and demand model>As such it's able to produce a supply (roads) at a artificially lowered price that would bankrupt any normal business to ensure that so long as there's any more demand even remotely available, it will bend over backwards to ensure it meet it 