At the center of the materials published for the Wednesday Work Session on the SRC is an omnibus Q & A
, a staff report arranged as a series of questions and answers. It is almost medieval in form, a modern quaestio
! It aspires to be a Summa
You know that's an ironic setup. The report is supposed to be magisterial and neutral, but it is biased and unrepresentative. Too often it is ideologically motivated. Rather than the best of medieval scholasticism, it is the worst of it, narrow, cramped, and oriented with a determined teleology.
Here we will look at Induced Demand.
The Sources are too Few and are Biased
In the discussion of induced demand and traffic forecasting the material is shaped in order to position autoism as a "neutral" description of reality, the natural order of things, rather than a highly ideological and heavily subsidized position resulting from multiple policy decisions over years and even decades.
Though the tone of the discussion in the Q & A is ostensibly even-handed, in the discussion of induced demand the last bit on a "preference for suburban living" gives it away. But the preference for suburban living requires heavy subsidies for the car-dependence. If "lawn and driveway" zoning weren't mandated in our vast swaths of our single-family housing districts, we might look at highway investment a little differently.
|"preference for suburban living"|
As it happens, the study cited here by "Professor Cervero" (it is frequently a sign of status anxiety when it becomes necessary to attach this honorific, and this is a tell) is old, from 2003, and published by a notorious autoist and anti-transit advocacy group that advocates for sprawl.