![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Disappearing traffic was copied or moved into Induced demand with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
the page says "The inverse effect, known as reduced demand, is also observed.[citation needed]" Here's a citation source, which I think backs up the idea of reduced demand for traffic. https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/disappearing_traffic_cairns.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 ( talk) 12:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
[Moved from my talk page. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)]
You removed my modifications to the introduction of Induced Demand. My changes were better researched and better defended that what you restored.
What you restored claims that the term is "economic" and cites CityLab, which is not a source of economic information. It's a site used by urbanists, city planners, and such.
My changes cited a paper by Lee, Klein and Camus. It's very first sentence is "Although terms such as “induced demand” and “latent demand” have been used in transportation planning for several decades, the concept of induced demand has not been precisely defined nor has it been translated into an operational form suitable for modeling." QED, they are transportation planning terms and NOT economic terms.
Subsequent changes tried to add things to the "induced demand" page. I do not consider "film induced demand" to be a valid term. Google has only 8 hits for the phrase.
I consider "supplier induced demand" (or "physician induced demand") to be a separate term. In transportation, the shift in the demand-curve is cause indirectly by an increase in supply. In "supplier induced demand", that is not the case. Another argument is that the writing of "supplier induced demand" is often "supplier-induced demand" and not "supplier induced-demand". It is a very different term.
Please respond or restore my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnahas ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
[end of moved material]
Hi all, I've tagged the 'Criticism' section with {'{One source|section|date=October 2023}}, since its only references are two essays by the same author, Steven Polzin. Perhaps this could be upgraded to {'{Content}}. 67.71.197.70 ( talk) 00:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Beyond My Ken, can you please explain what was wrong with the recently amended lead paragraph? — HTGS ( talk) 03:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
– related to latent demand and generated demand –in the first sentence is a poor way of introducing those concepts, especially as those titles redirect to this article. It would be useful to the reader to define them properly early on. — HTGS ( talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
This is consistent with the economic model of supply and demand) we can give the relevant contextual domain in the first sentence. — HTGS ( talk) 04:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Are there any opponents to the above proposals, previously embodied by the change here?: [1] — HTGS ( talk) 20:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Disappearing traffic was copied or moved into Induced demand with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
the page says "The inverse effect, known as reduced demand, is also observed.[citation needed]" Here's a citation source, which I think backs up the idea of reduced demand for traffic. https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/disappearing_traffic_cairns.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 ( talk) 12:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
[Moved from my talk page. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)]
You removed my modifications to the introduction of Induced Demand. My changes were better researched and better defended that what you restored.
What you restored claims that the term is "economic" and cites CityLab, which is not a source of economic information. It's a site used by urbanists, city planners, and such.
My changes cited a paper by Lee, Klein and Camus. It's very first sentence is "Although terms such as “induced demand” and “latent demand” have been used in transportation planning for several decades, the concept of induced demand has not been precisely defined nor has it been translated into an operational form suitable for modeling." QED, they are transportation planning terms and NOT economic terms.
Subsequent changes tried to add things to the "induced demand" page. I do not consider "film induced demand" to be a valid term. Google has only 8 hits for the phrase.
I consider "supplier induced demand" (or "physician induced demand") to be a separate term. In transportation, the shift in the demand-curve is cause indirectly by an increase in supply. In "supplier induced demand", that is not the case. Another argument is that the writing of "supplier induced demand" is often "supplier-induced demand" and not "supplier induced-demand". It is a very different term.
Please respond or restore my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnahas ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
[end of moved material]
Hi all, I've tagged the 'Criticism' section with {'{One source|section|date=October 2023}}, since its only references are two essays by the same author, Steven Polzin. Perhaps this could be upgraded to {'{Content}}. 67.71.197.70 ( talk) 00:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Beyond My Ken, can you please explain what was wrong with the recently amended lead paragraph? — HTGS ( talk) 03:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
– related to latent demand and generated demand –in the first sentence is a poor way of introducing those concepts, especially as those titles redirect to this article. It would be useful to the reader to define them properly early on. — HTGS ( talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
This is consistent with the economic model of supply and demand) we can give the relevant contextual domain in the first sentence. — HTGS ( talk) 04:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Are there any opponents to the above proposals, previously embodied by the change here?: [1] — HTGS ( talk) 20:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)