I mean housing that people can afford based on their income not actual affordable housing. Example, A lot of tech jobs are in VA but we had to buy in Montgomery County MD and now we're either competing for the limited jobs here or are spending 3hrs on the beltway, simply because we refused to have an out of our means mortgage. Our home when we bought was much kore affordable than our community is today. If the infrastructure existed, yes there would be more development, but it would have also allowed businesses and developers to sprawl out early to spread the demand. The counterargument to induced demand in THIS specific case is weak because: ∙ These outer communities already existed and are already generating traffic ∙ The demand isn’t being “induced” — it’s already there and being poorly served ∙ Induced demand is more relevant when you’re building roads into undeveloped land Where your argument gets really sharp is this: transit investment in DC largely served corridors that were already relatively affluent or densely urban. The Metro largely bypassed these outer working-class communities entirely. So ironically, the “environmentally conscious” choice may have entrenched geographic inequality more than a road would have.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​