Access has economic value. Mobility has zero economic value.

"Mobility has inherent economic value and induced demand is made up of real people, making real choices they couldn't make before."

Access has economic value. Mobility has zero economic value. If I double both the speed and the distance of a trip, mobility has doubled, but access hasn't changed, and there has been zero economic benefit.

"That is just wrong. If people can travel longer distances at the same generalised cost, then they have more opportunities for where to live and work. This has value for them. That is an economic benefit".

In terms of short-term equilibrium, absolutely. However, mid-term (months) transportation behavior is characterized by the 'Triple Convergence' where people shift from other routes, other modes, and other trip-times, until the whole travel network reaches equilibrium at a near-identical travel distance. In the long-term (decades), any actual increases in mobility spur additional development at the periphery, until congestion again reaches equilibrium. In a long-term planning context, the argument is that is that we're better off increasing access to opportunities by clustering things in central locations, at higher densities, rather than relying on mobility improvements create through spending trillions building/maintaining limited access highway systems. Research shows the intuitive conclusion that the easier it is to drive miles, the more miles people drive. So when I'm talking about the lack of value, I'm talking about specific trips: if I double the distance I travel to buy food, but travel at twice the speed, I get no benefit, but I've doubled the public cost of in terms of traffic and pollution.