3 ms·

What a fun read. Interesting to see how often within a single article the author can push the same agenda, without any arguments to support it or objectivity of

by w-m 9y ago

What a fun read. Interesting to see how often within a single article the author can push the same agenda, without any arguments to support it or objectivity of any kind. Why would you read a magazine full of stuff like that? Quick peek into the finance of the reason foundation: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Reason_Foundation https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Reason_Foundation And for a good laugh, their headlines on public transport: https://reason.com/tags/public-transportation https://reason.com/tags/public-transportation

snikeris 9y ago
What agenda was being pushed in the article? What's your agenda in posting this comment?
- w-m 9y ago
  Agenda I felt being pushed in the article: Agenda a): building more roads and highways is the only possible solution to congestion issues, either implied or directly called for: > The cause of worsening congestion, says Moore, is pretty simple: more people wanting to drive on the same amount of road. > In 2016, that number had not budged much, growing to only 21,826 lane miles. In the same period of time, the number of vehicle-miles traveled by Los Angeles commuters rose by some 10 million per day. > Doing this, says Moore, requires a mix of road redesign to better handle thru traffic, congestion pricing (whereby drivers pay a variable toll depending on the number of cars on the road on existing road capacity), and building new roads to meet demand. > Some metro areas are already putting these ideas to the test. Washington, D.C., has built what are known as queue duckers... > Ultimately, Moore says, Los Angeles needs to redirect its transportation dollars away from a little-used public transit system—which eats up about half of the city's transit budget—and into building more roads and adding lane-miles to meet increasing demand. Agenda b): reducing car traffic kills local business (several places as well, please go through it if interested). I posted the comment to highlight that this is not a researched journalistic piece, but one-sided article from somebody who makes the same point over and over, completely unsubstantiated. My agenda was to discredit the source as I don't think it's well written enough to be a good starting point for an interesting discussion.
  - Fins 9y ago
    And what would be your arguments for them being wrong? If you want something really laughable, California's HSR would be it.

by w-m 9y ago

snikeris 9y ago

What agenda was being pushed in the article? What's your agenda in posting this comment?

w-m 9y ago
Agenda I felt being pushed in the article: Agenda a): building more roads and highways is the only possible solution to congestion issues, either implied or directly called for: > The cause of worsening congestion, says Moore, is pretty simple: more people wanting to drive on the same amount of road. > In 2016, that number had not budged much, growing to only 21,826 lane miles. In the same period of time, the number of vehicle-miles traveled by Los Angeles commuters rose by some 10 million per day. > Doing this, says Moore, requires a mix of road redesign to better handle thru traffic, congestion pricing (whereby drivers pay a variable toll depending on the number of cars on the road on existing road capacity), and building new roads to meet demand. > Some metro areas are already putting these ideas to the test. Washington, D.C., has built what are known as queue duckers... > Ultimately, Moore says, Los Angeles needs to redirect its transportation dollars away from a little-used public transit system—which eats up about half of the city's transit budget—and into building more roads and adding lane-miles to meet increasing demand. Agenda b): reducing car traffic kills local business (several places as well, please go through it if interested). I posted the comment to highlight that this is not a researched journalistic piece, but one-sided article from somebody who makes the same point over and over, completely unsubstantiated. My agenda was to discredit the source as I don't think it's well written enough to be a good starting point for an interesting discussion.
- Fins 9y ago
  And what would be your arguments for them being wrong? If you want something really laughable, California's HSR would be it.