Today’s Headlines

  • A Line Increasingly Reliable and Popular, Despite Narrative (Westword)
  • Driver Plows Car into Green Valley Ranch Home, Flees (Fox31)
  • Aurora Sentinel Opus on Curbing Traffic Recommends More Lanes, Ignores Transit
  • Will Current Residents Benefit from National Western Commuter Rail, Economic Development? (Denverite)
  • 16th Street Mall Smoking Ban Generated Five Citations in Six Months (9News)
  • Sliver of Affordable Homes Available at Union Station Transit Hub for Lucky Few (9News)
  • Should Mountain Views Be Prioritized as Buildings Rise Downtown? (ABC7)

National headlines at Streetsblog USA

 

  • Roads_Wide_Open

    You totally misrepresented the entire point of the Aurora Sentinel article. Horrible reporting on your part…

    • MT

      Here’s what that article said.

      BIG PROBLEM: Too many cars and too many crashes
      SOLUTIONS: None apparent

      BIG PROBLEM: Too many cars
      SOLUTIONS: Reducing signal light interval

      PROBLEM: Way too much traffic
      SOLUTIONS: More lanes, more metering

      • TakeFive

        I think RWO is referring to the intentionally misleading/sarcastic headlines designed more like clickbait. It’s sort of the Streetsblog way and Sachs excels at it, lol.

        When curb is a verb, it means to restrain or hold back,

        Kara Mason’s piece is merely a summary of traffic ‘choke points’ around the metro. Article has nothing to do with curbing traffic and since it’s about freeways/congestion it’s not about transit… duh.

        • MT

          I didn’t see anything misleading about it.
          Just points out that their fixes are always about increasing vehicle capacity, never things like improving transit.

          It’s actually very funny the way they wrote it.
          Problem: Too many cars
          Solution: Nothing that reduces the number of cars

        • iBikeCommute

          The headline is spot on.

          • TakeFive

            How so? Specifically how do you interpret “Opus on Curbing Traffic”?

            This article didn’t set out to advocate for anything. It merely collected information and reported it. It wasn’t analytical, promotional or political in nature. If Sachs wants to advocate for a better transportation that’s fine. But to critique Kara Mason’s position when she made no attempt to take any position is to misrepresent the writer’s intent.

          • iBikeCommute

            If your issue is with the word opus, I’ll grant you that. The article was no opus, it was lazy, one sided and trite. The fact that the author only spoke with CDOT and an Aurora traffic engineer before concluding that there is no apparent fix to congestion and crashes on Havana is just poor reporting. Wouldn’t a mention of BRT as an alternative to more lanes have been a worthwhile addition?

          • TakeFive

            Actually I think ‘curbing” is more problematic but perhaps there’s more than one way to look at it.

            Again, she wasn’t trying to be analytical in any respect; you may think she should have but she was merely ‘collecting information and reporting it.’ If you want describe a simple piece of reporting as lazy, that’s fine and I wouldn’t disagree. But she probably doesn’t have any insight about options etc anyway. IMO it’s not fair to put expectations on what somebody takes on as an assignment. It should be their prerogative. You don’t have to agree with it or like it but accusing her of not doing what was outside what she set out to do doesn’t make sense. Again she wasn’t advocating for or against anything.

          • iBikeCommute

            This would be like writing an article on the U.S. stance against Iran and only interviewing John Bolton and concluding there is “no apparent” solution aside from invasion. It does not have to be analytical in order to interview more than one source. Otherwise this reads like a CDOT press release, which would seem to be just fine reporting in your book.

          • TakeFive

            You got that right. Speaking of John Bolton you sound just like Sean Hannity. If you don’t agree/report the conservative side then you’re nothing but libral news or in-other-words everything MUST be seen through a political lens.

            It’s why the growing middle (of independents) think you’re all nuts. The problem is you disrespect those who don’t want to and aren’t trying to advocate for anything. It’s true though that the simplest presentation of information can be turned into a political issue. Hannity is a master at it.

          • MT

            This is just gaslighting.

            Pointing out that there is more information available that could have been reported is not the same as the misinformation campaign of far-right media in this country. Trying to conflate the two is dishonest.

          • iBikeCommute

            I know, it’s shocking that there are advocates on an advocacy blog and that we have problems with this CDOT issued drivel.

          • TakeFive

            Since CDOT has plans to make your mountain biking much better perhaps this will make you feel better.