Saturday, May 16, 2009

Patrick McIlheran Underscores Why He Should Be Ignored

He doesn't like it when you challenge his argumentation.

I posted this a couple of days ago:
FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2009

Patrick McIlheran argues that we need more ways to move people through cities as the solution to congestion.

Buried freeways. Wider streets. New tolls.
Missing from this one-dimensional discussion: promoting growth in cities to put people and jobs close to other people and jobs, which reduces the need for new concrete infrastructure and minimizes commuting time.
Then I found this response on Twitter:

Thanks for the link, Jim! My paper's 214,000 circ will appreciate the addition of your 14 readers! Cheers.


JoeyHepatitis said...

Patrick McIlheran has the ability to communicate how awful he is in under 140 words so you gotta wonder why he needs a full column

Other Side said...

Another reason why the paper should be ignored as well.

That it continues to employ such an unprofessional individual is ludicrous. Just recently McIlheran attacked a letter-to-the-editor writer twice on his blog. Only cheap, no-standard newspapers allow that kind of behavior.

James Rowen said...

If you let bloggers and letter-writers get to you, your skin is awfully thin.

xoff said...

The newspaper had a higher circulation than that before he became a columnist.

dadofone said...

P.M. is making a very big assumption in intimating that because the paper has a particular circulation number all subscribers actually bother to read his column. The mere sight of his name has me flipping that page into the shredder for the worm composting bin.

John said...

McIlheran referring to the MJS as "my paper" - that's so CUTE!

James Rowen said...

The paper had a bigger circulation when I worked there but I never thought it had anything to do with me.

Newspapering is all about teamwork.

Anonymous said...

Weird! The newspaper had a larger subscription rate when I was a delivery boy in 1981. I guess one guy CAN make a difference! Patrick Macalnuts deserves far more credit for my cancelation than he is getting. Thanks PM for saving me so much money!

jpk said...

Most academics know that the Reason Foundation, who McIlheran cites, is bunk. They are not into impartial, scientific research.

For those of you serious about what real economists and rational choice academics are saying about the traffic/sprawl debate, I highly recommend Sprawl Costs by Burcell, Downs, McCann, and Mukherji (2005). That's Anthony Downs, one of the most famous and frequently cited political scientists in the US.

The bottom line: the Reason Fdn doesn't factor into their analysis obvious externalities associated with sprawl, thus they overestimate the impact of unchecked development.

John said...

I can second the recommendation of SPRAWL COSTS.

James Rowen said...

My point, and what McIlheran didn't address in his posting or his Twitter response, was that what the Reason piece discussed seemed to be focused on using resources to people through cities - - rather than using resources for development and infrastructure in cities.

For people, and business, already there, or to be recruited or encouraged to locate in cities.

James Rowen said...

Oops: word drop in my comment response to JPK.

In the fourth line, para. 1. Add "move" before "people..."