Findings from Language Lab by Ross Bassett

"Capacity Deficiency" is focused on the capacity of cars not people

2024-10-07 14:28:34 UTC

Vehicles

ekpace — 2024-10-07 14:28:46 UTC

the term "vehicles" was used more as a quantitive label in the text rather than an identifier when talking about traffic and who the project caters to

Vehicles

2024-10-07 14:29:07 UTC

The subject of the project plan is vehicles.

Subject of the Project

2024-10-07 14:29:15 UTC

Definitely cars, highways are not at all friendly to people on bikes, pedestrians, etc. It is only for car transit

Traffic

2024-10-07 14:29:17 UTC

The word "traffic" was used 40 times in reference to vehicles.

Project Title uses "Improvement"

2024-10-07 14:29:32 UTC

Proposal writers immediately use "Improvement" in the title, one of Lockwood's most egregious examples of biased language. Puts any potential disagreement on the "wrong side" of some moral scale

Improvements

2024-10-07 14:30:19 UTC

the term improvements was used even in the title of the document. It implies that the expansion of motor vehicle traffic is an improvement. An improvement should ultimately benefit all people.

Cars>People

2024-10-07 14:30:19 UTC

People were only mentioned once. It's almost like the developers treat cars as an independent variable that doesn't relate to the people inside or around them at all.

Delay

2024-10-07 14:30:33 UTC

The word "delay" was used a few times in the proposal; the way it was used made the proposal sound like the faster the vehicles could go (less delays), the better the traffic would be.

Alternative Afterthought

2024-10-07 14:30:36 UTC

The inclusion of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure seems like an afterthought, a token to reassure the minority of people who use alternative means of transportation. According to Lockwood, such token mentions perpetuate the automobile bias by framing alternative modes as secondary to motor vehicles.

Absence of important terms

2024-10-07 14:30:50 UTC

Words like humans, people, bikes, clean, energy, etc., were not even found on the walls of the reading.

2024-10-07 14:31:09 UTC

"improve traffic flow and operational efficiency and enhance mobility"

Counting

2024-10-07 14:31:11 UTC

Capacity - 13 (9 in text, 4 in the title of or link to a reference)
Demand - 1 (in text)
Impact - 0
Improvement/improve - 22 (14 times in the header of page, a title, or a subtitle, 4 times in the text, and 4 times in the title of or link to a reference)
Traffic - 40 times (8 times in the header of page, a title, or a subtitle, 23 times in the text, and 9 times in the title of or link to a reference)
People - 6 (travelers 1 time (in text), workforce 1 time (in text), people 1 time (in text), pedestrian 2 times (1 time in the text and 1 time in a title), student population 1 time (in text))
Vehicles - 21 (4 times in the header of page, a title, or a subtitle, 16 times in the text, and 1 times in the title of a reference)

People

ekpace — 2024-10-07 14:31:11 UTC

the term "people" was used once in the text "Many people use I-440..."

Speed Reduction as a negative term

cmhobgoo — 2024-10-07 14:31:25 UTC

They mention that for cars on this section of road "Maneuvering requires substantial vigilance. Average travel speeds may begin to show some reduction.," in a negative connotation. (page 8)

Efficiency and Delays

2024-10-07 14:31:28 UTC

Lockwood used words like efficiency and delay to persuade readers that this project would make everyones drives easier and faster. But the project only shows bias towards automobiles and making there rides faster.

_____ deficencies

2024-10-07 14:31:28 UTC

1.2. “Need For Project”, the sub-headings are labeled “_____ deficiencies”. This can create a negative tone towards the current roadway systems and express implication and need for repair.

The use of "improvement"

2024-10-07 14:31:57 UTC

The word improvement was used in the title and Lockwood specifically bashed the word improvement for its misuse. Improvement was used in a biased way to voice the change happening by widening I-440.

2024-10-07 14:32:22 UTC

There are more biased language terms used outside of the ones that were listed by Lockwood, where more specific vocabulary could have been used.

Capacity

2024-10-07 14:32:52 UTC

The capacity referred to are the cars and motor vehicles on the road. They want to give them more room, so they don't have to give up speed or slow down. Having a greater capacity for cars would increase their speed and make the traffic less bike or pedestrian friendly.

efficiency

2024-10-07 14:32:55 UTC

the term efficiency is referenced in relation to the 'bottleneck' with the reduced lanes (4) in comparison to its surroundings (6). Making something more efficient in this case shouldn't mean taking up more space(adding lanes).

No

2024-10-07 14:33:07 UTC

Over time the demand for cars will continue to grow as it has historically and the need for more lanes will become a repeating cycle where for a short time the lanes are sufficient until they arent leading to a new project suggesting adding more lanes

Subject

2024-10-07 14:33:08 UTC

The plan is aimed toward motorists only and was not inclusive of pedestrians and cyclists.

Safety

2024-10-07 14:33:10 UTC

They recognize that there are pedestrians and cyclists in the area because of nearby campuses, but safety is really only measured by the vehicle crash rate, and the danger posed to non-drivers by high car speeds is not explored.

Ehhh...

ekpace — 2024-10-07 14:33:12 UTC

The proposal needs to contain more substantive evidence on how cyclists and pedestrians will be effected by these project plans for me to make a decision

Cars/Vehicles/Traffic

2024-10-07 14:33:53 UTC

Cars/vehicles are the main subject of the plan, with very little language used towards the people actually driving the vehicles. There is no mention of other means of transportation, and "traffic" is utilized as a term specifically referring to cars.

No

2024-10-07 14:34:39 UTC

As far as I understand, it seems like the infrastructure beforehand worked just fine. I felt like the use of the word "deficiencies" in the Need for Project section was dishonest. Perhaps "perceived imperfections" is a better term. Realistically, is it worth this much money, effort, and consistent construction/redirection of traffic to fix what many might perceive as small imperfections? Additionally, there is absolutely no mention of the harm this project is doing to locals and, on a broader scale, in increasing our dependency on automotives.

2024-10-07 14:35:09 UTC

The statement "operational efficiency and enhance mobility."

Level of service

2024-10-07 14:35:25 UTC

level of service creates a previously unknown/non-existent worry regarding the "failing" levels of traffic in us highways, influencing readers to suddenly care about the expansion of roads reducing greenspace and disregarding bikes and people walking

No

2024-10-07 14:35:35 UTC

It doesn't seem to make much of an effort to persuade anyone besides drivers who want to get somewhere faster

Subjects Of The Project Plan

2024-10-07 14:35:37 UTC

I believe the subjects of the project plan are vehicles, primarily, followed by humans. The vehicles are held to a higher standard than humans.

Environmental Impact of Highway Construction

2024-10-07 14:36:12 UTC

The images of the interstate looked green and full of life before the construction process started, and the aftermath left a brown, bare, dead looking ground.

Demand

2024-10-07 14:37:42 UTC

In the document it references college students increasing demand for bike friendly and pedestrian friendly infrastructure. Using the word demand implies an entitled attitude, willingness to inconvenience others, or even aggression. This narrative works for their bias.