I don't think that's fair. Yes, I disagree with this particular article, but The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis. And yes, they have a particular worldview, which they wear on their sleeve. In general I don't have many bad, and have a lot of good, things to say about them.
If you have a better recommendation to fill their niche I'd be interested to hear it.
The Economist is basically the Gell-Mann effect in written form. They are also definitely partisan when it suits them (they were formed to argue against the Corn Laws!)
The Economist is basically that happens when you stick your finger in the air and want to write down what the "consensus" opinion is. It's neither insightful, nor surprising. In a way, it is the most boring magazine there is.
Advocating these things is the very definition of the neoliberal consensus view - for which this magazine explicitly advocates. With the exception of same-sex marriage (maybe ... this was a liberal policy goal for a long time), all of that is the boilerplate position of any pol from that camp.
"partisan when it suits them"
They spell out their worldview, far more plainly and thoroughly than most, and explicitly non-partisan on their about us page. So is their ownership. They're consistent enough that I generally know on what topics we will differ. They've never supported a particular party but come election time and big issues they endorse one way or the other, with reasoning. Beats the single party (whichever party) come what may stance of most titles. What more could you want?
Like the FT, I find them far less partisan than younger-me once expected.
1. you find an article published on a topic that you know well.
2. You find that the publication is egregiously wrong about it.
3. You laugh about it, turn the page and believe everything they write about other topics.
I know technology reasonably well, and I’ve noticed every single publication I’ve read, the NYT onwards, make mistakes. In 12 years of reading the Economist (especially their fantastically informative Technology Quarterly issues) I have yet to notice them making mistakes. For this, and other reasons, I trust them.
The way you’ve phrased your comment “... in written form” makes me think you don’t know what you’re talking about. But who knows, I could probably read another comment by you and think “wow that’s insightful”.
Indian suburban regions frequently are as dense as American urban areas, which may throw off your intuitions a bit if you're unfamiliar.
Straight roads make people drive faster, which makes not driving worse for everyone else.
In the other limit, you build like e.g. Detroit suburbs, where it's essentially impossible to do anything on foot, ever.
If you have to choose which one to be more like, curvy narrow roads are the way to go if you care about pedestrians.
Add to this the fact that, if you provide space for cars, they will take it up: adding lanes / width / parking increases car usage to a greater extent than the space added, such that you end up drawing more congestion to the area than before it was improved.
I was trying to think in an idealistic or "from first principles" way as opposed to the practical / realistic approach you took. From that point of view, I'd want all roads to be straight lines to minimise travel distance.