Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=bawac34618;55766690]I agree with this. I've always liked Phoenix though, even in the 80s. I have very fond memories of the place.
I think Phoenix is one of America's more unique cities and cannot be compared to places like Chicago or any of the legacy cities in the Northeast. It can't be compared with coastal California either. I'd say it's main peers are the large Texas cities and from my research, it comes out on top in a lot of ways. Compared with Houston it seems to have a plethora of walkable, human-scaled neighborhoods. You just need to know where to look.[/QUOTE
Phoenix and walkable should never be used in the same sentence. Its sprawled like most post WWII metropolises. And it comes on top of any large Texas city is doesn't unless a person like a desert climate. Its traffic is better than Austin and likely Houston but in terms of jobs, dining, education, connectivity and long term sustainability(i.e. WATER), Phoenix is lesser. I would say Phoenix from an entertainment perspective is comparable to those two metro and better than San Antonio. Dallas/Fort Worth has more entertainment venues than any place in the southern and southwestern U.S.
You raise fair points. And as one who introduced the terms conservative wackos (I eschewed saying adjective "republican"), I am obligated to clarify. It is too long a discussion, and not on the point of this thread, to get into the finer points of our current divisive politics. Simply noted, though, there is what we've come to understand as traditional conservatism -- libertarian-ism, limited government/lower taxes, more emphasis on private growth, yadda, yadda, yadda, and this new strain of ... something, I don't even want to label it -- that is potentially far more dangerous. I don't label this new stuff -- which borders on the f-word (no, not the 4-letter one), as conservatism.
But interestingly there's a split among traditional conservatism regarding some forms of public transit. The real anti-transit strain is often in more rural areas away from cities, and this comes into play in places like Ohio where you have 3 big cities with transit -- Cleveland being the most robust -- that are being attacked and strangled by rural conservatives in state government who would rather pay for what has become the beacon for libertarians: freeways that allow you to come and go as you please and not be beholden on anyone else ... or so they think. But they don't account for the billions and billions that taxpayers pay for the absurd amount of upkeep that goes into maintaining those roads...
In some cities in even traditionally conservative regions, like Utah, where Salt Lake City has developed quite an amazing mass transit network of express buses, LRT and commuter rail in a medium-sized, light-density metro area. And the locals love it. In Texas, 3 large cities (Austin, Dallas and Houston) have developed rail -- Dallas, of course, being the largest and most efficient of these. But, then, unlike SLC in Utah, these 3 Texas cities are more akin to the Big 3 in Ohio -- conservative state surrounding 3 more liberal/progressive metropolitan cities... and so these cities are leaning on the Feds for capital expenses to build and expand these systems OR, as in Denver and Seattle, these cities are going to the voters to dramatically expand their rail systems (of course those to cities are in Blue states, but those states have a strong conservative presence, too).... Florida is kind of like "Texas Lite" in terms of conservative politics -- there are stronger liberal cores in the bigger cities, especially in the Dade/Broward/Palm Beach counties metroplex in the south land... No surprise that rail transit exists there, and is growing.
Nashville, which is diverse but probably not as progressive, esp in the suburbs as Denver or Seattle, rolled the dice big time for its proposed $8B "Let's Move" rail/BRT/expanded bus network... but unfortunately, it went down, roughly 4-to-1, to the voters, after the pro-transit mayor, who introduced Let's Move, resigned in scandal just prior to the vote and Koch Brother's anti-transit forces moved in and won the bully pulpit.
Bottom Line: even though conservatives have successfully shot down High Speed Rail in most states -- even more blue ones (keep an eye on Cali which is slowly moving forward on HSR, while Florida and Texas are moving forward with privately-financed higher and high speed rail programs, respectively, despite failing court challenges from conservative groups), even those conservatives in cities seem to be more open to the idea of rail rapid transit for their convenience in dealing with mounting traffic headaches on a day-to-day basis.
ALL cities with rail HAVE to secure Fed Funds to subsidize local funding sources.
Second, Colorado is NOT a conservative state when you have STATE-wide pot legalization. lol
Third, Washington State, hasn't been a conservative area for quite some time.
Fourth, San Antonio is not a conservative city. Its just not wild-eyed liberal. Its traffic situation is such, rail transit has never been seen as a big need. It does have big suburbs like DFW to help pay for rail. Austin would like more rail but many people there are more concerned right now with housing costs, homelessness and water than rail. Also, like San Antonio, the suburbs are really just bed room communities with the exception of Round Rock, home of Dell Computers. That's slowing changing though. I can see a rail line down to San Marcos, home of Texas State University and expansion to the Airport to the southeast.
Columbus Ohio, Nashville and Cincy, and it's not due to lack of choo choos. Bus systems are trash and expensive for what you're getting.
A BRT would be more cost effective than a stupid light rail that stops for traffic. If you're not gonna build a subway or a train that's at least open cut or elevated then why bother?
And I also like how you people are making this political blaming conservative gov'ts for lack of rail transit. Nevada is a blue state; where's the rail? There's no push for blue Oregon and Washington to push for rail further inland. This is more than political; not everyone wants to deal with bums stinking up the vehicles, whiny babies or ghettoism. Not saying that's gonna happen all the time but if you have your own car and don't need to deal with that stuff why bother?
What gives is speed of growth, demand for rail, and ability to finance. For example, Arlington, TX, the largest suburb in D/FW at 400,000 residents has repeatedly voted down public transit, in part due to a good road system and cost of driving not being excessive. They also chose to spend their tax dollars on alternatives such as funding for new Texas Rangers and Dallas Cowboys facilities.
In case you haven't noticed, younger people are trending away from cars and toward urbanity, walkability, and mass transit. Three things Arlington has precisely none of. If these trends continue, being a sprawly transit desert with no real downtown bodes very poorly for the city's long-term future, shiny stadiums or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walker1962
Second, Colorado is NOT a conservative state when you have STATE-wide pot legalization. lol
Outside of the major Front Range metros and resort areas (IOW the majority of the landmass) the state is very conservative. Granted, it's more of the truly live-and-let-live libertarian variety and less of the uptight, Evangelical conservatism you're used to being from the Bible Belt.
Ugh, my parents moved to Marietta in 1986, and my Mom is still there. I remember back in 1987, while attending Georgia State for one class, wishing Cobb County had a MARTA rail line so I could've just taken the train into downtown Atlanta. Maybe the rising generations will finally reverse the paranoia that has kept the rail lines out of most of the suburban areas and help relieve the traffic problems. I don't know what excuses suburban voters use now for defeating MARTA referendums in the Atlanta suburbs, but back in the 1980's it was blatant racism (all those people from South Atlanta will be riding up here and cause problems).
I think racism is still a part of it, although now, Blacks have migrated into the suburbs than in the 1980s. The bigoted NIMBY attitude clearly seems behind Phoenix's Prop 105 movement to ban further LRT expansion. This attitude is also coupled with the "... I don't use it, so why should I pay for it?" mentality, which is equally regressive... It seems Suburban Atlanta is more open to MARTA expansion these days -- in part because of more Blacks and minorities in the burbs themselves, but also because the traffic is so much worse than the 80s and folks may tax themselves to seek relief.
Columbus Ohio, Nashville and Cincy, and it's not due to lack of choo choos. Bus systems are trash and expensive for what you're getting.
A BRT would be more cost effective than a stupid light rail that stops for traffic. If you're not gonna build a subway or a train that's at least open cut or elevated then why bother?
And I also like how you people are making this political blaming conservative gov'ts for lack of rail transit. Nevada is a blue state; where's the rail? There's no push for blue Oregon and Washington to push for rail further inland. This is more than political; not everyone wants to deal with bums stinking up the vehicles, whiny babies or ghettoism. Not saying that's gonna happen all the time but if you have your own car and don't need to deal with that stuff why bother?
Not much more I can say to this other than, wow...
I think racism is still a part of it, although now, Blacks have migrated into the suburbs than in the 1980s. The bigoted NIMBY attitude clearly seems behind Phoenix's Prop 105 movement to ban further LRT expansion. This attitude is also coupled with the "... I don't use it, so why should I pay for it?" mentality, which is equally regressive... It seems Suburban Atlanta is more open to MARTA expansion these days -- in part because of more Blacks and minorities in the burbs themselves, but also because the traffic is so much worse than the 80s and folks may tax themselves to seek relief.
Is Atlanta of the mentality that "traffic sucks I wish I had alternatives?" Or is more like LA, which thinks "traffic sucks I wish everyone else had alternatives so I could drive my own car more easily?"
Is Atlanta of the mentality that "traffic sucks I wish I had alternatives?" Or is more like LA, which thinks "traffic sucks I wish everyone else had alternatives so I could drive my own car more easily?"
But at least LA has fully embraced the idea of rail transit; has built a nice system and is growing it by leaps and bounds. And, no, suburban LA isn't providing the NIMBY push-back that suburban Atlanta has been providing. To me, LA is light years ahead of Atlanta in these aspects.
ALL cities with rail HAVE to secure Fed Funds to subsidize local funding sources.
Second, Colorado is NOT a conservative state when you have STATE-wide pot legalization. lol
Third, Washington State, hasn't been a conservative area for quite some time.
Fourth, San Antonio is not a conservative city. Its just not wild-eyed liberal. Its traffic situation is such, rail transit has never been seen as a big need. It does have big suburbs like DFW to help pay for rail. Austin would like more rail but many people there are more concerned right now with housing costs, homelessness and water than rail. Also, like San Antonio, the suburbs are really just bed room communities with the exception of Round Rock, home of Dell Computers. That's slowing changing though. I can see a rail line down to San Marcos, home of Texas State University and expansion to the Airport to the southeast.
I don't think being pro-cannabis is necessarily a liberal thing. It seems more of libertarian, "... if I want to get high and am not bothering anybody, I should be allowed to do so..." kinda thing. Ohio, which is very conservative these days, just missed passing a legalized marijuana law a few years ago and very well may pass one in the next year or too, if the pro-weed faction can get its act together -- it failed because of plain old greed, stupidity and poor planning (there were to be only 3 or 4 growers, statewide, who would be given a franchise -- of course falling to the rich and connected, and the voters weren't buying it), not because of the moralistic/religious conservatives were wagging their collective 'shame' finger...
And, once again, even a fairly conservative city, Salt Lake City, has built and is expanding an impressive LRT/commuter rail network. Even some urban conservatives are coming around to the idea of quality transit... It's just that rail proposals must be sold and packaged well for voters to really understand the benefits they/their city will be getting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
