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.
Austin's transit system is 'decent' for a city its size but I hope they get more rail here. They can't build more roads near the core and commutes from the suburbs to Downtown will become impractical as more people move here.
It depends on who you ask. I personally at this point WOULD take MARTA rail to skip Atlanta's traffic without the slightest regret so long as it was feasible and had reachability between my home and destination....but unfortunately I also know many people who would not, not so much because its MARTA but because too many people enjoy the privacy and security of their personal vehicles.
I agree. When in Atlanta, I routinely take MARTA.
I think people in Sunbelt cities just have this stigma against public transit because they don't want to be labeled alongside "undesirables."
I think people in Sunbelt cities just have this stigma against public transit because they don't want to be labeled alongside "undesirables."
The last time I took MARTA it was literally me, my kids, my sister, her kid, and one other person in the entire cabin. This obviously wasn't at a commuter hour but still.
The link in the original post said nothing about race. Not sure why that was brought up as an issue. It seems too many times to come up as a default reason for some issue that's totally unrelated.
I know my post won't win any popularity contests in this thread, but when I read "Republican Wackos" or "Conservative ________ (insert disparaging label)", this already indicates a closed mind and inability to objectively consider any points not your own.
If one wants mass transit in their communities, they have that right. But those who bring up concerns also have the same right to have their concerns objectively and respectively listened to. Those concerns are very valid, just as you feel yours are valid.
Mass transit is extremely expensive and draining from a per dollar/per user standpoint. Nearly all metro areas/cities with extensive mass transit systems have some of the highest costs of living in the nation, which creates a new, more important issues (lack of affordable housing, overburdening tax payers further, increased homelessness, etc.). Since they're unsustainable, it take enormous tax dollars to prop these systems up, tax money that could be redirected elsewhere to help more residents and getting a much better bang for the buck. Just look at metros with the highest costs of living. Clearly, other high COL metric contribute as well, but extensive mass transit contributes at a more disproportional rate. Just run the numbers (initial cost/ongoing cost per user). This isn't "free money". Most people would never use personal spending in this manner, but when they don't physically see the $$$ coming out of their hands or wallets, we're more willing to spend like a drunken sailor. In the literal (not political) sense of the word, there's absolutely nothing "progressive" about the heavy toll high COL policies create in communities. It just makes us "feel" good.
Most people see enormous freedom in being able to drive their own cars. Go ANYWHERE you want, when you want, to any extent/duration you want, any direction you want, for any task/errand, you want. Transit can never match that level of flexibility and freedom. The key, to me, is variety. Have transit in given areas that can and want to support it. But not everyone wants it and its expense. It's very pretentious, self-righteous, and intolerant to label someone who doesn't want to spend their hard-earned money in this manner as "wacko", yet "demanding" (as one poster put it) it on the entire populous isn't "wacko". Just as you feel your take on this is valid, so do they. They have every right to fight for their tax dollars and real estate prices to not get to a point to where they're priced out of homeownership and have even less money to save, invest, or have more spending discretion about their own money. It's also self-righteous to price yourself out of a metro area with this poor fiscal decisions, leave for a more affordable area, "demand" that the new community adopt the area you fled's expensive policies, then when they reject the idea, you accuse them of "hating newcomers". And you call THEM "wackos"? LOL! If you want extensive transit, live in an area that already has it in place. Don't pretentiously and disrespectfully impose your will on areas and citizens who don't want it (or who don't want it to that extent) and its high price tag. This isn't rocket science.
I'm not going to get into a peeing contest and the drama that goes on for pages and pages on these threads. Just offering some food for thought and that there lies a good bit of hypocrisy when claiming to be open-minded, yet label others as nuts if they even dare offer a differing opinion.
EXACTLY. The original poster's post drips with venom and disdain before the discussion even started. I hope this person is not in a position of needing to negotiate in her/his job because if so, they almost certainly suck at it. I'm a Republican and a mass transit supporter, but after reading the OP's lead, I lost any interest in the discussion that followed.
EXACTLY. The original poster's post drips with venom and disdain before the discussion even started. I hope this person is not in a position of needing to negotiate in her/his job because if so, they almost certainly suck at it. I'm a Republican and a mass transit supporter, but after reading the OP's lead, I lost any interest in the discussion that followed.
I'm not going to argue the substance of the OP, but it's a pretty well-known fact that Democrats generally support public transit more than Republicans. I mean, it would make no sense for a rural Republican representative to care about public transit. Most urban areas vote Democrat, so those Democrats have to be supportive of public transit. There are obviously a few on each side who disagree with the majority of their political party, though. I'm sure Dem representatives who represent blue collar union voters in rural districts don't support increased public transit funding. Similarly, I'm sure Republican representatives who represent suburban voters outside major cities would support better public transit because it helps them commute. Some parts of NJ, LI, Staten Island, Orange County CA, etc. come to mind.
But overall, Republicans support public transit far less than Democrats do.
I'm not going to argue the substance of the OP, but it's a pretty well-known fact that Democrats generally support public transit more than Republicans. I mean, it would make no sense for a rural Republican representative to care about public transit. Most urban areas vote Democrat, so those Democrats have to be supportive of public transit. There are obviously a few on each side who disagree with the majority of their political party, though. I'm sure Dem representatives who represent blue collar union voters in rural districts don't support increased public transit funding. Similarly, I'm sure Republican representatives who represent suburban voters outside major cities would support better public transit because it helps them commute. Some parts of NJ, LI, Staten Island, Orange County CA, etc. come to mind.
But overall, Republicans support public transit far less than Democrats do.
And for the 4th time in the past 25 years Phoenix has again voted to continue light rail expansion, the referendum to block light rail expansion was voted down by over 60% of voters.
And for the 4th time in the past 25 years Phoenix has again voted to continue light rail expansion, the referendum to block light rail expansion was voted down by over 60% of voters.
Indeed! This was just the topic of an article in the NYT about how the Koch brothers overt funding nationwide towards dismantling all public funding for transit experienced a rare rebuke from the voters in Phoenix, unlike areas like Nashville where they had a great opportunity towards finally setting up some much needed infrastructure in that fast growing and traffic plagued city.
Not that it will solve the entrenched issues with the sprawl of the city but it is a much needed start towards building for the future.
I'll just note that, taking the subject line at face value and not wading into the political value judgements, you could answer this question with "Kansas City."
The city does have a downtown streetcar, true, and that streetcar line is being extended southward to a major shopping district and the university campus, a move that will turn it from a local circulator to a true commuter tool.
But that streetcar is being financed through a rather unusual special taxing district that applies only to a corridor about 1 to 1.5 miles on either side of its route. Efforts to build a more comprehensive light rail system for the city have repeatedly gone down to defeat save for one time - and that one time, the City Council found the revenue-raising mechanism so flawed it invalidated the initiative-passed law. The person who put the initatives on the ballot repeatedly - a former Kansas Citian who now lives outside Washington - has become something of a local bête noire.
And this streetcar extension would also have been stopped in its tracks had city voters not narrowly defeated a referendum question in August 2017 that would have prohibited any city officials from assisting, or any city money being spent, on any rail transit unless voters citywide approved first.
Meanwhile, the city has a fragmented bus network that is neither as frequent nor as comprehensive as it should be - the transportation authority that runs the buses in the city and parts of Wyandotte County (Kansas City), Kan., does not operate buses areawide, though there is now fare and schedule coordination among the four local agencies that do (City of Independence, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, Johnson County, Kan., Unified Government of Kansas City and Wyandotte County, Kan.)
Buses run less than full even at peak hours, and on some routes, service is infrequent and inconvenient. I'd say that's far worse than Phoenix.
But there is this: if the city and the ATA have their way (leaders of both are on board), Kansas Citians will be able to ride the buses for free citywide in the very near future. (The downtown streetcar is already free to ride; the taxes collected in its taxing district cover the cost of operation, and the Streetcar Authority determined that it would cost more to collect fares than they would collect in revenue.)
So you see many of the same issues and tensions on display here as in Phoenix.
I'll just note that, taking the subject line at face value and not wading into the political value judgements, you could answer this question with "Kansas City."
The city does have a downtown streetcar, true, and that streetcar line is being extended southward to a major shopping district and the university campus, a move that will turn it from a local circulator to a true commuter tool.
But that streetcar is being financed through a rather unusual special taxing district that applies only to a corridor about 1 to 1.5 miles on either side of its route. Efforts to build a more comprehensive light rail system for the city have repeatedly gone down to defeat save for one time - and that one time, the City Council found the revenue-raising mechanism so flawed it invalidated the initiative-passed law. The person who put the initatives on the ballot repeatedly - a former Kansas Citian who now lives outside Washington - has become something of a local bête noire.
And this streetcar extension would also have been stopped in its tracks had city voters not narrowly defeated a referendum question in August 2017 that would have prohibited any city officials from assisting, or any city money being spent, on any rail transit unless voters citywide approved first.
Meanwhile, the city has a fragmented bus network that is neither as frequent nor as comprehensive as it should be - the transportation authority that runs the buses in the city and parts of Wyandotte County (Kansas City), Kan., does not operate buses areawide, though there is now fare and schedule coordination among the four local agencies that do (City of Independence, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, Johnson County, Kan., Unified Government of Kansas City and Wyandotte County, Kan.)
Buses run less than full even at peak hours, and on some routes, service is infrequent and inconvenient. I'd say that's far worse than Phoenix.
But there is this: if the city and the ATA have their way (leaders of both are on board), Kansas Citians will be able to ride the buses for free citywide in the very near future. (The downtown streetcar is already free to ride; the taxes collected in its taxing district cover the cost of operation, and the Streetcar Authority determined that it would cost more to collect fares than they would collect in revenue.)
So you see many of the same issues and tensions on display here as in Phoenix.
Nashville is of similar size and also has very bad mass transit.
For expample Springfield,MA a metro of 670,000 has a system with 30% more bus trips than Nashville with 2,000,000.
And for the 4th time in the past 25 years Phoenix has again voted to continue light rail expansion, the referendum to block light rail expansion was voted down by over 60% of voters.
I saw this which is good news... Good for the smart voters in Phoenix. It's just a shame they are constantly called upon to beat back these stupid 'no tax for rail' ballot initiatives by the anti-rail attack dogs who keep coming back, again and again. Maybe the death of David Koch will take some steam out of these foolish efforts.
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.
