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.
Trucks pay only a fraction of the cost of the damage they do to roads. Too Big for The Road
Correct and I would suggest taxing them more thus reducing the cost burden to the motorist. That would increase the cost of goods for everyone including those that don't drive.
I live in north Atlanta (suburb town is Cumming), use public transit everyday and love it. I take a bus to the train and then walk to the office two blocks away in Buckhead/Atlanta. The commute takes longer than driving but I wouldn't change it for the world. To sit in bumper to bumper traffic, wearing down the car and going at a snails pace is not what I want to do when I can be reading, working or sleeping on the bus/ train.
I'm a moderate conservative and one of the reasons I'm not a right winger (anymore) is because of the absolute refusal of the hardcore right to push for public transit (including light rail) to the suburbs. Looking at the roads around here and the complete gridlock during rush hour is complete mindboggling what people would rather do than take a bus or train which will allow you some time to clear your brain after work.
The only argument that I would like to hear more about is the crime that light rail or other public transit that supposedly comes with it. I mean does this happen in London? Paris? Berlin? Other areas of Western Europe? Why/ why not?
My in-laws are about as right winged as they come and want nothing to do with public transit...
Public transportation pays for itself in areas dense enough to support it. In low density cities it doesn't because most people will opt to drive and far more track/buses are needed for fewer people. It becomes a transportation method of last resort for the poorest residents.
It's not like highways aren't subsidizing anybody though. It's expensive to keep widening roads as white, middle class conservatives continue to migrate farther out from city centers. Suburbia, the way it's currently done, is unsustainable. The desirable middle class neighborhoods of the 1980s are quickly becoming tomorrow's ghettos.
Conservatives are obsessed with continuing and subsidizing the suburbs, but there is virtually nothing fiscally conservative about it. Living in cities and towns, as humans did until the 1950s, is the most sustainable.
Public transport should appeal to the general public, rather than a particular socioeconomic group.
Not in America. The mindset here is different comparably to Europe, not to mention the whole different planning of cities built with car dependency in mind, the sprawl and all.
The "general public" here prefers to get into cars, since it can afford them (along with gas prices.)
It's the "socioeconomic group" that can't afford the cars/fines/insurance cost would obviously like to see public transport being expanded and being more functional.
No. Don't be a parasite and get from point A to point B without the help of big government.
You willing to pay for all the low-wage workers who will be unable to get to work when they can't get to work...because they can't afford to live near their low-wage jobs?
Public transportation pays for itself in areas dense enough to support it. In low density cities it doesn't because most people will opt to drive and far more track/buses are needed for fewer people. It becomes a transportation method of last resort for the poorest residents.
It's not like highways aren't subsidizing anybody though. It's expensive to keep widening roads as white, middle class conservatives continue to migrate farther out from city centers. Suburbia, the way it's currently done, is unsustainable. The desirable middle class neighborhoods of the 1980s are quickly becoming tomorrow's ghettos.
Unsustainable? Ghettos? hahahahahaha
Of course you can show proof of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Conservatives are obsessed with continuing and subsidizing the suburbs, but there is virtually nothing fiscally conservative about it. Living in cities and towns, as humans did until the 1950s, is the most sustainable.
Show proof conservatives are subsidizing the suburbs.
Is improving public transport a reasonable expense?
Resounding yes imo.
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.
