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.
It's because the Reaganites succeeded in changing the discussion of public works projects from one of "investments" to "costs" and "spending". As a result, Americans now generally believe that when you build a public project, the money is burned and taken out of the economy. Because in their own microeconomic experience, spending means simply losing money. They don't understand that it's simply moving money and investing it in something that will have returns for the economy and quality of life.
Bingo!
Conservatism in America is about spending nothing. No infrastructure, no education, nothing. All public spending is bad!
Spending (especially on infrastructure and education) is an investment. Subways contribute mega economic growth for decades to come. Just look at New York's subway system.
More similar to Vancouver's Skytrain, though I'm not that familiar with Miami's. Completely grade separated with shorter trains than usual for "heavy rail" but the trains are driverless. Projected cost is $5.2 billion for 20 miles of rail. About 50% more per mile than Vancouver's proposed Evergreen extension, but the latter is mostly through outer, not heavily developed areas and connecting to an existing system.
Au Contraire! Conservatives do spend money! Except instead of "Subways" they prefer investing in "bombs & Warships"!
A more relevant thing they like to spend money on is expanding highways roads, often robbing transit funds from their states or cities to spend on adding freeway lanes, interchanges, ring-roads/highways and other auto-centric projects. There are many examples of so-called Tea Party fiscal conservatives who have no problem dumping tons of funds into pointless freeway projects *cough* Scott Walker *cough*.
Of course this should also be clarified as conservative politicians (particularly ones with oil interest). I know plenty of everyday right-leaning folks who are just as much of transit fans as my more progressive friends.
It's because the Reaganites succeeded in changing the discussion of public works projects from one of "investments" to "costs" and "spending". As a result, Americans now generally believe that when you build a public project, the money is burned and taken out of the economy. Because in their own microeconomic experience, spending means simply losing money. They don't understand that it's simply moving money and investing it in something that will have returns for the economy and quality of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
A more relevant thing they like to spend money on is expanding highways roads, often robbing transit funds from their states or cities to spend on adding freeway lanes, interchanges, ring-roads/highways and other auto-centric projects. There are many examples of so-called Tea Party fiscal conservatives who have no problem dumping tons of funds into pointless freeway projects *cough* Scott Walker *cough*.
Of course this should also be clarified as conservative politicians (particularly ones with oil interest). I know plenty of everyday right-leaning folks who are just as much of transit fans as my more progressive friends.
Definitely true.
I find it ironic that the City of Portland funded its entire bicycle infrastructure system (~$60 million) for the equivalent cost of one mile of a four-lane urban freeway.
But let's keep making mega-highways that lead to no where to increase our dependence on oil.
On a serious note; subway construction is just common sense. Even if rider usage is initially low, gentrification always inflates the real estate prices near urban hotspots as the economy picks up.
I find it ironic that the City of Portland funded its entire bicycle infrastructure system (~$60 million) for the equivalent cost of one mile of a four-lane urban freeway.
But let's keep making mega-highways that lead to no where to increase our dependence on oil.
On a serious note; subway construction is just common sense. Even if rider usage is initially low, gentrification always inflates the real estate prices near urban hotspots as the economy picks up.
Or maybe bicycle infrastructure is a good choice for Portland? There's no good reason for Portland to have a subway. It's highways and roads aren't that congested for big cities, the city outside of the downtown are isn't dense at all, nowhere near enough to have lots of the city in walking distance to the station. Neither is its downtown all that big. Light rail is a cheaper though still pricey alternative. Calgary's light rail has almost double the usage with less mile, mainly due to having more downtown jobs. Perhaps a subway would be worthwhile for Calgary (Atlanta's MARTA and Miami's Metrorail get less use) but it's unnecesary for Portland.
The only two American cities I can think of where a subway would be worthwhile that don't yet have them are Honlulu (denser than most newer American cities, and mostly developed along one congested corridor) and Seattle (relatively large downtown). Both are building subways, or rather something close to a subway. If a city doesn't have a high volume of trips along a line (especially into and out of downtown) a subway is of little benefit.
Or maybe bicycle infrastructure is a good choice for Portland? There's no good reason for Portland to have a subway. It's highways and roads aren't that congested for big cities, the city outside of the downtown are isn't dense at all, nowhere near enough to have lots of the city in walking distance to the station. Neither is its downtown all that big. Light rail is a cheaper though still pricey alternative. Calgary's light rail has almost double the usage with less mile, mainly due to having more downtown jobs. Perhaps a subway would be worthwhile for Calgary (Atlanta's MARTA and Miami's Metrorail get less use) but it's unnecesary for Portland.
That's not the point. The point was cost.
Highways are extremely expensive, yet no one complains about them. When alternative infrastructure is proposed it becomes a problem. We can pretend it has nothing to do with the oil nuts running the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
The only two American cities I can think of where a subway would be worthwhile that don't yet have them are Honlulu (denser than most newer American cities, and mostly developed along one congested corridor) and Seattle (relatively large downtown). Both are building subways, or rather something close to a subway. If a city doesn't have a high volume of trips along a line (especially into and out of downtown) a subway is of little benefit.
Chicken and the egg. Subways are worthwhile in every city.
More subways. More bike infrastructure. Infrastructure is the backbone of economic growth. Infrastructure causes growth. Growth doesn't cause infrastructure. You have it backwards.
Nonsense. Everyone complains about their cost. Subways are more expensive still, and have much higher operational costs.
Not only that, but also their routing. In many cities, neighborhoods with $$ always were able to block freeway expansion while poorer neighborhoods got screwed.
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.
