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.
One thing that people from each side of the political aisle seem to agree upon is that the federal government should be responsible for building and maintaining roads. This would seem like a sensible point for each side to agree on, as people on the left and right seem to drive. Here is my question, however: how come certain people want the federal government to build and maintain roads, yet are so virulently opposed to the idea of the federal government appropriating more money towards public transportation systems? Some will utilize the argument that they don't use public transportation; however, as an urban resident who lives car-free, why should I be expected not have a problem with my tax dollars going to fund a highway in a rural and/or suburban area?
As it stands, the majority of American citizens live within metropolitan areas. In all likeliness, this is due to the fact that major cities are the greatest contributors to this nation's GDP. My city of Philadelphia and its metropolitan area that encompasses parts of PA, NJ, DE, and MD, for example, contributes over $388B to the national economy. We have the fourth-largest economy in the nation, and the ninth-largest among world cities. In fact, our economy eclipses that of many states (even when combined)! The backbone of our region, as well as its economy, is our public transportation system: SEPTA. Without SEPTA, the region would come to a standstill. This is the case for other large economic contributors, such as NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and many other cities. To keep the federal government's coffers stuffed, this nation needs our major cities to perform well. The best way to move human capital around, within, and out of cities is through high-capacity, high-frequency public transportation. The loss of our public transportation systems would mean the loss of economic productivity, translating to a national crisis.
With so much at stake, too many voters and politicians still attempt to block measures that would increase the level of funding to public transportation systems. Several systems (especially older systems), including SEPTA, need additional funding to attain a state of good repair. Without additional capital funding, several of our nation's largest cities will be less economically productive, less livable, and significantly more difficult to navigate.
Because there is no provision in the Constitution that comes even remotely close to authorizing or allowing the federal government to engage in such ventures.
Because there is no provision in the Constitution that comes even remotely close to authorizing or allowing the federal government to engage in such ventures.
Unfortunately that rarely stops them from acting.
The very same thing could be said about roads. I don’t see anything in the Constitution authorizing Congress to find roads, yet here we are.
Public transit is not the best way to move people around town and this comes from someone who lives in Chicago and has great transit. The fed used to pay to support public transit(i.e. the cost of running it and salaries) but now the fed just helps with capital expenses(like building or repairing lines, equipment, new rail cars or buses).
Roads are generally cheaper. They can handle a wider variety of vehicles(trucks, cars, buses, ambulances) and require very little staffing to keep running esp. at night.
Public transit is great when large numbers of people need to move to a limited number of destinations at the same time. It gets horrible expensive to run say late a night or weekends when there is less demand for it. It becomes a pain in the neck when transfers are involved and the crowding\lack of control of the environment brings it's own set of problems. It is not the best way to move a family(i.e. kids who may have less ability to walk or need to go to different places). It is not a good way to travel when you want to move cargo(i.e.. when shopping).
And, it is often no faster and usually slower than driving. In Chicago I can think of a trip to O'hare during rush hour as perhaps the only place where public transit is faster than driving.
So convenient lol. Because of course postal cars need massive interstate highways that move millions of cars a day. I am so happy that we don't live in the libertarian cess pool that so many people seem to want.
I could not even imagine being billed at full rate every time I leave my house and get on a toll road which is lined with private property signs and fences like some sort of dystopian novel.
The rich want to minimize, as much as possible, any expense to themselves and then jail all the homeless for tresspassing .... of course they dont want to pay for the jails though lol.
Maybe death camps or draconian forced indentured servitude if you are caught being homeless?
No thank you, I like the federal govt forcing the filthy riches private sectors hands when they try pulling shady tactics.
Also the federal govt took on this roll when they passed the income tax amendment. Prior to this the states would have been collecting said funds from corporations or income to fund this stuff, now they cant because the feds take such a large chunk. Also we no longer collect strategic tariffs, even trump has not been able to implement a 50% tarrif on China yet and he likely wont because the elite families will scream bloody murder.
The only funds the fed govt is suppose to collect ARE tarrifs but that would cut into the elites profits if they are leveraged in a strategic manner.
Public transit is not the best way to move people around town and this comes from someone who lives in Chicago and has great transit. The fed used to pay to support public transit(i.e. the cost of running it and salaries) but now the fed just helps with capital expenses(like building or repairing lines, equipment, new rail cars or buses).
Roads are generally cheaper. They can handle a wider variety of vehicles(trucks, cars, buses, ambulances) and require very little staffing to keep running esp. at night.
Public transit is great when large numbers of people need to move to a limited number of destinations at the same time. It gets horrible expensive to run say late a night or weekends when there is less demand for it. It becomes a pain in the neck when transfers are involved and the crowding\lack of control of the environment brings it's own set of problems. It is not the best way to move a family(i.e. kids who may have less ability to walk or need to go to different places). It is not a good way to travel when you want to move cargo(i.e.. when shopping).
And, it is often no faster and usually slower than driving. In Chicago I can think of a trip to O'hare during rush hour as perhaps the only place where public transit is faster than driving.
When traffic is a nightmare and congested to the point of traffic jams rail is needed. I am happy that Boston had rail when we visited, I could not have even imagined trying to drive around and park, it would have been hell and our time in Boston would have been a nightmare.
Public transit is not the best way to move people around town and this comes from someone who lives in Chicago and has great transit. The fed used to pay to support public transit(i.e. the cost of running it and salaries) but now the fed just helps with capital expenses(like building or repairing lines, equipment, new rail cars or buses).
Roads are generally cheaper. They can handle a wider variety of vehicles(trucks, cars, buses, ambulances) and require very little staffing to keep running esp. at night.
Public transit is great when large numbers of people need to move to a limited number of destinations at the same time. It gets horrible expensive to run say late a night or weekends when there is less demand for it. It becomes a pain in the neck when transfers are involved and the crowding\lack of control of the environment brings it's own set of problems. It is not the best way to move a family(i.e. kids who may have less ability to walk or need to go to different places). It is not a good way to travel when you want to move cargo(i.e.. when shopping).
And, it is often no faster and usually slower than driving. In Chicago I can think of a trip to O'hare during rush hour as perhaps the only place where public transit is faster than driving.
Its not just transit time but also parking you have to deal with when in a car, the parking in a congested city can be a nightmare far worse than the commute itself.
So convenient lol. Because of course postal cars need massive interstate highways that move millions of cars a day. I am so happy that we don't live in the libertarian cess pool that so many people seem to want.
I could not even imagine being billed at full rate every time I leave my house and get on a toll road which is lined with private property signs and fences like some sort of dystopian novel.
How would you move the millions or billions of tons of freight and mail that currently travels on the roads? A large highway system is what is necessary to fulfill that constitutional obligation.
And who said anything about toll roads? Just because the roads' primary purpose is the transportation of goods doesn't mean no one else can use it.
Yes I do leanlibertarian, but I happen to think a (properly administered) gas tax is the best way to pay for roads. It's a close to a user fee as you can get without having to pay tolls every few miles. The more you use the roads, the more gas you use and the more you contribute to their upkeep (in the form of the gas tax)
Quote:
The rich want to minimize, as much as possible, any expense to themselves and then jail all the homeless for tresspassing .... of course they dont want to pay for the jails though lol.
Maybe death camps or draconian forced indentured servitude if you are caught being homeless?
No thank you, I like the federal govt forcing the filthy riches private sectors hands when they try pulling shady tactics.
I don't know what you're on about here, but it's way off the subject of this thread and what I was talking about.
(And I meant Article 1, Section 8. Sorry for the typo)
I'm not necessarily for or against, but using logic, the federal government should only be funding federal projects, meaning things that incorporate multiple states, such as the interstate highway system. But there are plenty of roads that the feds don't pay for such as state highways or county roads. So using this logic public transit is usually contained within one county or state, so it should be funded locally. However if it crosses multiple state lines than I suppose it could be funded on a federal level, but that would also mean there would be an unfair advantage to metro areas that cross multiple state lines such as the bos-wash corridor as opposed to cities that are contained in one state such as LA, SF, and Seattle. Or all these public transit systems would have to be conglomerated into one giant federal system which I personally would be opposed to.
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.
