Light Rail in Madison? (subsidized, disposal, zoning)

[Boohovah]

free streetcar around the isthmus i meant.

[jwhalun08]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

I think Madison is just too small for light rail, if Madison had a top notch bus system I don't think people would even think about light rail. However I feel like people only want light rail to feel like they live in a big city or to be more of a cosmo city. I feel it's more of a fashion statement for a city than a viable way of moving people around a city. It's like keeping up with the Jones way of thinking.

Try explaining this warped rationale to your grandparents--people who would have grown up during an era when, despite microscopic population figures (by today's standards, that is), trams/streetcars and trains were the principle means of transportation for the masses. Until Eisenhower's Highway Act of 1956, they were everywhere. And it certainly wasn't about poshness or status; it was about efficiency, practicality, and sustainability. Throughout the sum of human history, any city's evolution has been dependent on the available transportation options. It's why most, if not all, European cities are walkable--and it's also why many American cities are not. The former came into existence centuries ago while the latter are mostly just over a century or two old (i.e. we began building our cities in the dawn of the Industrial Revolution). Our country's corporations forsook the rather basic foundations we did have in place for walkable, livable cities and dangled the "dream" of owning a chunk of land out in the country; they told us we could live in peaceful tranquility, far away from the noise, hustle, pollution, and crime of the big city. All we needed was a car--and the proper infrastructure.

I think it was ultimately a problem of our insatiable desire to grow without constraint. We could have built cities with a careful, measured, and sustainable pace--and they would have not had the unsavory qualities most of us attach to their modern, industrialized form. Instead, we made them places that nobody wanted to live. And most of us still don't. Too bad, so sad. Now we're facing an end to the era of cheap oil and suddenly, people's far-away, shoddy suburban homes in those sub-developed gated communities are losing value by the second because of it. How are these people going to make their two-way half-hour commutes to work every day when gas is $8.00/gallon? How are they going to afford food when it has to be trucked from miles upon miles away? How are they going to afford anything else at all? They aren't.

Are we a nation of individuals--with each person marching to the beat of his/her drum? Or are we truly united--with each person looking out for his/her fellow man?

We, as citizens, need to start taking control of where we live--to take pride in the places we call home. Put an end to the big box stores and the strip malls; infuse character, beauty, and originality into our communities. Mass transit is one of many steps we can no longer afford not to take. In the not-so-distant future, it will be the factor that determines whether we thrive or live in squalor.

If you think money is a problem--that it might cost too much--you should pay this cute little website a quick visit: COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

Madison, Wisconsin--along with every other city/town in the country--needs to begin the lengthy process of building a mass transit infrastructure.

[Milwaukee City]

Sound's like your shoulder is chipped?

[Drover]

I love the word "sustainable." It's a handy little tool. Whenever you wish to advocate a certain policy, just call it "sustainable" and suddenly it becomes imbued with absolute moral authority.

If warehousing people on top of each other in cities was so "sustainable" then why wasn't that model sustained in favor of the current model?

[jwhalun08]

Originally Posted by Drover

I love the word "sustainable." It's a handy little tool. Whenever you wish to advocate a certain policy, just call it "sustainable" and suddenly it becomes imbued with absolute moral authority.

If warehousing people on top of each other in cities was so "sustainable" then why wasn't that model sustained in favor of the current model?

A significant number of so-called environmentalists and economists like to use the word "sustainable" to greenwash the public into accepting some malformed, egotistical legislation/project, yes--but you're basing the term's meaning off of how it speaks to you (connotation) over its actual definition (denotation). I'm not misusing or perverting the meaning of the concept in any way.

"Warehousing people on top of each other in cities" is neither sustainable (I never expressed as much) nor ethical. But sprawl--the opposite of that extreme--isn't either.

I can't seem to find this "model" of which you write, the one that supposedly exists today. I think we're lost in a schizophrenic, irrevocably disordered limbo, don't you? Nobody seems very happy at all. If you doubt that, you might want to dig up the ever-increasing statistics on depression. On a broader level, our nation has lost a stable identity.

Since you appear to be quite the brilliant linguist, I'm wondering if you're also familiar with the word "moderation." I don't think most people are, really--but it's probably ten times as fun as "sustainable." The Greeks used it a lot once. Remember? (Not personally, of course).

I'm not going to bother lecturing a couple people who have zero knowledge or lack the ability to think critically, so I'll just make one suggestion: Look into New Urbanism/New Suburbanism or, if you're interested in a more philosophical base, try postmodernism. (Maybe studying the history of urban planning would help, too).

Only when you're able to generate an intelligent, thoughtful discussion on the ideas presented in my prose will you earn my respect. Offering an erroneous definition of sustainability and questioning my dedication to its actual tenets doesn't tell me much--besides the fact that you know how to be a mildly more sophisticated playground bully. Now that I mention that, though--have you ever considered a career in politics? Most of them are just like you.

[jwhalun08]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

Sound's like your shoulder is chipped?

Just passionate about securing a spiritually and materially prosperous future, I suppose.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by jwhalun08

A significant number of so-called environmentalists and economists like to use the word "sustainable" to greenwash the public into accepting some malformed, egotistical legislation/project, yes--but you're basing the term's meaning off of how it speaks to you (connotation) over its actual definition (denotation). I'm not misusing or perverting the meaning of the concept in any way.

"Warehousing people on top of each other in cities" is neither sustainable (I never expressed as much) nor ethical. But sprawl--the opposite of that extreme--isn't either.

I can't seem to find this "model" of which you write, the one that supposedly exists today. I think we're lost in a schizophrenic, irrevocably disordered limbo, don't you? Nobody seems very happy at all. If you doubt that, you might want to dig up the ever-increasing statistics on depression. On a broader level, our nation has lost a stable identity.

Since you appear to be quite the brilliant linguist, I'm wondering if you're also familiar with the word "moderation." I don't think most people are, really--but it's probably ten times as fun as "sustainable." The Greeks used it a lot once. Remember? (Not personally, of course).

I'm not going to bother lecturing a couple people who have zero knowledge or lack the ability to think critically, so I'll just make one suggestion: Look into New Urbanism/New Suburbanism or, if you're interested in a more philosophical base, try postmodernism. (Maybe studying the history of urban planning would help, too).

Only when you're able to generate an intelligent, thoughtful discussion on the ideas presented in my prose will you earn my respect. Offering an erroneous definition of sustainability and questioning my dedication to its actual tenets doesn't tell me much--besides the fact that you know how to be a mildly more sophisticated playground bully. Now that I mention that, though--have you ever considered a career in politics? Most of them are just like you.

It's a wonder how you breathe, what with the air being as thin as it is way up on that high horse of yours.

I hope you'll forgive me if earning your respect isn't right on top of my "to-do" list, or if it's not immediately clear to me as to why I need to.

[jwhalun08]

Originally Posted by Drover

It's a wonder how you breathe, what with the air being as thin as it is way up on that high horse of yours.

I hope you'll forgive me if earning your respect isn't right on top of my "to-do" list, or if it's not immediately clear to me as to why I need to.

If you can't comment respectfully or intelligently in the first place, why bother?

[Drover]

If you can't make your case without assuming the premise and using hackneyed, stock buzzwords, why bother?

[jwhalun08]

Originally Posted by Drover

If you can't make your case without assuming the premise and using hackneyed, stock buzzwords, why bother?

Once again, you're attempting to critique me on semantics (and erroneously at that, I might add)--on how the words I used to make my case struck you personally, rather than considering their denotative meaning.

I say "attempting" essentially for two reasons: You fail to legitimately counter my points and, across the sum of your responses to me, have displayed a level of intelligence and maturity that does not go beyond the average eight-year-old child.