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.
Conservatives have always been for public transportation.In fact, the founder of the Heritage Foundadtion was one of the original advocates for public transportation.
Here is a clip of a Republican who advocates for public transportation
ARe you talking about amtrak? The trouble with riding Amtrak is that it shares the rails with commercial carriers that have priority. I have heard that the train trip can be delayed on acct of it. I'm frankly surprised that anyone wouldn't want the ability to hop a train that would take you to Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or Asutin in a jiffy at a reasonable price. Southern Calif had some really good ones that connected LA, SD and Sta Barbara for very reasonable prices with no yielding to commercial carreiers. Do you remember back in the mid 80s when they were proposing a "bullet train" that would connect our major cities in Texas? The rumor is that Southwest Airlines killed it because it would kill their business.
With all the sheet that airports put us through these days, I would think that a leisurely ride on a train sans frisking would be really welcome regardless of political leaning.
Who paid for those successful lines? It sounds like private business to me since government sponsored things like this always fail.
I have friends have who live 60 miles from their place of work. I find that untenable. My preference is for my workplace to be within a 30 minute walk of where I live. I do have a car (an SUV even). I use if for an occasional trip to the mountains to go skiing or camping.
You use that SUV to foul the pristine mountain air? Boy, what a thing to be saying in the same breath as talking about walking to work.
You know where this is going, once we go into the hole building useless mass transit the next liberal move would be to get free rides for certain people and expect those of us who do not need mass transit to pay for their ride.
Always a gimmick with liberals. Do not take your eye off of them.
I dream all the time about the expansion of mass transit. Especially the train system. But I believe liberals are so delusional when it comes to mass transit, they don't understand why people like to drive automobiles, they don't provide practical solutions the majority of the time, and whatever solutions they propose tend to have to be almost entirely paid by tax dollars and not private usage fees.
The truth is, the reason people drive cars is because of convenience sure. But consumers always weigh convenience against the costs of that convenience. The reason automobiles are so cheap to drive, is because they are heavily subsidized by the governments themselves. The gas tax does not cover the costs of roads to begin with. In fact "user fees" only cover about half of the costs of building and maintaining highways. And local roads are paid for almost entirely by property taxes(not user fees). The gas tax hasn't even been raised since 1993.
On top of that, the government spends hundreds of billions every year on the military and is currently fighting in 2.5 wars to protect our economic interests(oil). The government knows that an unstable oil supply would lead to practically an economic collapse in our highly oil-dependent nation. So if you actually add in the military costs as a source of subsidies for the automobile, you start seeing a pretty clear picture. The automobile is only as common and convenient as it is because it is HEAVILY subsidized. If the cost of gasoline reflected its actual costs, people wouldn't be able to afford to drive. And what happens when they can't afford to drive? They start using public transit, which is exactly what happened in 2008 when the price of oil was at $150 a barrel.
The second part of the situation is that, the government already regulates the rail systems far far far too much. This has done nothing but drive up the costs of the public transit system. Right now the average mass transit system only receives about 20% of the funding it needs to operate from user fees, the remaining 80% necessary to fund the system comes from taxes. This wasn't always the case. The first mass transit systems in this country not only ran without government subsidies, but they turned a nice profit. And they were cheap, even when you apply inflation, the "nickel" price to ride(about $1.00 in todays money) would be about half the cost of a one-way fair in most cities today.
If the government would stop distorting the market, not only would there be more mass transit, but it would be cheaper and would pay for itself.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 03-24-2011 at 12:29 AM..
Why are liberals always trying to force buses, rail systems, bike lanes, etc. down our throats when we're clearly an automobile-centric society? Why are liberals always trying to coerce people out of their automobiles and onto trains like cattle by enacting high gasoline taxes, using highway funds to subsidize mass transit, and by tearing down roadways to build bicycle lanes? Why is it that liberals have such contempt for private automobiles?
.
In my opinion this is an urban thing. There just happens to be more liberals in big cities. Urban people are always trying to force things on the rest of us. They think they are special and enlightened and the rest of us dumb serfs need their "teachable moments."
A lot of it has to do with big media that reinforces that "enlightened" notion and national politicians who make the laws and spend most of their time schmoozing in big cities. For example, if the media wasn't located in major cities, the cost of gasoline and it's impact on pass down costs for businesses would be the front page story of every newspaper, every day, but "driving" isn't a big part of their world. The Presidential candidate who wakes up to this impact will win a big demographic (suburban and rural voters) if they make this a major issue in their campaign. They need to tell the public about pass down costs related to oil that goes beyond the gas pumps first, that is, they need to make the general public aware of oil in relation to food, clothes and other products' and services' costs. Then they need to show how our current President, an urbanite himself, is tone deaf to this as a major issue for many Americans. P.S. Where are the flippin' pollsters on this issue so the politicians wake up to this issue in the demographic that isn't urban? Uhhhh, maybe they're urbanites themselves and not attuned to it as a big deal, either.
Why do the people in major cities think middle America conservative ideas come from the planet Mars? Why are the Tea Party ideas of a smaller federal government, less government intrusion/regulation and lower taxes so foreign to urban liberals? Maybe if the urban national media wasn't so focused on urban issues, urban libs wouldn't think these ideas came from another planet in the solar system. Maybe it's because urban liberals and their over-regulation, big government programs and high taxes don't know anything else.
Who is pushing tiny lightweight electric cars on us? I contend it is people who if they drive at all drive less than 20 mph going from place to place within a city, infrequently drive on highways next to tractor trailers or who drive any distances daily making frequent electric car charging, no big deal. I'm thinking they aren't likely to be towing a boat, either. These things don't dawn on them because it's not a part of their insular urban world. Living in a big city they expect things to come to them not for them to have to leave the big city to get to what they want. Urban mindset is also why they think that patch of grass in the middle of their concrete jungle is nature or that little patch of soil between two high rises is a garden and that makes them experts on the environment and all things green. I'll bet you big media has done more news stories on "community gardens" in big cities and their issues than they've done on people in suburbia and rural areas with their own gardens and related issues.
Also, and in my opinion, part of being liberal is patting yourself on the back for being so "enlightened." That's why they have to announce how enlightened they are on their clothing, carrying bags and if they have cars, bumper stickers. They need that, "Good fer yew!" acknowledgment from their fellow libs. That's why they jumped on changing their tag from liberal to progressive without first learning about the history of progressivism. You know "progressivism" sounds so forward thinking it must be great and special.
I think people don't know what "liberal" means and just assume it means "opposite of me".
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.
