Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is support for Public Rail Transit in low density metro areas divided along political lines?
Yes-- opposition to those rail projects are dominated by conservatives and libertarians. 26 54.17%
No--lots of NIMBYs on the left 22 45.83%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-30-2020, 04:42 AM
 
135 posts, read 77,648 times
Reputation: 218

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
Just do this (and it applies pretty much anywhere). Draw a map of where you'd put the transit lines in Nashville. From where people actually live to where they actually work and shop. Then put those lines in walking distance of every neighborhood and every major employment area and major shopping district. Because if you don't go from where the people actually are to where they actually want to be, no one will support it.
Nashville should have been opposed by anybody sane. There's 0 reason why an area that has transit ridership of less than 30K unlinked trips/day (and declining even before COVID) should even think about multi-billion dollar light rail projects. If it wants to increase transit ridership, than spend a fraction of that on bus improvements to try to attract riders and build transit corridors that might be worthwhile for rail in 50 years.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2020, 02:51 PM
 
1,798 posts, read 1,123,850 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
I think mass transit support generally falls on a left/right divide (it’s essentially a subsidized public service), but not entirely.
It's a good thing that gas taxes and user fees cover the full cost of our road network

There's no need to point out mass transit as a "subsidized public service" as if our road network isn't the exact same thing.

Mass transit was a private business prior to government intervention in our transportation network. Highways are and have always been a total money pit that require massive public subsidy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2020, 02:58 PM
 
1,798 posts, read 1,123,850 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit View Post
Liberal NIMBYism usually comes out full force on airports. But I've seen plenty of it on rail too - there's a good reason there isn't a Metro line going through Georgetown/Upper NW and likely never will be.
I don't disagree that "liberal" Georgetown has NIMBYs against transit (Metro/streetcar); however, the primary reason Metro wasn't built in Georgetown was for engineering/cost reasons. The benefit-cost just wasn't worth it.

But one day when M Street is a 24/7 parking lot, maybe the residents will be okay with bus lanes and an eventual streetcar. Metro is just not feasible due to cost/engineering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2020, 04:32 PM
 
135 posts, read 77,648 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego View Post
It's a good thing that gas taxes and user fees cover the full cost of our road network
But even for the relatively low fuel taxes of the US, it covers most of the costs of roads, unlike mass transit.

Quote:
There's no need to point out mass transit as a "subsidized public service" as if our road network isn't the exact same thing.
If you look at subsidies with modal share, it's not the same thing. Car trips are subsidized by taxpayers at a rate of pennies to dimes per trip, while transit trips are subsidized at a rate of several dollars per trip.

Looking at the operating budgets of many transit agencies in the US, mass transit isn't so much as a public mobility service as they are jobs programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2020, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Providence, RI
12,860 posts, read 22,021,203 times
Reputation: 14134
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego View Post
It's a good thing that gas taxes and user fees cover the full cost of our road network

There's no need to point out mass transit as a "subsidized public service" as if our road network isn't the exact same thing.

Mass transit was a private business prior to government intervention in our transportation network. Highways are and have always been a total money pit that require massive public subsidy.
Agreed on almost all counts. I'm pointing out the conservative perspective, not revealing my own.

I'd only argue that the subsidy for public transit tends to be higher in most cases. But to argue that one is a subsidized public service and the other isn't would be false.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2020, 07:55 AM
 
Location: It's in the name!
7,083 posts, read 9,569,405 times
Reputation: 3780
no. NIMBYS can be both conservative and liberal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2020, 08:26 AM
 
208 posts, read 113,972 times
Reputation: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky View Post
no. NIMBYS can be both conservative and liberal.
Right. The Connecticut NIMBYs who resist any rail improvements are mostly on the left side, politically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2020, 02:16 PM
 
1,798 posts, read 1,123,850 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky View Post
no. NIMBYS can be both conservative and liberal.
...and NIMBYs also reveal the hypocrisy of conservatism and liberalism.

Love the free market and property rights, and hate regulation...except when it inconveniences your lifestyle or status.

Love equity and access to opportunity for the disadvantaged...except when it inconveniences your lifestyle or status.

Exclusive single-family zoning is a classist, racist, anti-free market tool used to exclude under the guise of "protecting neighborhood character" or some other BS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2020, 05:49 PM
 
Location: South of Heaven
7,922 posts, read 3,462,774 times
Reputation: 11580
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego View Post
...and NIMBYs also reveal the hypocrisy of conservatism and liberalism.

Love the free market and property rights, and hate regulation...except when it inconveniences your lifestyle or status.

Love equity and access to opportunity for the disadvantaged...except when it inconveniences your lifestyle or status.

Exclusive single-family zoning is a classist, racist, anti-free market tool used to exclude under the guise of "protecting neighborhood character" or some other BS.
The bolded quote is timely for me because just today I was sitting on my back patio enjoying the peace and quiet while remembering how elusive that was when I lived in a more mixed zone area. I think I was out there for a whole hour and I didn't hear the deep thumping bass of rap music even once. Somehow nowadays the fact that I appreciate that quiet solitude from time to time is a show of low moral character.

Last edited by Toxic Waltz; 07-06-2020 at 06:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2020, 07:26 AM
 
Location: It's in the name!
7,083 posts, read 9,569,405 times
Reputation: 3780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Waltz View Post
The bolded quote is timely for me because just today I was sitting on my back patio enjoying the peace and quiet while remembering how elusive that was when I lived in a more mixed zone area. I think I was out there for a whole hour and I didn't hear the deep thumping bass of rap music even once. Somehow nowadays the fact that I appreciate that quiet solitude from time to time is a show of low moral character.
It depends on locale really. Your tone suggests that even if it wasn't rap music, there would be some other irritant that a mixed-zone neighborhood presents.

I live in a single family zone that had issues with neighbors playing loud music. They have since moved on. Now I can open my window in the mornings and hear birds chirping and in the afternoon, neighbors talking and kids playing.

Lately, loud cars have been an issue, but you can hear those hundreds of yards away on a main road. I can't help that.

I like more urban areas with diversity and culture where I can get authentic experiences. Yes, at a cost of some peace and quiet at times. BUt it is what you choose to accept. If I had my way, I'd be on a secluded beach with a kick ass seafood restaurant and bar within walking distance and neighbors as nice as family.

But that's not realistic.... until I win the lottery of course.


I'll argue that the oom-pah, oom-pah of loud Latin music can be just as annoying as rap music.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:53 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top