News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Is it O.K. for a LIBERAL to be in favor of better highways and suburbia?

Started by cpzilliacus, February 16, 2015, 12:42:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2015, 06:22:17 PM
I don't know what you mean by "better suburbia." I'm in favor of improving our infrastructure, but I don't see why that is a liberal/conservative issue.

I wish it was not.

Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2015, 06:22:17 PM
I do think mass transit has a lot more of a place than you do, and that is a more "liberal" issue.

And this is why I favor pricing of "free" roads where there is already a toll in the form of recurring congestion, since it allows buses to serve people that do not wish to pay that toll but want a fast trip anyway.

Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2015, 06:22:17 PM
Spending money in this country vs. overseas USED to be a conservative issue, but now conservatives want more money spent on military, while liberals want more money spent on foreign aid, and only Libertarians want to pull that spending back (but also on infrastructure). The ever-changing political landscape has led to people supporting our infrastructure on both sides of the aisle.

Agreed.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.


cpzilliacus

Quote from: bandit957 on February 16, 2015, 02:04:11 PM
When I say better roads, I don't necessarily mean more roads. Better means better.

Better means a few things to me:

(1) No recurring congestion;
(2) High(er) speeds;
(3) Less (or no) environmental impact on waterways (especially), but also wildlife, surrounding areas and air quality; and
(4) (Usually) some public transportation at those high(er) speeds.

Quote from: bandit957 on February 16, 2015, 02:04:11 PM
Instead of inefficient suburbs, we should have urban/rural hybrid areas, where the urban build-up suddenly seems to drop off into rural. It would look something like the Babb Alley area on the east side of Cincinnati. I'd like to see urban front yards with rural back yards - or vice versa.

Regarding a drop-off to rural (and vice versa), the starkest example I have ever seen in the U.S. is approaching Denver, Colorado from the east (e.g. Limon) on I-70.  One minute you are in a very rural area, the next you are in suburban sprawl.  Another (though less-stark) example  is crossing Camp Pendleton (Marine Corps base) on I-5 from San Diego County heading north.  All of a sudden, there's Orange County and metropolitan Los Angeles.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

bandit957

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
I thought Ike was a great President - the Interstate Highway System is an amazing legacy of his.

We should do a list of the positive roadly accomplishments of each President. Though I admit that some recent Presidents have none.

Here's some accomplishments by Democrats and Republicans alike...

Truman - Started his political career by bringing better roads to Jackson County, Mo.

Eisenhower - Signed the Interstates into law.

Carter - As governor, canceled an unpopular and needless freeway project in Atlanta.

Obama - Gave other modes of transport equal footing with highways (for the first time in 50 years).
Might as well face it, pooing is cool

bandit957

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2015, 10:22:57 AM
Regarding a drop-off to rural (and vice versa), the starkest example I have ever seen in the U.S. is approaching Denver, Colorado from the east (e.g. Limon) on I-70.  One minute you are in a very rural area, the next you are in suburban sprawl.  Another (though less-stark) example  is crossing Camp Pendleton (Marine Corps base) on I-5 from San Diego County heading north.  All of a sudden, there's Orange County and metropoliran Los Angeles.

KY 8 heading east in Dayton, Ky., appears to have a real drop-off from urban to rural, without really a suburban buildup in-between.
Might as well face it, pooing is cool

texaskdog

It's like how I love living in a laid-back community, so I chose Austin, but that also means living around tons and tons of liberals.  The trade-off!

jeffandnicole

Quote from: bandit957 on February 17, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
I thought Ike was a great President - the Interstate Highway System is an amazing legacy of his.

We should do a list of the positive roadly accomplishments of each President. Though I admit that some recent Presidents have none.

Here's some accomplishments by Democrats and Republicans alike...

Truman - Started his political career by bringing better roads to Jackson County, Mo.

Eisenhower - Signed the Interstates into law.

Carter - As governor, canceled an unpopular and needless freeway project in Atlanta.

Obama - Gave other modes of transport equal footing with highways (for the first time in 50 years).

Clinton - repealed the 55 (or 65/55) NMSL. 

I think all Presidents have done good things for us...as well as bad things.  It all depends how you benefited or didn't benefit.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2015, 10:03:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 16, 2015, 12:42:15 PM
More than a few people (usually of the radical Green variety, sometimes residents of the City of Takoma Park, Maryland) have incorrectly assumed that I am conservative and Republican because I favor more and better highways and am a skeptic of most fixed-guideway transit projects, and even more of a skeptic of purported congestion relief benefits of some very expensive transit proposals.

CP, based on most of your posts both here and on FB; you seem to come off as more libertarian in your views vs. a liberal.  I hope you don't take that as an insult (it wasn't intended to be such).  Does that automatically make you a Republican, no; but such does seem to run contrary with the overall mission of the current Democratic party & platform.  That's probably why you even started this thread.

All correct.  I am a Democrat with Libertarian leanings! 

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2015, 10:03:27 AM
When I first met you at the Portsmouth, NH meet (two(?) years ago); you mentioned to those that attended of an upcoming transportation seminar in the DC area hosted by the CATO Institute.  Trust me when I say this, the CATO Institute's goals and mission are not in sync;h with what most liberals today want in terms of transportation issues.

Correct!  And it gets better - I regard Cato's Randal O'Toole (who runs the Antiplanner blog among other things) as a personal friend, though there are times when I disagree with him, though I still respect him very much.

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2015, 10:03:27 AM
I think you may be in similar boat that both former-Senator Joe Lieberman and the late-former-PA Governor Bob Casey, Sr. were in.  When they both dared to go against the grain of their party's platform (in separate areas); they were either condemmed and/or ostracized by/from their party for such.

I got plenty of that for having the temerity to favor the construction of Maryland's Route 200 (ICC) toll road for many, many years, which enraged more than a few of Montgomery County, Maryland's usual suspects in its (very active) civic, Smart Growth and environmental movements (though there is a lot of overlap between them).
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

ET21

Quote from: bandit957 on February 16, 2015, 02:04:11 PM
When I say better roads, I don't necessarily mean more roads. Better means better.

Instead of inefficient suburbs, we should have urban/rural hybrid areas, where the urban build-up suddenly seems to drop off into rural. It would look something like the Babb Alley area on the east side of Cincinnati. I'd like to see urban front yards with rural back yards - or vice versa.

You'll like the outer rim suburbs of Chicago. Very common to have urban front yards and a big cornfield in the backyard in towns like Oswego, Sugar Grove, even parts of Aurora
The local weatherman, trust me I can be 99.9% right!
"Show where you're going, without forgetting where you're from"

Clinched:
IL: I-88, I-180, I-190, I-290, I-294, I-355, IL-390
IN: I-80, I-94
SD: I-190
WI: I-90, I-94
MI: I-94, I-196
MN: I-90

PHLBOS

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2015, 12:54:40 PMClinton - repealed the 55 (or 65/55) NMSL.
Not so fast there.   President Clinton didn't repeal it on his own.  The NMSL was an Act of Congress and any ammendments and/or repeals to/of such had to pass through the House & Senate prior to reaching the President's desk for approval or veto.   

With the above in mind, the full NMSL repeal originated in the House under then-newly minted Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Trust me, had Tom Foley still been Speaker of the House following the 1994 elections; the full repeal of the NMSL would've never made it to the Senate let alone President Clinton's desk for his signature.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

hbelkins

Quote from: bandit957 on February 17, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
We should do a list of the positive roadly accomplishments of each President. Though I admit that some recent Presidents have none.

Obama - Gave other modes of transport equal footing with highways (for the first time in 50 years).

That's a positive thing for roads? Hardly.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

NE2

It's a positive thing wrt roads. It's not a positive thing for those who think roads are a goal in themselves.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Duke87

"Liberal" is just a general label which can mean any number of things depending on who you ask. So the question isn't whether supporting roads is inconsistent with being "liberal", the question is whether it is inconsistent with one's other particular beliefs.

Especially when you consider that these things can get quite nuanced. I like old-growth, medium-density suburbs where some things may be reasonably walked to and there is some availability of transit, but where it is also relatively easy to find a parking space and to go drive places if you see fit. I despise newer, lower density suburbs where transportation begins and ends with cars, all the houses look the same, and all shopping is done in strip malls buried behind parking lots large enough to host Woodstock.

Meanwhile I will argue in favor both of useful highway projects and useful transit projects, and I get annoyed at the idea that only one of the two deserves investment.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

roadman65

The way I see it is both sides want better road infrastructure, so you cannot really put a label on which party is more for it than the other.  It is the way both go about and if you feel that you are against your own ideals by being in roads, you should not.  You are what you are and there is no label on that.

My earlier post has to do with what we have become over 30 years going from our own identity to having to be one of two ways of general belief.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Desert Man

I'm not a fan of endless, mindless or pointless suburban sprawl and not interested to live in high-density major cities. I'm for smaller towns surrounded by open space: wilderness or agricultural. I find important to have sufficient roads connecting from town to town when it's important. I see the need for freeways in higher populated metro areas, but I'm for support in improvements in local mass transit and bike trails for those who don't drive. City and county governments can back projects for pedestrians and bicyclists as much they back highways and motorists. This isn't really a liberal vs. conservative issue, but the label "liberal" is thrown at those who see it from a different angle than the "conservative" idea of mid-(20th) century freeway systems.
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

wxfree

It's okay to be whatever you are and to be in favor of whatever you're in favor of.  To believe otherwise is, to me, closed minded, anti-freedom, and anti-American.  There is no liberty, no American ideal, in being bound to a political ideal that you don't believe in.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

NE2

It's OK to be a Nazi and in favor of forced conversion to Judaism for all?

It's OK to be American and in favor of it not being "okay to be whatever you are and to be in favor of whatever you're in favor of"?
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

bugo

Quote from: hbelkins on February 17, 2015, 09:50:41 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on February 17, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
We should do a list of the positive roadly accomplishments of each President. Though I admit that some recent Presidents have none.

Obama - Gave other modes of transport equal footing with highways (for the first time in 50 years).

That's a positive thing for roads? Hardly.

If it gets rid of some traffic, then it's a good thing.

Brandon

Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2015, 03:42:23 AM
It's OK to be a Nazi and in favor of forced conversion to Judaism for all?

End thread, Godwin's Law has been violated.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

wxfree

Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2015, 03:42:23 AM
It's OK to be a Nazi and in favor of forced conversion to Judaism for all?

It's OK to be American and in favor of it not being "okay to be whatever you are and to be in favor of whatever you're in favor of"?

Yes, the value of ideological consistency is smaller than the value of the freedom to consider and evaluate differing ideas.  Even if we don't hold this to be true, who then decides when an idea is "too different" from the ideology to be worthy of consideration?  Any suppression of the freedom to have thoughts is destructive of human potential, even the suppression of the freedom to think that people should not have freedom of thought.

I'm not addressing the merits of certain thoughts, but only the freedom to have them.  And I'm not referring to the accommodation of evil thoughts.  Thoughts have to be judged based on their merits, which is not our topic here.  In our example, whether suburbia is good is based entirely on its nature and effects, not on whether a certain person holds certain political views.  I'm a liberal who hates cities (not that they exist, but just the idea of living in one) and loves rural areas and supports responsible gun-toting hunters (I don't want to hunt, but I know people who really enjoy it).  I don't want anyone telling me I can't hold those views, but I welcome challenges to them based on their merits.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

bugo

It's OK for me to be in favor of whatever damn well I want to be in favor of. I am not nor ever have been a member of any political party. I don't agree with a whole lot of either parties' agendas. I don't choose a political party and toe the party line and agree with them on literally everything. I pick and choose my opinions on every issue and don't allow a one size fits all party affiliation to affect my politics. I do vote Democratic usually. Frankly I can't stand the Democrats but the Republicans are movie villain scary so I vote for the lesser of two evils. But I'm not voting for Hillary. Some of my political views might be labelled as "extreme" to somebody who is ignorant of politics. So what I'm saying is that you can't be a true Democrat if you're for better highways because to be a true Democrat you must toe the party line on every issue. You obviously disagree with the DNC on a lot of things and I wouldn't consider you a Democrat. A liberal with a lowercase L, sure, you're liberal in that sense. I am too.

Zeffy

Quote from: bugo on April 23, 2015, 01:05:53 PM
It's OK for me to be in favor of whatever damn well I want to be in favor of. I am not nor ever have been a member of any political party. I don't agree with a whole lot of either parties' agendas. I don't choose a political party and toe the party line and agree with them on literally everything. I pick and choose my opinions on every issue and don't allow a one size fits all party affiliation to affect my politics. I do vote Democratic usually. Frankly I can't stand the Democrats but the Republicans are movie villain scary so I vote for the lesser of two evils. But I'm not voting for Hillary. Some of my political views might be labelled as "extreme" to somebody who is ignorant of politics. So what I'm saying is that you can't be a true Democrat if you're for better highways because to be a true Democrat you must toe the party line on every issue. You obviously disagree with the DNC on a lot of things and I wouldn't consider you a Democrat. A liberal with a lowercase L, sure, you're liberal in that sense. I am too.

Holy crap, I thought I was the only one who thought like this. I'm liberal because I believe being conservative is going to set the country back, but I don't associate with Democrats. To be honest - politics bore me. It'd be super if I could go read some news article on the Internet without everyone in the comments section inserting politics into it one way or another.
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

Brandon

Quote from: Zeffy on April 23, 2015, 03:16:30 PM
It'd be super if I could go read some news article on the Internet without everyone in the comments section inserting politics into it one way or another.

I don't mind the politics, but I tire of the insults.  It's nice to see "so and so believes in X and believes his/her idea will help make things better".  I get so sick of "our opponents eat kittens for breakfast and thus they are far more evil than us".  Most of the Facebook political postings, unfortunately, fall in the latter category.  Thus, I hide the groups so that I cannot see them when a FB friend posts such stuff.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.