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

[cpzilliacus]

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. 

[KG909]

shitstorm incoming.
Anyway yeah I think it's okay.

[freebrickproductions]

Being "Liberal" or "Conservative" isn't 100% black and white. There are liberals who are against gun control and conservatives who support gay rights (these are examples of what I'm talking about).
It's 100% okay to be a liberal and like the things that you mentioned.

[cpzilliacus]

shitstorm incoming.

<smile>

Anyway yeah I think it's okay.

Thanks.

[Dr Frankenstein]

I'm a socialist and I'm in favour of both highways and public transit. Transit only has so many use cases and private vehicles are there to fill the gap. Neither is the panacea. Plus, highway capacity is needed for both in many cases (e.g., Quebec City's public transit is entirely bus-based; Montreal's is also highly bus-based as soon as you leave the subway's immediate vincinity). It shows when cities grow and only attempt to improve transit and not roadway capacity. It only slows down the congestion's progress; it doesn't stabilize or fix it. As far as tearing down freeways goes, I think it's nonsense.

Regarding suburbia, I'll say that moving into a dense city can only affect my mood negatively, not to mention the higher rent and property values. If you like the city, move there. I don't, and I shouldn't have to. This is one of my slight libertarian leanings.

[bandit957]

Better roads, yes. Suburbia, no. Suburbia as we know it should be largely scrapped.

[TXtoNJ]

It's all right to be in favor of these. I'd think liberals would be more inclined toward better executions of these concepts than we currently have, though.

[bandit957]

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.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

As long as I don't have to share a wall with anyone, I'm happy.

But given my choice, I'll live in a remote, rural area, forested area of the North.  It's where I grew up and it's where I'm happiest.

[jakeroot]

Both parties want better highways, it's just how to fund them that is the center of debate.

As for the exact initial question, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee (D) wants to see the completion of some local unfinished freeway segments.

TACOMA, Wash. -- Governor Jay Inlsee chose a distribution center near the Port of Tacoma Friday to push two transportation projects he says will boost trade and economic growth. The governor told workers and lawmakers gathered at Americold that finishing SR 509 and SR 167 is crucial to creating and maintaining jobs.

The first phase would cost about $1.8 billion to finish SR-509 south of SeaTac Airport and SR-167 between Puyallup and the Port of Tacoma. The legislature has proposed paying for the so-called Puget Sound Gateway project by tolling the new highway segments and charging solo drivers to use the HOVlanes on I-5 between Tacoma and Seattle.

Inslee also says a commitment must be made this year to qualify for $850 million in federal construction dollars.

We're going to build jet airplanes, said Inslee. And if we're going to build jet airplanes, we're going to have to move those jet engines up and down I-5, 405 and everywhere else in this state.

House Transportation Chair Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island) has also proposed increasing the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon to help fund the entire transportation budget which includes $1 billion for the Puget Sound Gateway.

[golden eagle]

I'm a liberal and favor better highways. More roads are OK, but should also be in tandem with better public transportation options.

[roadman65]

That is the problem today, you have people worked up by social media, radio, and talk personalities including Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. that you are branded a name.  All you need to to do is be a Conservative who does not like the Death Penalty and you will be called a "Liberal" by the one you argue with.  The same with Health Care, there are plenty of Democrats that hate it, yet many Libs will say that they cannot be one of them.

On here we have one person who says that toll road haters in Central Florida are all Republicans and that all Orlando area Democrats are all behind collecting tolls.  IMO, I have found that both sides of the spectrum hate the tolls and consider them too expensive and back in the 1990's the FL 408 was knicknamed the East West Ripoff by all people.

Also back in the 1980's no one used their party affiliation to determine who should serve in office.  People hated either Ford or Carter, or even Reagan for what they have done as individuals not because they were  either Republican nor Democrat.  Even when Brendan Byrne was Governor of New Jersey most people at the time hated the man.  I never heard anyone say it was because he was liberal or that it was Democrats who sucked at the time, it was because of he himself.  The same for Keane, who was Republican was hated for bringing NJ into a hole, which his successor Jim Florio had to raise taxes to cover the loss, which led to hatred of him by all for raising the taxes! 

Adults when I grew up as a kid never said what party they supported in general talk.  It was the man that made him bad or worse and not the party beliefs at the time.  Even Rush gets it wrong when he knocks the New Deal by Roosevelt!  He makes it sound like FDR was as liberal as Obama was, but ask any old timer including Chuch Norris ( who is Conservative) they will tell you that the FDR Democrats were conservative by today's standards.

[NE2]

You're no liberal.

[bandit957]

He makes it sound like FDR was as liberal as Obama was, but ask any old timer including Chuch Norris ( who is Conservative) they will tell you that the FDR Democrats were conservative by today's standards.

I'm not so sure, especially on economic issues. The Democrats are more conservative now than they were when I was growing up in the '80s. I first registered to vote as a Democrat, but they drove me off from the party by running so far to the right in 1996.

[Brandon]

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.

It would be nice, IMHO, to see denser development and denser infill development as well.  We should try to make accommodations for all forms of transport from walking to driving.  In other words, we should have narrow, but deep lots with alleys at the back.  I don't mind an HOA in charge of maintaining the alleys.  This would allow for people to drive as they need, and walk as they want.  It also provides the density needed for public transportation to work well.  I'm probably an oddball in thinking that a grid, or a modified grid, is the best way to go for such development.

[bandit957]

It would be nice, IMHO, to see denser development and denser infill development as well.  We should try to make accommodations for all forms of transport from walking to driving.  In other words, we should have narrow, but deep lots with alleys at the back.  I don't mind an HOA in charge of maintaining the alleys.

I'm generally against HOA's. Just have the city, township, or county maintain the alleys.

[Brandon]

It would be nice, IMHO, to see denser development and denser infill development as well.  We should try to make accommodations for all forms of transport from walking to driving.  In other words, we should have narrow, but deep lots with alleys at the back.  I don't mind an HOA in charge of maintaining the alleys.

I'm generally against HOA's. Just have the city, township, or county maintain the alleys.

Around here, they refuse to plow the alleys, even though they are used for garages and garbage removal.  Hence my thoughts on a limited HOA to maintain them, or at least plow them.  BTW, I am on the board of my condo HOA.  We limit ourselves to maintenance only, rather than dictating anything to anyone.

[roadman65]

I am for roads as long as they're pro active and not retro active as Orlando has become due to their development all around except for the Wekiva River area, which when in an airplane you can tell distinctly due to large green area with no roads or buildings.

I think that before an area is allowed to be zoned for business or residential development, that the roads need to be brought up to handle it.  I am not even talking about leaving ROW's either, I mean widened already before the impact hits.  Hoagland Boulevard for one should be widened already being they allowed for developers to build on the cattle lands near the Carroll Street transition in NW Kissimmee.  Right now Shunpikers are avoiding the $2 toll on the Osceola Parkway by using Dyer Boulevard SB from Osceola Parkway to WB Carroll Street into SB Hoagland Boulevard to US 192 W Bound to get to the Disney area.  When the new homes finally get occupied in the next year or so, that road will be totally unpassable as it is near that already.  And yes, people will not budge from avoiding the tolls either!  Already there is a massive slow downs at three school zones along the shunpiked route, and a three light wait at US 192 with 5 mph maximum speed along Carrol/ Hoagland with guaranteed stops at the school crosswalks at two locations during school transit hours.  Yet people, spending more than the $2 already in gas and added time, will not pay the dammed tolls! 

To get back on point urban planners and suburban planners should see people's driving habits and if they are not ready to confront them just yet, then building should be halted.   I do not know if this is liberal or conservative or moderate thinking, I know that this is truth that needs addressing as past mistakes have proven over developing to be disasterous for commuters thus in the high rate of accidents and increasing road rage.  I believe this is right no matter where it puts me politically.

[Scott5114]

While a discussion on the desired density of development is certainly a topic that is within the remit of the off-topic forum, the question of how it fits into a liberal/conservative dichotomy is not, as political discussion is against the rules of this forum.

[Alps]

While a discussion on the desired density of development is certainly a topic that is within the remit of the off-topic forum, the question of how it fits into a liberal/conservative dichotomy is not, as political discussion is against the rules of this forum.

It's not against the rules of the forum if it is directly related to roads. Let's watch the thread closely, but it can remain unlocked for now.

[Alps]

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 do think mass transit has a lot more of a place than you do, and that is a more "liberal" issue. 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.

[admtrap]

Part of the politics of transportation has been the shift on the left from a union focus to a green focus. 

Good roads used to be something both parties could by and large find agreement on - they're good for business, good for economic growth, create jobs directly, and support jobs. 

The left's shift away to the greens (who never met a road they don't want plowed under) has laregly coincided with the right's shift to a "tax nothing" philosophy, which leaves localities with little funding to pay for roads and little political will to build them, much less repair the existing ones.

Really it comes down to the fact that neither party represents the middle class - they're more concerned with the poor (growing in numbers) and the very rich (growing in wealth) than the financially and numerically withering middle.

[3467]

I support improved transportation infrastructure ,good planning and technologies that reduce GHG emissions and I think all these thing help improve the standard of living and the economy. by their very nature this will involve various levels of government . If that makes me a ,lefty( or righty) I guess I am one

[PHLBOS]

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.

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 synch with what most liberals today want in terms of transportation issues.

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.

[cpzilliacus]

That is the problem today, you have people worked up by social media, radio, and talk personalities including Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. that you are branded a name.  All you need to to do is be a Conservative who does not like the Death Penalty and you will be called a "Liberal" by the one you argue with.  The same with Health Care, there are plenty of Democrats that hate it, yet many Libs will say that they cannot be one of them.

On here we have one person who says that toll road haters in Central Florida are all Republicans and that all Orlando area Democrats are all behind collecting tolls.  IMO, I have found that both sides of the spectrum hate the tolls and consider them too expensive and back in the 1990's the FL 408 was knicknamed the East West Ripoff by all people.

Orlando would not have those expressways (how I dislike that term to describe what are freeways) without the tolls (or, alternatively, much higher taxes on something).

Also back in the 1980's no one used their party affiliation to determine who should serve in office.  People hated either Ford or Carter, or even Reagan for what they have done as individuals not because they were  either Republican nor Democrat.  Even when Brendan Byrne was Governor of New Jersey most people at the time hated the man.  I never heard anyone say it was because he was liberal or that it was Democrats who sucked at the time, it was because of he himself.  The same for Keane, who was Republican was hated for bringing NJ into a hole, which his successor Jim Florio had to raise taxes to cover the loss, which led to hatred of him by all for raising the taxes!

Agreed on those points. 

Adults when I grew up as a kid never said what party they supported in general talk.  It was the man that made him bad or worse and not the party beliefs at the time.  Even Rush gets it wrong when he knocks the New Deal by Roosevelt!  He makes it sound like FDR was as liberal as Obama was, but ask any old timer including Chuch Norris ( who is Conservative) they will tell you that the FDR Democrats were conservative by today's standards.

Ronald Reagan thought F.D. Roosevelt was a great President of the United States.

I thought Ike was a great President - the Interstate Highway System is an amazing legacy of his.