Anti-Rail Republicans Ideologically Oppose Trains

[FayeforCure]

well Faye...your quoted piece above notes several reasons why conservatives oppose government intervention in the economy...so 2 things

1. It says conservatives, not Republicans
2. It is talking about economic issues in general, not rail specificaly

tufsu1, too bad you didn't even bother to check the link of the article I quoted. It is all about trains, even showing a gorgeous giant China HSR map. AND interestingly the article is titled:

Liberals, planning and trains



Those things clearly go together,...........very few enlightened Republicans/conservatives EVER come onboard!!

Too bad the denialists here keep missing that all important concept.........here is that link again for your perusal:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/elections_and_ideology

[tufsu1]

so where do non-liberal Democrats fall on the issue Faye?

[FayeforCure]

Which cuts to a flaw in the study itself: Ridership isn’t the sole factor on which a rail system’s development should hinge. The authors acknowledge other contingencies like “project readiness, ability to acquire rights of way, and local political support."

At a time of monumental partisan posturing, the latter might be the biggest barrier -- and, given the economic benefits of investing in infrastructure, the most foolish.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663067/infographic-of-the-day-where-should-we-build-high-speed-rail

tufsu1, I wonder if they mean the Republican posturing AGAINST Rail?!?!?!!!!!!!!

[civil42806]

I'm getting to the point I miss the old health care faye

[FayeforCure]

Which cuts to a flaw in the study itself: Ridership isn’t the sole factor on which a rail system’s development should hinge. The authors acknowledge other contingencies like “project readiness, ability to acquire rights of way, and local political support."

At a time of monumental partisan posturing, the latter might be the biggest barrier -- and, given the economic benefits of investing in infrastructure, the most foolish.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663067/infographic-of-the-day-where-should-we-build-high-speed-rail

tufsu1, I wonder if they mean the Republican posturing AGAINST Rail?!?!?!!!!!!!!

Yup, that's exactly what they mean. Pro-transit folks beware...........Republicans are NOT on your side:

In Washington, the Obama administration’s priorities for expanding mass transit, passenger rail and what planners call “livability” is likely to be challenged by Republicans in Congress, who tend to represent more rural areas than Democrats, with more spread-out populations and different needs â€" a trend that gathered steam after the midterm elections. The median Republican Congressional district now has a population density 11 times smaller than the median Democratic district, according to an analysis by Transportation Weekly, a trade publication that focuses on federal transportation spending. That kind of disparity can have big ramifications when it comes to deciding how much federal transportation money should be spent on, say, mass transit instead of highways.

The battle is already beginning to play out. Just last week, a bloc of conservative Republicans in the House released a proposal to cut Amtrak subsidies, grants for passenger rail and high-speed rail, a major federal transit program and the federal subsidy for the Washington Metro. That led William Millar, the president of the American Public Transportation Association, to charge that the group had “focused only on the short-term costs without looking at the economic value these essential public transportation investments provide.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25build.html

No amount of "sweet talk" is going to change the Republican mindset on transit!!! We benefit far more from Democratic leadership such as California and Hawaii.

When will we finally see the light in Florida?

[BridgeTroll]

Jeez Faye... If I didn't know better... I would think you were more interested in electing democrats than you are in advancing rail. 

[BridgeTroll]

   Occasionally I have to gently slap myself back into reality...

[FayeforCure]

Jeez Faye... If I didn't know better... I would think you were more interested in electing democrats than you are in advancing rail. 

You are close my friend..........but no cigar.

I postulate that electing a Democratic leadership will beget us RAIL!!!

What a novel concept! 

All the evidence on widespread Republican obstructionism indicates a more favorable outcome for Rail with a Democratic leadership.

[tufsu1]

so Faye, would you support a pro-rail Republican over an anti-rail Democrat?

[BridgeTroll]

Ooo...  Ooo... (waves hand frantically)  Let me answer. 

Of course not.  The republican could only support rail if he and his greedy friends had their hands in the till... while the democrat would obviously have honorable and supportable reasons to oppose rail.

[Doctor_K]

Ooo...  Ooo... (waves hand frantically)  Let me answer. 

Of course not.  The republican could only support rail if he and his greedy friends had their hands in the till... while the democrat would obviously have honorable and supportable reasons to oppose rail.

I'll bet while you were waving your hand frantically you were also practically bouncing in your chair.

Good answer, btw.  Spot on for the context.

[tufsu1]

here you go Faye...just for you

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/01/25/understanding-the-republican-partys-reluctance-to-invest-in-transit-infrastructure/

[BridgeTroll]

Interesting find tufsu...

[FayeforCure]

Yup, that's exactly what they mean. Pro-transit folks beware...........Republicans are NOT on your side:

In Washington, the Obama administration’s priorities for expanding mass transit, passenger rail and what planners call “livability” is likely to be challenged by Republicans in Congress, who tend to represent more rural areas than Democrats, with more spread-out populations and different needs â€" a trend that gathered steam after the midterm elections. The median Republican Congressional district now has a population density 11 times smaller than the median Democratic district, according to an analysis by Transportation Weekly, a trade publication that focuses on federal transportation spending. That kind of disparity can have big ramifications when it comes to deciding how much federal transportation money should be spent on, say, mass transit instead of highways.

The battle is already beginning to play out. Just last week, a bloc of conservative Republicans in the House released a proposal to cut Amtrak subsidies, grants for passenger rail and high-speed rail, a major federal transit program and the federal subsidy for the Washington Metro. That led William Millar, the president of the American Public Transportation Association, to charge that the group had “focused only on the short-term costs without looking at the economic value these essential public transportation investments provide.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25build.html

No amount of "sweet talk" is going to change the Republican mindset on transit!!! We benefit far more from Democratic leadership such as California and Hawaii.

When will we finally see the light in Florida?

Thank you tufsu1 you have proved my point:

The Democratic Party holds most of its power in the nation’s cities, whereas the GOP retains greater strength in the exurbs and rural areas. The two parties generally fight it out over the suburbs. In essence, the base of the two parties is becoming increasingly split in spatial terms: The Democrats’ most vocal constituents live in cities, whereas the Republicans’ power brokers would never agree to what some frame as a nightmare of tenements and light rail

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/01/25/understanding-the-republican-partys-reluctance-to-invest-in-transit-infrastructure/