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.
Are any of the regulars here Republican? In the 2008 I changed all my political views on facebook to right-wing the day of the election for fun. Too much agreement with me; not so fun.
And yea, I guess I see an urban planning connection but it's hard to take seriously.
The US is not going to manage its domestic affairs according to the will of the UN whether a Democrat or a Republican is in power. This is just a bone to the tinfoil-hatters.
And despite the administration’s general friendliness toward transit and understanding of the limitations of the private automobile, 60 percent of transportation dollars in the stimulus went to highways, with just 20 percent to transit. (Most of the rest went to freight rail, with a little bit for aviation and maritime projects.)
Highways account for 88% of personal transportation with another 11% from air. Buses and rail account for less than 8%. RITA | BTS | 3-2 - Passenger-Miles: 1990, 2000, 2008, 2009
So stimulus went 4:1 to transit. Obviously, 4:1 stimulus isn't considered enough of the stimulus pie by Streetblogs. Maybe 10:1? 20:1? 100:1? It's also obviously more stimulus than the GOP would like. Maybe 1:1? .5:1? :.1:1?
Quote:
“New highway construction opens up states to huge financial liabilities,” she added. “They are then tasked with maintaining these roads and keeping them in good condition, and a lot of states are already failing to do this.”
The only way this is different from transit is that "huge financial liabilities" are actually very small for highways, at least compared to transit. Everyplace I'm aware is struggling to fund transit right now. Fares are going up and service is being cut.
Or how about this one: Transit
Quote:
Wisconsin could fully fund its roads by raising the gas tax by about 50 cents per gallon or by imposing highway tolls, according to the study. But Governor Scott Walker is more interested in making sure the paltry amount drivers do spend to support the transportation system they use goes to roads and nothing but roads.
That paltry amount? 60%.
The paltry amount Milwaukee transit users pay? 31%.
If the user fees for transit were spent on building highways like gas taxes are spent on public transit, can you imagine the uproar from Streetblogs? They're mad as hell that they're only getting four times the stimulus money and that cars only fund twice as much of road costs as they pay for of more expensive transit. In the past, the federal government has limited its involvement in subsidizing local transportation. That radically changed under Bush, from 2000-2008 Milwaukee transit saw a 250% growth in federal assistance to its current level $18 million a year. http://www.ridemcts.com/uploadedFile...0-%20FINAL.pdf
I realize that this thread may get axed for being politics-based, but I post it here because it specifically addresses the issue of urban planning as a matter of public policy. "Agenda 21," a UN policy statement from around 20 years back, has been mentioned here occasionally because some local planning meetings have been disrupted by individuals who claim Agenda 21 is a globalist plot to force Americans to surrender all property rights and move people into Soviet-style apartment blocks. Those espousing it were normally lumped in with the folks talking about chemtrails, black helicopters, and other conspiracy theories.
But now, opposition to Agenda 21 is officially part of the Republican Party platform:
My question is this: How seriously do you take the idea that urban/regional planning is a United Nations based plot to force Americans to surrender their property rights? Is this a priority that should be included in an agenda-setting document for one of America's two major political parties? And what does this party platform imply, not just at the federal level, but for state and local authorities who deal with planning issues?
My somewhat tin-foil hattish opinion of Agenda 21 is that it's a conspiracy to reduce resource depletion on the most gluttonous groups in the world (the American Middle class, for example) as a means to survive a near future that will feature an exponentially increasing population on a planet with finite and rapidly depleting resources.
What's the common example thrown around... that we'd need 4 planets to support today's population if everyone in the world lived like the average American or something thereabouts?
...But if everyone lived like the average Sub-Saharan African, we could theoretically double or even triple the population of the world without exceeding the planet's carrying capacity.
Poor people use less stuff, simple enough. Selling "Green Living" (which essentially boils down to living poorer) as a trendy lifestyle has basically failed, so Agenda 21 is the first of more "hands-on" attempts to force people to use less in broad ways.
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.
