<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Building Cities, It Turns Out, Is a Partisan Issue</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:58:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: EngineerScotty</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/#comment-16543</link>
		<dc:creator>EngineerScotty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:34:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=4665#comment-16543</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s always humorous to hear conservatives complaining about &quot;witch hunts&quot;--it ain&#039;t progressives (and Democrats in general) who regularly like to accuse the other political party and its members of treason.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s always humorous to hear conservatives complaining about &#8220;witch hunts&#8221;&#8211;it ain&#8217;t progressives (and Democrats in general) who regularly like to accuse the other political party and its members of treason.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/#comment-16538</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:29:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=4665#comment-16538</guid>
		<description>Witch hunt much?: Schwarzenegger is a moderate Republican, who the party base calls a RINO and who would never have won in a straight primary. The Texas plan for the Trans-Texas Corridor isn&#039;t HSR - it&#039;s jumbo infrastructure circling each city, consisting of mega-highways, power lines, and some rail. Anyone who thinks you can run rail in circles like highways instead of into cities needs to have his planning license revoked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Witch hunt much?: Schwarzenegger is a moderate Republican, who the party base calls a RINO and who would never have won in a straight primary. The Texas plan for the Trans-Texas Corridor isn&#8217;t HSR &#8211; it&#8217;s jumbo infrastructure circling each city, consisting of mega-highways, power lines, and some rail. Anyone who thinks you can run rail in circles like highways instead of into cities needs to have his planning license revoked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yonah Freemark</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/#comment-16504</link>
		<dc:creator>Yonah Freemark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=4665#comment-16504</guid>
		<description>Witch hunt much? -

You should note that those comments were made in reference to the platforms of the respective parties; as I suggested in the postscript, there are plenty of Republicans who are pro-transit and livable communities and plenty of Democrats who are against those things.

The idea here was to demonstrate the rather remarkable differences in voting patterns between people living in areas of different densities and to show that the parties have an incentive, usually at the national level, to respond to that fact.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Witch hunt much? -</p>
<p>You should note that those comments were made in reference to the platforms of the respective parties; as I suggested in the postscript, there are plenty of Republicans who are pro-transit and livable communities and plenty of Democrats who are against those things.</p>
<p>The idea here was to demonstrate the rather remarkable differences in voting patterns between people living in areas of different densities and to show that the parties have an incentive, usually at the national level, to respond to that fact.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Witch hunt much?</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/#comment-16501</link>
		<dc:creator>Witch hunt much?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=4665#comment-16501</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;Unlike the Democrats, Republicans do not suggest investing in high-speed rail, they don’t argue for investment in new transit capacity, and they don’t argue for designing with smart growth in mind. &lt;/I&gt;

Are you really this ignorant or just a hyper-partisan Democrat hack?

In CA the GOP gov just attempted to consolidate the state&#039;s pursuit of Fed HSR funds to support their ultra-HSR proposal.  Some may question that move, but it can&#039;t honestly be portrayed as not support rail.  It is just a difference of opinion on how best to do so.

The GOP-controlled FL legislature and gov are about to call a special session to approve funding for an Orlando rail transit startup and to increase their chances of obtaining HSR funding.  For an HSR plan created and refined over a decade while the GOP was in power.  Temporarily shelved by a GOP gov, but that was by the public&#039;s vote and cannot be extrapolated into &quot;The GOP doesn&#039;t support rail.&quot;

Texas also has a GOP gov and legislature, and in the last 2 sessions they&#039;ve created and gotten voter approval to establish a rail relocation fund that would facilitate commuter rail startups, created a new rail division for TXDOT, created a statewide rail plan, and the gov ordered TXDOT to develop a HSR master plan.  The last bill to establish a new tax for transit failed, but it was sponsored by GOP members and the argument was over how to pay for it, not whether to expand or establish rail transit systems. 

 I guess you are unaware that GOP-dominated Utah is creating a light-rail and commuter rail system equivalent to Portland&#039;s in half the time it took Oregon?  And yes, the voting area that created and funded TRAX is much larger than any Salt Lake liberal enclave, so spare us that myth.

Just 4 states, though there are countless other examples across the country.  Maybe bipartisan isn&#039;t as common now because so many loud-mouth liberals with blogs always raise their fists to the sky and damn the GOP whenever it rains or they stub their toe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Unlike the Democrats, Republicans do not suggest investing in high-speed rail, they don’t argue for investment in new transit capacity, and they don’t argue for designing with smart growth in mind. </i></p>
<p>Are you really this ignorant or just a hyper-partisan Democrat hack?</p>
<p>In CA the GOP gov just attempted to consolidate the state&#8217;s pursuit of Fed HSR funds to support their ultra-HSR proposal.  Some may question that move, but it can&#8217;t honestly be portrayed as not support rail.  It is just a difference of opinion on how best to do so.</p>
<p>The GOP-controlled FL legislature and gov are about to call a special session to approve funding for an Orlando rail transit startup and to increase their chances of obtaining HSR funding.  For an HSR plan created and refined over a decade while the GOP was in power.  Temporarily shelved by a GOP gov, but that was by the public&#8217;s vote and cannot be extrapolated into &#8220;The GOP doesn&#8217;t support rail.&#8221;</p>
<p>Texas also has a GOP gov and legislature, and in the last 2 sessions they&#8217;ve created and gotten voter approval to establish a rail relocation fund that would facilitate commuter rail startups, created a new rail division for TXDOT, created a statewide rail plan, and the gov ordered TXDOT to develop a HSR master plan.  The last bill to establish a new tax for transit failed, but it was sponsored by GOP members and the argument was over how to pay for it, not whether to expand or establish rail transit systems. </p>
<p> I guess you are unaware that GOP-dominated Utah is creating a light-rail and commuter rail system equivalent to Portland&#8217;s in half the time it took Oregon?  And yes, the voting area that created and funded TRAX is much larger than any Salt Lake liberal enclave, so spare us that myth.</p>
<p>Just 4 states, though there are countless other examples across the country.  Maybe bipartisan isn&#8217;t as common now because so many loud-mouth liberals with blogs always raise their fists to the sky and damn the GOP whenever it rains or they stub their toe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Wentzel</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/#comment-16487</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Wentzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=4665#comment-16487</guid>
		<description>Also, as we have a system with split executives and legislatures, unlike a parliamentary system, a party can have a Presdient/Governor/Mayor and a Congressmember/Assemblymember/Councillor with similar ideologies, but different constituencies and different electoral timetables, with different interests.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, as we have a system with split executives and legislatures, unlike a parliamentary system, a party can have a Presdient/Governor/Mayor and a Congressmember/Assemblymember/Councillor with similar ideologies, but different constituencies and different electoral timetables, with different interests.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alurin</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/#comment-16478</link>
		<dc:creator>Alurin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:34:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=4665#comment-16478</guid>
		<description>The reason that American political parties (particularly the Democrats) behave as if they needed to form coalitions is that our parties themselves are more like coalitions than European political parties, which tend to be more sharply defined by ideology. The Republicans sustained two successive electoral defeats precisely because they attempted to define themselves narrowly as an ideological right-wing party, and attempted to govern in a majoritarian fashion on the basis of small majorities. The Democrats expanded their coalition to take power. As a consequence, they need to satisfy constituents who might switch back to the Republicans. If the Democrats act like the Republicans acted for the last ten years, they will quickly find themselves to be a minority party again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason that American political parties (particularly the Democrats) behave as if they needed to form coalitions is that our parties themselves are more like coalitions than European political parties, which tend to be more sharply defined by ideology. The Republicans sustained two successive electoral defeats precisely because they attempted to define themselves narrowly as an ideological right-wing party, and attempted to govern in a majoritarian fashion on the basis of small majorities. The Democrats expanded their coalition to take power. As a consequence, they need to satisfy constituents who might switch back to the Republicans. If the Democrats act like the Republicans acted for the last ten years, they will quickly find themselves to be a minority party again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew S</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/#comment-16474</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=4665#comment-16474</guid>
		<description>How about Francis Sargent, the governor of Massachussetts who killed the proposed inner belt that would&#039;ve gutted Cambridge and Boston and lobbied for the funds to be made available for public transit? He even deployed a bright young Alan Altshuler to help craft the federal legislation that allowed funds to be transferred from highway trust fund to transit projects, the legacy of which is clearly felt today.  

Having a (in my view, ridiculous) two party system means that you get a wide range of people calling themselves republican or democrat.  Although the media likes to build up the fact we live in a hyper-partisan era, the truth is many transportation and liveable cities projects exist in a grey area where politicians can act a little more freely.  This is not the case on issues that we&#039;re forced to hear about everyday, like gun control or abortion, where interest groups on both sides produce score cards that can be used in election cycles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about Francis Sargent, the governor of Massachussetts who killed the proposed inner belt that would&#8217;ve gutted Cambridge and Boston and lobbied for the funds to be made available for public transit? He even deployed a bright young Alan Altshuler to help craft the federal legislation that allowed funds to be transferred from highway trust fund to transit projects, the legacy of which is clearly felt today.  </p>
<p>Having a (in my view, ridiculous) two party system means that you get a wide range of people calling themselves republican or democrat.  Although the media likes to build up the fact we live in a hyper-partisan era, the truth is many transportation and liveable cities projects exist in a grey area where politicians can act a little more freely.  This is not the case on issues that we&#8217;re forced to hear about everyday, like gun control or abortion, where interest groups on both sides produce score cards that can be used in election cycles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brewinquaker</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/#comment-16425</link>
		<dc:creator>Brewinquaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:03:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=4665#comment-16425</guid>
		<description>in Illinois, Rep Kirk (R) is very pro-transit and has sponsored legislation to support employer-based programs to encourage alternatives to driving.  He has been awarded by the Association for Commuter Transportation for his efforts.  While it may be a trend that Republicans tend to favor lower-density, auto-based development, it is not universal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>in Illinois, Rep Kirk (R) is very pro-transit and has sponsored legislation to support employer-based programs to encourage alternatives to driving.  He has been awarded by the Association for Commuter Transportation for his efforts.  While it may be a trend that Republicans tend to favor lower-density, auto-based development, it is not universal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Norman Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/#comment-16397</link>
		<dc:creator>Norman Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:19:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=4665#comment-16397</guid>
		<description>There are strong minorities in both parties, Reagan Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans, who tend to pull Party policy support in the opposite direction of the prevailing tendency of the party.  George Voinevich  Republican Senator from Ohio supports higher fuel taxes and Marie Landrieu Democratic Senator from Louisiana never me a yard of concrete she didn&#039;t like.

I wish your equation of the Democratic Party with an urbanist agenda were correct, perhaps if the party elders looked these charts over it would become so.  My favorite red/blue electoral map is the county map.  Lots of very red states have very blue counties therein.

The Constitution was constructed to settle the frontier and protect the slaveholders.  We continue to settle the frontier, though in this case it is really settling the farms that used to grow the food for the cities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are strong minorities in both parties, Reagan Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans, who tend to pull Party policy support in the opposite direction of the prevailing tendency of the party.  George Voinevich  Republican Senator from Ohio supports higher fuel taxes and Marie Landrieu Democratic Senator from Louisiana never me a yard of concrete she didn&#8217;t like.</p>
<p>I wish your equation of the Democratic Party with an urbanist agenda were correct, perhaps if the party elders looked these charts over it would become so.  My favorite red/blue electoral map is the county map.  Lots of very red states have very blue counties therein.</p>
<p>The Constitution was constructed to settle the frontier and protect the slaveholders.  We continue to settle the frontier, though in this case it is really settling the farms that used to grow the food for the cities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kyle</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/11/16/building-cities-it-turns-out-is-a-partisan-issue/#comment-16384</link>
		<dc:creator>kyle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=4665#comment-16384</guid>
		<description>As long as the debate is framed as one of  transport modes (walking/transit/bike/car) and living styles (rural/exurb/suburb/urban) allegiances to left or right are always going to appear.  Why not try to get the debate around the total costs to infrastructure layout?  Is building suburban developments a cost effective way to build infrastructure?  Is highway development the most efficient way to move people and good around?  Is the surely large medical cost of America&#039;s obesity relevant to our current lifestyle choices?   The bottom line is probably the best way to talk about this stuff, because really, that&#039;s all that&#039;s ever going to make things happen anyhow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As long as the debate is framed as one of  transport modes (walking/transit/bike/car) and living styles (rural/exurb/suburb/urban) allegiances to left or right are always going to appear.  Why not try to get the debate around the total costs to infrastructure layout?  Is building suburban developments a cost effective way to build infrastructure?  Is highway development the most efficient way to move people and good around?  Is the surely large medical cost of America&#8217;s obesity relevant to our current lifestyle choices?   The bottom line is probably the best way to talk about this stuff, because really, that&#8217;s all that&#8217;s ever going to make things happen anyhow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

