The New Republic

I read the Link to the Republican Party Platform for Infrastructure and really did not see this as a war against the cities. At $0.50/gal, this works out to about $ 0.03/mile. And as someone who pays this tax I would appreciate that the people who are making the decisions about where to spend this money did it a little more responsibly. I think if you have ever been stuck on the Beltway you would have similar feelings. I think Ms. DePillis is missing the true view of cities based upon her limited experiences in Seattle, New York & Washington DC. Those cities are international in nature, clean and well supported by high taxes and large employers like the Federal Government. The majorities of cities in America are facing huge budget shortfalls and are neglecting their responsibilities. A few examples from my local experience: The City Bus Service has failed. More buses were out of service for repairs than were running. The Service was so unreliable that they lost passengers. Bus Drivers were demanding higher wages and no lay-offs. The city had huge shortfalls. What do they want to do to fix this? Merge with the Suburban Bus System. And make the Suburban System do things there way. All they want is the money, not the service. The City failed to do the required maintenance on their bridges over the highways. As the bridges crumbled they told the state they didn't have money to fix this and the highways were going to have to deal with the crumbling bridges. So the state finds the money and the City puts people to work. And we pay twice for something we already bought. Not sure if you saw the WSJ 'Best of the Web' last week. The pointed out that Ms. Warren has told America that China spends 9% on Infrastructre and America is only spending 2%. They then pointed out the Chinese Bridge that fell apart 6 months after it was built. Yes, if you build bridges like they do in China, you will be spending 9% for them. Ms. DePillis is missing the point on Infrastructure in America right now. We have the money and we know what to do. It's doing it that is the problem.

- CRS9TNR

August 29, 2012 at 7:32pm

"I think Ms. DePillis is missing the true view of cities based upon her limited experiences in Seattle, New York & Washington DC. Those cities are international in nature, clean and well supported by high taxes and large employers like the Federal Government." CRS9TNR, The federal government is one of the smaller employers here in the Seattle area. We have Boeing, Amazon, Starbucks, genomics research (Fred Hutchinson), Microsoft, University of Washington and Seattle University, the Mariners, the Seahawks, shipping (No. 2 seaport on the West Coast), and more that I can't think of right now. We also have a tremendous bus system, and light rail that will eventually reach into the northern suburbs from the airport (it's up to downtown from the airport now). You're just in a city that isn't diverse enough. I lived in Flint and Detroit. I know your pain. The GOP does, indeed, hate cities, especially the larger ones. The Democrats get most of their votes there. And today's Republicans are concerned much more with getting votes than they are with improving our cities. They proved that by turning down Obama's Jobs Act.

- magboy47.

August 29, 2012 at 11:51pm

Public transportation is indeed a laudable goal. The problem with it in many cases is that it isn't paid for by the users. Older systems are horridly inefficient. New systems that are way under projected ridership are also horridly inefficient. There is a sweet spot in public transportation where it works and works well. They are a perfect storm of factors that, frankly, don't happen all that often. Here is Seattle the light rail is running about 60% of projected ridership. And the most common use is for seahawk footballs games. And while big city living is great for a spell or two, make no mistake that if money were no object, most would get away from the big city (after all, look where our most wealthy decide to live, most opt to NOT live in a big city). Thus the city is a convenient drop-off point where we can contain and serve the masses on the cheap. And as noted, it's dirty, loud and you don't have much room to even change your mind. Even better than a city would be if we could get people to live in pods. They would take even less room still. And we could probably cram 100 people in the space used by a normal house. Or, if we could shrink people to half their normal size, and then cram them even tighter, maybe we could get 250 people in the same space. But I jest. Is your goal happy people, or to cram as many people into a confining space as possible? If your goal is happy people, then let them go where they wish. And use those that want to stay in the city to fund their own transportation. If it costs $8 for a bus ride, then so be it. If it costs $16 for a 7 minute light rail ride, then so be it.

- seattleeng

August 30, 2012 at 11:29am

Yes, seattle, you jest.

- magboy47.

August 30, 2012 at 2:53pm

Worse yet, the GOP platform includes a plank that kowtows to the insane conspiracy theory that planning for sustainable cities and regions is all part of a secret UN conspiracy to eliminate private property. Today's Republican Party has clearly stated that it will starve the future -- particularly investments in human and physical capital, like education and infrastructure, but also future social services like Medicaid -- in order to squander even more money on tax cuts for today's already under-taxed rich. Despite their endless high-pitched whining about The Debt, their approach will multiply future generations' tax bills many times over, as they struggle to catch up with decades of net-negative investment in capital stocks. (Great to see LDP writing here.)

- paytonc

August 30, 2012 at 5:27pm

seattleeng: "make no mistake that if money were no object, most would get away from the big city (after all, look where our most wealthy decide to live, most opt to NOT live in a big city)." Seems to me that for a lot of people for whom money is no object, New York City is their chosen abode. Otherwise, we wouldn't have apartments going for over $20 million. But it would be nice to have real data instead of making blanket assertions based on mere conjecture, wouldn't it?

- dsimon

August 30, 2012 at 10:30pm

The largest money suck of Federal and State budgets isn't cities, it's rural, exurban and suburban sprawl where the cost of putting in infrastructure takes more money and more upkeep when you have to put in miles of roads, water and power for a little enclave of 300 homes 30 miles outside of a city. Not only that, the quality of life for rural counties is such that these same rural and suburban counties not immediately adjacent to major metropolitan areas also represent the largest outflow of government benefits when it comes to Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, welfare and Veterans benefits. Cities and their surrounding metro areas pay more in Federal taxes than they receive. This map shows a by county break down of benefit. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us The GOP like to harp about big cities being liberal hotbeds of socialism and UN sanctioned bike paths and carping about Agenda 21 but they're the first to invest in cities if they can make a buck. Why? Because that's where the money is made. The other reason the GOP hate cities is envy. They can't stand that kind of collective success unless it's Dallas/Ft. Worth. The GDP output of Lawrence, Kansas is far greater than say....Olathe Kansas. Why? Quality of life, choice of economic opportunity, education, etc., etc. Sure the wealthiest will have their trophy home in Jackson, Wyoming but they don't live their year round. That's why they refer to them as vacation homes. If cities sucked so bad people wouldn't continue to move there year after year. As for mass transit projects, sure light rail doesn't solve everybody's commuting horrors but building toll roads to an exurb development doesn't make sense either. Major metropolitan areas like Denver and its immediate suburban towns collectively are paying for the TREX project with voter approved bonds and Federal dollars. Steamboat Springs ranchers don't subsidize the light rail commuter's ride to his job.

- singlspeed

September 11, 2012 at 4:35pm