Try the political quiz

11.3k Replies

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs

Yes, but only if the spending goes towards environmentally friendly solutions

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs

No, and we should privatize more public transportation services

@93XXJ6B from California disagreed…2mos

I wholeheartly disagree. (This is long, but I'm not really trying to change your opinion on this. It doesn't matter what you think, I actively work on transportation in life, so my opinion will not just stay as an idle opinion on the internet) If we take lessons from history, I'm taking the time when public transit was largely privatized, then we will see that this will, probably, lead to nothing good. An example most transit enthuists know of is the Los Angeles streetcar, although I am going to explaining more than most people understand it. LA was once the city with the largest interurban streetcar system in the world, and this was run by a private company. The private company, Pacifific Electric/LARY, built these streetcar lines out for the pure intrest of profit, and running a streetcar was not and is not profitable. They made money by building out the lines and selling the real estate because the streetcar drastically increased property value. The people were as reliant with the streetcar, or more often nicknamed the red car, as they are with the automobile now. Like the big railroads of the time, they were also big infuencers on politics, this time with town hall not capital hill. They were nitourious for bribing city officals and corrupting local governments, as such the people resented them and they were eager when the ford model T became widely avaiable to switch over to gain freedom from the streetcar. Pacific Electric/LARY as such, lost heavy amounts of profit. The thought of subsidizing the streetcar though, was unpopular, and they ended up closing a lot of lines as they fell into deeper disrepair than they had already left them in too keep profits rolling. They planned to switch to buses before WW2, but the rubber shortage made them halt. Then General Motors bought up the companies and replaced the final lines with buses. This has given a lot of people the false consiparcy that GM killed the streetcar, they also did this in many other cities with their streetcar lines, but in reality, the nature of private businesses do not lend well to public utility. The only reason any privart public transportation companies exist in america now is because of government subsides. In an entirely free market system, public transit would not survive. Although if an entirely free market system existed than there wouldn't have been the development of the transcontinetal railways, the era of the freeway, and modern america as we know it. Maybe government bonds are Read more

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs

@95TYYWS from Florida answered…46mins

Yes, and develop infrastructure for state of the art technology like in other countries.

@95TYLHW from California answered…1hr

@95TKH2S from Texas answered…10hrs

No. This should be handled by state or city. It's not a federal matter.

@95THC3J from Missouri answered…13hrs

Federal government should not. Local government should handle the delegation of assignment to private corporations for infrastructure, with the funding being voted on by the local population except in matters of interstate travel. In those cases, the federal government should use taxes collected from the state government coffers, not the population directly, to fund the construction of infrastructure on the national level.

@95T99R9 from California answered…19hrs

Yes, but city planning and routes should be designed for high ridership and funded from fares. The high coverage, transportation as a charity, services are not very effective and suck. Make public transit work well for the middle class. Make it better than driving. Charge what it's worth.

@95T4QWT from California answered…21hrs

Yes but fynding should be limited to building infrastructure and initial operation cost. Thereafter use the funds received from sale of tickets to run it

@95SZ2H6 from New York answered…22hrs

Yes, and we should redesign our transportation infrastructure to prioritize public transportation, biking, and walking to discourage car use.

@95SMRLX from New York answered…1 day

@95SMPCT from New York answered…1 day

@95SM86S from California answered…1 day

@95SKL3N from Connecticut answered…1 day

@95SGX5H from North Carolina answered…1 day

Provide cheaper ways of transportation, but we have more important issues that need funding.

@95SBGP9 from Pennsylvania answered…1 day

Yes, but specifically to make it more accessible to lower income and rural areas.

@95SB936 from Virginia answered…1 day

instead of spending money on public transportation, cities should be built to be able to walk to places in, not built to suit cars.

@95S9NT3 from Wisconsin answered…1 day

@95S6ZK4Progressive from Texas answered…1 day

Yes, and also nationalize zoning standards to allow for medium to high density cities and eliminate reliance on personal vehicles

@95RWZKH from Colorado answered…1 day

Local governments should be looking towards solutions that make cities more walkable and less car dependent

@95RTKZB from Illinois answered…1 day

Yes, especially for a high speed national railway. Walkable cities are healthier cities

@95RS3MX from Texas answered…2 days

Yes in highly need areas, but don't waste money in areas where we don't need it.

@95RR5V5Greenfrom Pennsylvania  answered…2 days

@95RQH93 from California answered…2 days

@95RP9VBIndependent from Texas answered…2 days

Yes, and incentivize communities to be less dependent on personal vehicles.

@95RMB45 from Ohio answered…2 days

Yes, but only if it goes toward free to the public, environmentally friendly options.

@95RLHW9 from Texas answered…2 days

Yes, but the spending needs to be targeted carefully, and put into programs designed around reducing people's reliance on cars, rather than just adding public transport

@95RKZLW from California answered…2 days

Yes, and provide more free transportation that is environment friendly

@95RGHKD from California answered…2 days

@95RDLG9 from California answered…2 days

@95R9KRT from Texas answered…2 days

Depends. Public transportation requires the infrastructure of a city to support it and until that changes it's useless to just build transportation.

@95R6794 from Massachusetts answered…2 days

This is a state issue at most. The general government doesn't have the constitutional authority to spend money on something like this.

@95R5Y8B from Oregon answered…2 days

Yes, if they're environmentally friendly and there is more free public transportation.

@95QTKFC from California answered…2 days

@95QPHT5 from Florida answered…2 days

@95QM95P from Delaware answered…2 days

@95QJMKC from Texas answered…2 days

No because people already cant drive and have accidents so increasing the speed will put us in danger.

@95QGLX2 from Massachusetts answered…2 days


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...