this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
88 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19233 readers
2750 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] reddig33 28 points 6 months ago (4 children)

In some cases it’s the state that makes the mistake. Not the city. There are lots of people in Austin and Houston who do not want the interstate widened. But TxDOT and the feds are going to push through those projects anyway.

In Austin, the local government is trying to install voter-approved light rail, but the state attorney general is suing to try to stop it.

[–] Ghostalmedia 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Conservative Texans, committing to make the dumb infrastructure mistakes naive Californians made in the 60’s and 70’s, all in order to own the libs.

[–] seaQueue 3 points 6 months ago

CA says this approach is wrong based on their expertise, we'll show them!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

From what I’ve read in the past, state law actually prohibits TxDOT from spending money on anything but roads and car-based infrastructure. I don’t know if it’s true, but apparently there’s quite a few that would love to approve more rail projects but their hands are tied by state law.

[–] Weirdmusic 5 points 6 months ago

“It's a bypass. You've got to build bypasses.”

[–] Etterra 4 points 6 months ago

Well I mean when your corporate paymasters demand action...

[–] NarrativeBear 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

"When cities are designed with mostly drivers in mind, they tend to be built for commuters and not residents, making them less attractive to live in or even visit outside of work."

Cities need to be designed for the people and families that live there. Not people driving in from the suburbs.

Also, I wonder if NewYork will ever consider doing what Amsterdam did (in the 1970~1980) to combat its traffic issues (caused by car), and only allow pedestrian/cycaling traffic.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3052699/these-historical-photos-show-how-amsterdam-turned-itself-into-a-bike-riders-paradise

[–] Shanedino 0 points 6 months ago

WFH and you no longer have to drive in for work?

[–] sensiblepuffin 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This shit is infuriating. "No one drives in New York because there's too much traffic" has been joked about for how long? Absolutely baffling how people can be so stubborn in holding onto their outdated and incorrect ideas about traffic and public transit.