|
Another month, another issue of Planning Magazine with an article about how staff reports suck. They've been writing the same article every year since at least the one in the 80s "Best of Planning Magazine" book. There is something public officials can do to build connections with the public in these times of "fake news," mistrust of politicians and data, and political division: speak clearly. As planners, we don't often think of ourselves as communications experts, but how much time do we spend writing reports, emails, news items, and sharing information? Quite a bit. And how often do we hear, "Wow, I really understood that traffic report," or "That data was really clear. Can we talk about tradeoffs?" Probably a lot less often. Our first reaction is often something like "People just don't take the time to understand what I'm producing," or "I work with very technical information." Both are probably true. We have specialized knowledge, and if we want that knowledge to be useful in the world, we need other people to understand us. Sometimes, we might even worry that writing simply will make us seem unintelligent or unprofessional. But I believe that simple, clear writing is the most professional way to communicate. Writing documents nobody understands doesn't make us sound smart — it makes us sound evasive and untrustworthy. It also wastes time and resources. Many of our workplaces have a deeply entrenched habit of writing in cumbersome, legalistic, technical language. It's time we change that. So, in the interest of building better communities through plain language, I offer four ways planners can start today: 1. Be Straightforward. I know my field's terms and assumptions, but others likely don't. When I give my governing board a memo saying a neighborhood requests no parking signs "due to ongoing vehicle access issues resulting from vehicles parked on both sides of the streets," what I really mean is "parked cars are blocking people driving through the neighborhood." Nobody in the real world talks about "vehicle access issues." We need to scour our writing for jargon and bureaucratic terms. I like to pretend I'm talking to my teenager — the one who tunes me out if I go into techno-speak. Translation is key. 2. Be Honest. We build trust through honesty. Plain language is clear; it tells us who did what and why. Clarity and honesty show what we're doing. It can feel vulnerable, but it's the right thing to do. 3. Be Logical. We need to help the reader along. I like to think about what needs to be said and organize it before I start writing. Do we want them to do something? Put the most important information at the top. Does it only apply to certain people? Let them know at the beginning. Headings help readers skim for key information, and tables and charts can replace lengthy prose. I once worked on a driving policy covering several types of drivers and differing training requirements. Using a simple decision-tree chart made it easy for anyone to quickly figure out which standard applied to them. This isn't dumbing things down; it's making everyone smarter. 4. Be Kind. Treat the reader the way you'd like to be treated. How many times have you received an email that was so dense and complicated, your heart sank? When was the last time you actually read the Terms of Service before clicking "agree"? When we blanket information in jargon, tumble it across the page, and hide it in prose, we lose our readers — and worse, we might also lose their trust. Discourse is necessary, especially today. It happens best when we're sharing ideas and information, not burying each other in miscommunication. We can best serve and support our communities by presenting important information in ways they can easily understand. Simply put: It's our job.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
i feel like this is just an inevitable and unending source of friction due to the fact that planning is at weird intersection of public-facing and sensitive to opinion, while also being somewhat technical. planning done well has to incorporate studies and best practices, yet the public works department or watershed management isn't beholden to charrettes as part of the policy and plan development process
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i feel like this is just an inevitable and unending source of friction due to the fact that planning is at weird intersection of public-facing and sensitive to opinion, while also being somewhat technical. planning done well has to incorporate studies and best practices, yet the public works department or watershed management isn't beholden to charrettes as part of the policy and plan development process I forgot which article it was but basically local elected leaders basically blame developers for density housing and development and create attitudes that are often developers vs. communities. Communities blame developers, developers don't develop, and the elected officials get to ride a wave of anti-development to elections. Which isn't to say that developers are on the level but everyone has a slice of the blame pie. Good policy requires input from communities, especially communities effected by policy decision but it also requires people to have opens minds about policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
I think it's more that management is full of people who think that it is good to do things the same forever, and that word processing means that the same paragraphs are reused forever. By that I mean, "We've always written the report in this format. How dare you suggest a change?" More than that, we write reports that don't even dare to touch on the issues that matter to the reader. Planning commissioners and city councils make decisions based on big issues, and planners should be giving them advice on how developments would affect the city and the important issues, especially because we (should be) the people in the room representing The People of the Future and the effect on the city as a whole. Will the development let people get things they need without driving? Will it make rents go up or down? How will it affect <sideshow bob rake shudder> parking? Instead, we decided that we get our legitimacy from being impartial technicians who devise and implement rules people don't give a poo poo about. So, we The result is a 30-page report that doesn't have any of the information that people want or need, and an objective* recommendation that very often would make the neighborhood, city, and region worse. *It's funny how the objective judgment on whether a development "has harmonious human scale architectural forms with colors that fit the character" can depend on a conversation between the department head and a city councilman. Greg12 fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Nov 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
not really relevant to anything but i just saw this video about this large project to expand the Paris underground and I thought it was interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjuMcWwMqPk
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Squalid posted:not really relevant to anything but i just saw this video about this large project to expand the Paris underground and I thought it was interesting. choochoo trains are always relevant
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:choochoo trains are always relevant Until now. With McKenzie Pete as Transportation Secretary, we're going to lose Senility Joe's only positive attribute: His absolute grandfatherly love of choochoos. Let's all get ready for four-to-eight years of designing our cities around imaginary robot cars and Intelligent Transportation Systems. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
eh, i see this complaint a lot and i think it is just a more acute thing to complain about rather than the deep structural issue of local transit systems not finding one-time injections of capital funding as useful as sustained, committed operational funding. DoT and HUD are more likely to hand out grants for studies and the like then they are to sign on for twenty years of subsidizing driver pay and fuel costs, and this is not going to change as long as we are likely to tack back into the "let's burn down government" party its the same problem with federal public housing really. as long as congress only gives a sporadic, inadequate amount of funding towards local infrastructure then the best case scenario is big pots of money to replace rusted out bridges and the states are still going to have to piecemeal tack on to local transit initiatives for what its worth, he at least knows to repeat the right talking points, even if it would be nicer to have a more activist-wonk type in the role. i just dont think unchecked doomerism is warranted here https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-04/inside-pete-buttigieg-s-2-trillion-climate-plan Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Dec 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:eh, i see this complaint a lot and i think it is just a more acute thing to complain about rather than the deep structural issue of local transit systems not finding one-time injections of capital funding as useful as sustained, committed operational funding. DoT and HUD are more likely to hand out grants for studies and the like then they are to sign on for twenty years of subsidizing driver pay and fuel costs, and this is not going to change as long as we are likely to tack back into the "let's burn down government" party yes but I was looking forward to Joe signing giant novelty checks for New Starts projects based on applications that include O-guage layouts, and seeing the job go to the absolute worst management consultant shitheel has me pissed off
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
we'll have to help localities and transit agencies unfuck their COVID-wrecked budgets before anybody can move forward on any kind of transit expansion. the pandemic directly and indirectly hit agencies right in the gut, and it will take most of the 2020-2024 presidential term to get back to merely stable budgeting - probably not before the midterm backlash. at this point the best pete can do really is keep the patronage flowing so it doesn't really matter who gets the job given the stacked up obstacles towards progress
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
I'm a lot less upset with Mayo Pete at USDOT than Rahm or Garcetti. Maybe his consulting instincts will make him want to hire some people to figure out why it costs so much more to build transit here than anywhere else in the world (although he could just follow a bunch of people on transit twitter for that).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I'm a lot less upset with Mayo Pete at USDOT than Rahm or Garcetti. Maybe his consulting instincts will make him want to hire some people to figure out why it costs so much more to build transit here than anywhere else in the world (although he could just follow a bunch of people on transit twitter for that). Politically, I t’s less of an odd choice than Kamala Harris for VP tbh. At least Buttigieg had *some* primary success.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 10:11
|
|
|
It’s a political role, and it going to a politician is fine, that’s not my main concern. My main concern with Pete being at DOT is that he’s still kinda wedded to a politics of austerity, and it’s an agency where we need someone willing to do big bold things rather than being scared of ~the deficit~, I don’t really care that he used to be a consultant. Badger of Basra posted:I'm a lot less upset with Mayo Pete at USDOT than Rahm or Garcetti. Maybe his consulting instincts will make him want to hire some people to figure out why it costs so much more to build transit here than anywhere else in the world (although he could just follow a bunch of people on transit twitter for that). I mean the problem there is political, not technical though. We use public works programs as back door ways of providing employment rather than a means for providing the most efficient possible provision of public goods. I think that it’s a terrible way to do things that backfires in the long run, but there are pretty powerful interests that are deeply invested in the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 02:31
|
|
|
to be honest, it doesn't really matter who is in charge so long as congress is still wrestling over the question of whether or not providing a functioning, well funded government is good or bad for the country as a whole the feds haven't been a useful contributor towards mass transit for half a century, and that probably wont change during the biden admin so long as the nation is still so totally polarized and gridlocked. SAFETEA-LU was somewhat useful but that happened during bush the second's second term, and obama managed to get a couple bills passed which were more interstate highway oriented since there is still the thorny issue of mass transit funding being harder to justify under the commerce clause and 10th amendment the feds can continue to hand out grants and limited subsidy but they can only do so much and every lower jurisdiction is getting budget body slammed by covid and the pandemic recession, putting transit expansion on the cut list until finances improve Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jan 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 05:33
|
|
|
Planned democratic changes to congressional rules on funding are actually likely to produce greater support for state-level and interstate funded infra projects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 05:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Planned democratic changes to congressional rules on funding are actually likely to produce greater support for state-level and interstate funded infra projects. The elimination of paygo for anything that can be tied to climate change + reinstating earmarks (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-07/democrats-plan-return-to-earmarks-to-pave-way-for-infrastructure) in the next session makes me think there's actually going to be an infrastructure spending orgy if the Democrats take the senate, but I'm fully ready for that to turn into bullshit carbon capture technologies and more subsidies for Alaskan oil infrastructure and fracked gas exploration somehow rather than transit spending.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 07:53
|
|
|
I would say the biggest effect that Buttgieg would have on the administration is how much there is going to be a push for mass transit versus highway spending. According to Buttgieg's campaign literature, he seemed to favor the current ratio of spending...which has led to the current result.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
lack of public transit in the us is always more of a local issue than a federal issue. we like to keep the mental shorthand that the feds could just airdrop infinite money on the problem if they really wanted to to solve any issue, from housing to infrastructure to education to public health, but something like lack of trains is generally more tied up more in local political fights and regulatory obstacles than simple inadequate funding. like turning on the money faucet would definitely help but it is not itself a sufficient solution to the problem
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:lack of public transit in the us is always more of a local issue than a federal issue. we like to keep the mental shorthand that the feds could just airdrop infinite money on the problem if they really wanted to to solve any issue, from housing to infrastructure to education to public health, but something like lack of trains is generally more tied up more in local political fights and regulatory obstacles than simple inadequate funding. like turning on the money faucet would definitely help but it is not itself a sufficient solution to the problem "Mayor Pete can't solve every problem" is a distraction from "Mayor Pete is going to do his level best not to solve any problem."
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
So whats the deal with this “strong towns” group? Someone posted a ted talk thing in another thread and what they were saying seemed to both make sense in parts, and then completely not in others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:So whats the deal with this “strong towns” group? Someone posted a ted talk thing in another thread and what they were saying seemed to both make sense in parts, and then completely not in others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:lack of public transit in the us is always more of a local issue than a federal issue. we like to keep the mental shorthand that the feds could just airdrop infinite money on the problem if they really wanted to to solve any issue, from housing to infrastructure to education to public health, but something like lack of trains is generally more tied up more in local political fights and regulatory obstacles than simple inadequate funding. like turning on the money faucet would definitely help but it is not itself a sufficient solution to the problem Transit systems are going to need federal spending if they are going to improve in any real shape or form and the more limited federal spending is, the more it is going to affect local projects. The federal government could easily incentive local decision making by easing the issue of funding in the first place. The Secretary of Transportation theoretically should there to appeal to congress for that spending.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Chuck is a libertarian and has plenty of dumb ideas. However, his work via Strong Towns had highlighted problems with modern planning and suggested viable local alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The federal government could easily incentive local decision making by easing the issue of funding in the first place. not within feasible or realistic limits. even if the feds just yeet money at local agencies, there is no guarantee that a republican swing won't cut off that support in five to ten years. there is a reason federal funds are often distributed through a less-useful grant process than as long term subsidy again, we can get really handwavy about how "well if the federal reserve turns on their cheat codes the problem will be solved" but that isn't going to build a strong regional coalition to provide steady sales tax funding to supplement farebox collection, it isn't going to create strong state-level support to actually coordinate fragmented county/local jurisdictions to actually think and act as a consolidated metro, etc. imo a lot of people assume sustained federal funding is the horse, really it is the cart. of course we would be in a different political universe if we didn't have to daydream of a federal government which was willing and able to provide consistent, adequate funding for quality of life projects e: something like the portland, oregon metro is more attributable to local and state action than federal funding. the same with dallas - the DFW metro has its poo poo together and texas is surprisingly muscular in terms of supporting regional planning efforts via NCTCOG. buckets of free money is nice and all but it isn't going to supplement or replace a coordinated metro, and a coordinated metro can whip up splost and bond money to get poo poo done in spite of absent feds. in an ideal world, regional planning strike teams would be able to summon wads of national cash to eminent domain efficient rights of way across the suburban landscape but alas, we can only dream Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
Imo the best thing that feds can do in the immediate term is remove local obstacles. There are plenty of creative ways that the feds could bring the hammer down on NIMBY poo poo that blocks density and transit if they were willing to be creative with it. Will Pete be that person? I’m certainly not going to hold my breath, but I’m very willing to be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 07:43
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:not within feasible or realistic limits. even if the feds just yeet money at local agencies, there is no guarantee that a republican swing won't cut off that support in five to ten years. there is a reason federal funds are often distributed through a less-useful grant process than as long term subsidy It is ironic, since the Fed's by limiting sharing to 50% actually dramatically slowed down the development of the Portland MAX which until that point had been mostly federally funded. The Federal government has trillions at its disposal and can make transit enticing if it was willing to actually make it a priority. The Secretary of Transportation can't do this unilaterally but can be an important influencer. If you fund it, they will come. Either way, even if the Federal government can't demand projects by fiat, it has the ability to greatly incentivize them, but simply does not. If the NYC subway could access 30-40 billion of federal grants to retrofit itself...do you think Cuomo could say no? It is also why the US economy is going to continue to fall behind because in many ways it is simply not competitive in infrastructure and it is getting to the point it is affecting productivity and overall efficiency. We made poor choices with our investments and are only doubling down on them. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 08:24
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Imo the best thing that feds can do in the immediate term is remove local obstacles. There are plenty of creative ways that the feds could bring the hammer down on NIMBY poo poo that blocks density and transit if they were willing to be creative with it. Will Pete be that person? I’m certainly not going to hold my breath, but I’m very willing to be pleasantly surprised. the federal government should be funding more water infrastructure projects but also tie them into density projects. When I asked town managers why they didn't build more affordable housing, water/sewer infrastructure came up a few times for smaller communities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
NYT opinion column calling for the repeal of the absolutely boneheaded Faircloth amendment: https://twitter.com/RossBarkan/status/1346098080907743232
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:So whats the deal with this “strong towns” group? Someone posted a ted talk thing in another thread and what they were saying seemed to both make sense in parts, and then completely not in others. They can be hit or miss, but some of their hits are really good. I think their description of the Growth Ponzi Scheme is one of the best succinct explanations of the deep long-lasting flaws of 20th-century North American urban development, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:There are plenty of creative ways that the feds could bring the hammer down on NIMBY poo poo that blocks density and transit if they were willing to be creative with it. please describe these ways because one of the guiding principles about american federalism is that the national-scale government is quite hobbled in terms of loving with local poo poo and the supremacy of home rule. like this is one of the major reasons we continue to have a totally garbage and exclusionary educational system which itself is a primary cause of racial segregation, but on free market principles Ardennes posted:Either way, even if the Federal government can't demand projects by fiat, it has the ability to greatly incentivize them, but simply does not. If the NYC subway could access 30-40 billion of federal grants to retrofit itself...do you think Cuomo could say no? It is also why the US economy is going to continue to fall behind because in many ways it is simply not competitive in infrastructure and it is getting to the point it is affecting productivity and overall efficiency. this continues to assume that the problem with american transit is lack of access to funds for capital improvements, which is like the one thing the feds are good for. a lot of agencies would be completely willing to lay new track or buy new buses, IF they could guarantee the funding to pay for drivers and maintenance folk - that continual operational funding is the part more frequently lacking, the part the feds cannot guarantee, and the part which requires a high degree of local buy-in which is the more important component. NYC metro for sure needs a refurb but what use is it to the West Buttsvile Metro if they can use a neo-TIGER grant to lay down a streetcar which is only open for a few hours a day due to staffing issues? a ton of transit expansion happened in the 1970s due to a push from the feds as they realized "hey, our productivity and overall efficiency are being rendered less competitive because everyone is sitting in traffic". and that was great at the time! and a lot of these metros haven't been deep cleaned in years, delaying regular maintenance cycles, because all the operational funds is quickly burned away paying for drivers and fuel instead of janitors buttigieg or bernie sanders or the reanimated corpse of hipster stalin himself, secretary of transportation is still completely at the whim of a partisan congress no matter how loudly he bangs the drum on behalf of vocal YIMBYs. agencies will plan with a fickle funding source in mind, and as long as we're making a kokoro wish list of perfect world solutions for american transportation i would to add add "gas tax of a dollar a gallon since 1941" Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is ironic, since the Fed's by limiting sharing to 50% actually dramatically slowed down the development of the Portland MAX which until that point had been mostly federally funded. The Federal government has trillions at its disposal and can make transit enticing if it was willing to actually make it a priority. The Secretary of Transportation can't do this unilaterally but can be an important influencer. If you fund it, they will come. I mean part of the problem in the US is that if the federal government gave NYC 30 billion dollars for subway expansion we'd get like, 3 or 4 miles and maybe 6 or 7 stations because our costs are out of control. The lack of funding is part of the problem but so is the inability to use the funding in an effective way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
to be fair though NYC is not a great example of needing transportation expansion since it is already the densest, largest, and most economically vital american metro, the largest city in america for three centuries and counting... bit like giving bezos paycheck relief giving NYC metro money to overhaul the system is a no brainer, but having a massive and aging subway network with an enormous modal share and record breaking daily ridership is the kind of problem most urban planners would be delighted to have
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
would hipster stalin please send these nimbys and atomized local governments to the cross-laminated timber gulag so we can have frequent bus service
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:this continues to assume that the problem with american transit is lack of access to funds for capital improvements, which is like the one thing the feds are good for. a lot of agencies would be completely willing to lay new track or buy new buses, IF they could guarantee the funding to pay for drivers and maintenance folk - that continual operational funding is the part more frequently lacking, the part the feds cannot guarantee, and the part which requires a high degree of local buy-in which is the more important component. NYC metro for sure needs a refurb but what use is it to the West Buttsvile Metro if they can use a neo-TIGER grant to lay down a streetcar which is only open for a few hours a day due to staffing issues? That is the thing, even if the Sec of Transportation is disinterested in promoting public transit, than the situation is really that unworkable and we have to accept the consequences of that choice. The Sec of Transportation's chief role in policy is being an advocate, but if there isn't even interest in that, then we are simply talking about a managed decline at this point. Also we aren't at the stage of worrying about small cities at this point, I am simply talking about getting the transit system of the single largest source of GDP going. Btw, LA also has been begging for decades for further federal capital funding but has been unable to get it. Badger of Basra posted:I mean part of the problem in the US is that if the federal government gave NYC 30 billion dollars for subway expansion we'd get like, 3 or 4 miles and maybe 6 or 7 stations because our costs are out of control. The lack of funding is part of the problem but so is the inability to use the funding in an effective way. More than expansion, I would say the first priority is actually utilizing the track we have at the moment not just the NYC subway but multiple other systems are in badly need of repair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:to be fair though NYC is not a great example of needing transportation expansion since it is already the densest, largest, and most economically vital american metro, the largest city in america for three centuries and counting... bit like giving bezos paycheck relief Ardennes posted:More than expansion, I would say the first priority is actually utilizing the track we have at the moment not just the NYC subway but multiple other systems are in badly need of repair. I am very confident NYC would find a way to spend that money wastefully if you told them they could only use it for repairs as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That is the thing, even if the Sec of Transportation is disinterested in promoting public transit, than the situation is really that unworkable and we have to accept the consequences of that choice. The Sec of Transportation's chief role in policy is being an advocate, but if there isn't even interest in that, then we are simply talking about a managed decline at this point. whether or not he is or isn't, i feel like the general tone of his appointment is more obligatory pessimism on the part of the online left completely divorced from any of the actual policy issues which stand in the way of the implementation of public transit in the usa and the federal government's role in same mayor pete is inexperienced in this level of bureaucratic leadership for sure, and a wonkier choice would have been nice, but he at least expresses interest in pushing transportation. some of the folks i've seen thowing up their hands preemptively (not itt) on how we aren't going to get transit in the next four years are just completely misguided on why we aren't going to get transit, and that reason is not because some other person would have been better or worse for the job - it is because the federal government has historically been and will continue to remain mostly disconnected from local transportation complaining about the sec transportation pick is probably the most direct and shorthand way of complaining about transit inadequacy in general, but it is a complaint completely missing in details and instead oriented around general complaning-online-as-advocacy of the biden adminstration Ardennes posted:Also we aren't at the stage of worrying about small cities at this point, I am simply talking about getting the transit system of the single largest source of GDP going. Btw, LA also has been begging for decades for further federal capital funding but has been unable to get it. everywhere is important  Ardennes posted:Btw, LA also has been begging for decades for further federal capital funding but has been unable to get it. from which program and for which need? LA Metro got many hundreds of millions for capital expansion alone in 2020 http://media.metro.net/2020/Metro-Funding-Sources-Guide-2020.pdf many hundreds of millions in fy2019, page 30 http://media.metro.net/about_us/finance/images/fy20_adopted_budget.pdf more detail: https://thesource.metro.net/2019/07...line-extension/ Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:mayor pete is inexperienced in this level of bureaucratic leadership for sure, and a wonkier choice would have been nice, but he at least expresses interest in pushing transportation. Sorry, this is the guy who removed crosswalks to speed SOV traffic up and got an 11 year old Black kid killed in his podunk town as mayor, then victim-blamed about it when someone asked him if he regretted making that choice or took any responsibility for what happened. What makes you think he's doing anything but making some focus group-approved noises prior to going back to his pattern of serving business interests and white property owners in office?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
i mean piss and moan about the dude if you want, but its a mistake to confuse twitter activism for actionable knowledge as to why transit sucks in america
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
wishing for regional government is just as absurd as wishing for a federal government that spends money on transportation and housing. Pete sucks because his job is to make the regulations that implement the laws, and if he weren't a monster, he could make sure what little money exists goes toward good things instead of fare enforcement cops and robot cars. Small choices in funding rubrics like giving higher scores to projects that will use NACTO manuals instead of AASHTO could be everything. Administrative Federal regulations on how to spend mortgage insurance money are why we are stuck with the suburbs we have. If admin rules are powerful enough to be The Color of Law, they are powerful enough to get us some bus lanes. And Pete will be in charge of FMVSS, which is also administrative. With the stroke of a pen (and the subsequent year of work by a hundred bureaucrats), we could be rid of pedestrian-killing brodozers, touchscreen dashboards, and Camaro-style slit windows. But, he doesn't strike me as the type who cares whether poor people die. Greg12 fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:whether or not he is or isn't, i feel like the general tone of his appointment is more obligatory pessimism on the part of the online left completely divorced from any of the actual policy issues which stand in the way of the implementation of public transit in the usa and the federal government's role in same At a certain point, I really don't care either way about the broader politics of the pick if something actually got done, but the issue is that the executive branch is far from helpless on the matter. quote:everywhere is important We are at the triage stage at this point. quote:from which program and for which need? LA Metro got many hundreds of millions for capital expansion alone in 2020 Hundreds of millions in a drop in the bucket for the capital demands of Los Angeles. The previous transit plan was asking for tens of billions from the federal government, money matters. Badger of Basra posted:I am very confident NYC would find a way to spend that money wastefully if you told them they could only use it for repairs as well. You don't really have a choice considering the economic output of the city. It isn't actually optional spending. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 23:27
|
|