Cost Control cp

AT: No Data

No data since federal oversight failed

The amount of and reasons for cost increases beyond the initial cost estimates for large-dollar highway projects cannot be determined because data to track this information over the life of a project are not readily available from FHWA or state highway departments. FHWA’s information system for highway projects records funds obligated for segments of projects that are federally funded rather than recording complete project-related costs and estimates; it also does not document the reasons for cost growth. Furthermore, FHWA officials said states do not track cost increases from the initial estimate or determine the reasons for these increases as part of normal project management; this was supported by highway officials in 13 states. However, limited data shows that cost growth has occurred on many of the large-dollar projects for which we collected data.

Theory-Type Cards

And, in a world of scarce resources, discussions of funding issues is critical

Frankel 1/7/11 (Emil H. Frankel, Visiting Scholar, Bipartisan Policy Center, “Austerity and Investment,” pg online @ http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2011/01/highway-trust-fund-battles.php#1851927 //um-ef)

The clash between enormous budget deficits and a ballooning national debt, on the one hand, and the need to promote growth in a fragile economy, still facing unacceptable levels of unemployment, on the other, will dominate domestic policy debates over the next few years. Transportation policy and funding decisions will not, and should not, be immune from the need to balance these competing values. The new rules for spending, proposed by the House Republican leadership and adopted earlier this week, should be analyzed in the context of the need to balance these interests. Specifically, the elimination of the highway spending guarantee and the so-called "firewall," adopted in TEA-21 and re-enacted in SAFETEA-LU, make the decisions of the authorizers subject to limits established by appropriators and by the overall budget process. So, while the debate over this issue is one between competing national interests and values, it is also another chapter in a long struggle between authorizers and appropriators. The bottom line is that we need more resources for investment in the nation's transportation infrastructure. Even in this uncertain economic environment, America must find the means to invest adequately in transportation facilities and systems. As the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission and the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP) jointly stated last month, "Investment in transportation will be an important element in building the foundation for long-term economic recovery and growth. . . .[However,] it is of particular importance in these times of severe fiscal constraint that we invest scarce public resources more wisely and efficiently, in order to maximize the reach and impact of what we spend." Raising the motor fuels taxes that support the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), in order to provide more revenue for transportation investments, and reforming the way that we spend money on transportation, in order to provide accountability for national goals and interests, is the proper course of action, one that will allow us to deal with competing investment needs and fiscal constraints at the same time. However, as others have noted, increasing revenues, in order to invest in economic renewal and growth, does not appear to be a likely outcome of the debate over surface transportation legislation in the new Congress. We are, instead, likely to face the reality of fewer investment resources, even at a time when we should be investing more. The outcome over this new highway spending rule in the House of Representatives has reinforced the message that deficit spending will not be the answer for the HTF shortfall, and we already know that a gasoline tax increase is unlikely. For good or ill, the chances of a smaller surface transportation authorization bill in this Congress seem to be enhanced by the House's actions on these new spending rules. The real issue is how we respond to that reality. The transportation community should focus its energies on insuring that the funds available in these times of fiscal austerity are invested in ways that advance clear national economic, energy, environmental, and safety goals. It is now more important than ever that Congress articulate national goals for transportation programs and policies and put in place mechanisms to insure that states, localities, and MPOs are held accountable for meeting those goals with whatever federal resources that are made available to them.

*****2NC Solvency Cards*****

Solvency: Gas Tax

*****And, establishing the counterplan BEFORE instituting a gas tax is critical – establishes cost control and prevents wasteful cost-overruns

Puentes 2k8 (“A Bridge to Somewhere Rethinking American Transportation For The 21st Century,” g online @ http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/6/transportation%20puentes/06_transportation_puentes_report.pdf //um-ef)

4. FUNDING FOR THE FEDERAL PROGRAM— BOTH FUNDING LEVELS AND SOURCES— SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED AFTER THE REFORM IDEAS ARE PUT IN PLACE Just as transportation is not an end in and of itself – neither is increasing funding the primary solution to the transportation problems. However, because of the short term conundrum of the federal government obligating more federal money for transportation than it has to spend and the disdain for the annual rescissions, many are calling for the next Congress and the new President to increase the federal gas tax. This puts the cart before the horse. Simply put: we should not continue to pour more money into a dysfunctional system before serious attempts at significant policy reform. In other words, the federal transportation program is not just broke; it is broken. The funding debate needs to shift from spending more and more taxpayer dollars on the same product to where, what, and how to spend that money better. So in addition to just focusing on increasing revenues for the existing program the nation deserves a real conversation about curbing the demand for transportation spending. It is impossible to start with a funding solution or what the optimal level of investment should be when there is no agreement about what the federal role should be, what problems we are trying to solve, or what questions we are trying to answer. Indeed, although the NSTPRSC did call clearly and specifically for an increase in the fuel tax, they also maintained that adding revenues to the program in its current form would “not be acceptable.” We concur. Given the track record of the program in recent years such systemic reform may seem difficult to achieve. However, it has been argued that during their times as transportation visionaries, President Dwight Eisenhower and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan did not so much have an inspiration for transportation as they had a revenue stream. Indeed, history has shown that each new wave of transportation policy carried with it a major restructuring in how the system is planned and financed. Looking at it another way: no major federal transportation reform has ever occurred without a major increase in revenues. 15 This should be another one of those times. We need a clear articulation of the goals and objectives of the federal program, and the desired outcomes. The program should then be structured to get to those outcomes. There then should be a frank and vigorous conversation about the revenues currently available and whether or not additional funding is necessary. At that time, all options toward re-invigorating transportation funding should be on the table to meet the transportation challenges of the future while also ensuring financial revenues will be available. We recommend that the federal government reinvigorate its transportation funding structures based on the three-pronged strategy to lead, empower, and maximize performance.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 0.6 Mb.

Share with your friends: