Explanation of this affirmative
Policy Making Characteristics have stalled HSR
Download 0.9 Mb.
|
Policy Making Characteristics have stalled HSRPolicy decisions impacted by multiple factors including public pressure and Congressional characteristics have kept HSR from being considered seriouslyChen 2011 (Zhenhua, PhD student at the George Mason University, School of Public Policy, and is currently working as a graduate research assistant under the supervision of Prof. Jonathan Gifford in the area of transportation policy. Mr. Chen was awarded the Graduate Student Best Paper Award of the 51st Transportation Research Forum, “Is the Policy Window Open for High-Speed Rail in the United States: A Perspective from the Multiple Streams Model of Policymaking,” Transportation Law Journal Vol. 38:115) To answer these questions it is necessary to understand the internal mechanism of agenda-setting in the policy making process by following paths of public policy theory and then find a rational explanation for the policy outcomes. Many public policy theories have addressed the policy making process in different approaches, including: the Pluralism Theory, Public Choice Theory, Critical Theory and Rationalism Theory." Another classic theory, also known as the Multiple Streams (MS) model, developed by John Kingdon in his book Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies,has been widely used for a variety of policy analyses.12 Kingdon posits three relatively independent, but intermittently "coupled" streams that constitute the policy process: "political," "problem," and "policy."' The "political" stream is constituted by political developments as conventionally understood as: public moods, pressure group campaigns, election results, partisan or ideological distribution in Congress, and changes of administration. The "problem" stream is composed of external events that impress themselves on the decision-makers' attention, whether through mechanisms of indicators, focusing events, or feedback. The policy stream is constituted by the accumulation of competing proposals put forth by various "policy communities." This stream comes to compose a "policy primeval soup," in which politicians and their advisors cast about for responses to events thrown up by the other two streams.' 7 The soup is stirred by "policy entrepreneurs" who are continually looking for connections between politics and policy making.18 They are persistent and are constantly looking for a "policy window" to take action.'9 This paper concentrates on the MS model to analyze how these different streams interact with each other in the HSR policy-making pro- cess. The reason for adopting the MS model instead of other theories is because the MS model provides a better framework to investigate how policy outcome is shaped by different political factors. Additionally, a case study of the Florida HSR is introduced specifically to explain how coupled activities of policy entrepreneurs influence the policy outcome when the policy window opens. II. MULTIPLE STREAM MODEL Policy making is a complicated process because many actors are involved, and their propositions and influences can have impacts on the policy making process.20 The involvement of many actors inexorably makes the policy outcome difficult to predict.21 Through a drastic over-simplification, public policy-making can be considered to be a set of processes including: (1) the setting of the agenda, (2) the specification of alternatives from which a choice is made, (3) an authoritative choice among those specified alternatives, and (4) the implementation of the decision.22 For the past forty-four years, the concept of HSR has been addressed and discussed among policymakers only at the agenda-setting and alternative stages, and the concept has never reached the authoritative or implementation stages.23 However, this situation has changed since Barack Obama became the President of United States. Through two acts, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 ("PRIIA") and ARRA, HSR has been pushed onto the national agenda and has be-gun to enter the authoritative and implementation stages. 2 4 There must be a powerful strength behind this change for success. In order to under-stand the inherent driving force for this change, we will follow John Kingdon's MS model to explore different streams behind HSR policy. **Inherency/Solvency: Railroad Rehabilation and Improvement Fund (RRIF)RRIF program requirements prevent approval for applicationsLocal rail programs could solve; Southern California proves; RRIF credit requirements prevent effective solvencyFenton 2011 (John, CEO, Southern California Regional Railroad Authority (Metrolink), SITTING ON OUR ASSETS: REHABILITATING AND IMPROVING OUR NATION’S RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE (112–7) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 17, 2011 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation) RRIF PROGRAM EXPERIENCE Through a partnership with the federal government and leveraged funding through RRIF, Metrolink can elevate our standing as a leading solutions provider for Southern California. As an example, Metrolink recently looked into the possibility of applying for a $300 million RRIF loan to purchase Tier 4 (advanced technology) or “green” locomotives. Metrolink’s current locomotive fleet is one of the highest polluting in the nation, averaging less than Tier 1. Today, however, we can do much better. Metrolink is now evaluating options for new advanced technology locomotives, which would ensure the most efficient and environmentally friendly passenger rail service in the state. The environmental benefits of advanced technology locomotives would be significant. We expect an 86 percent reduction (11,000 tons) of Nitrous Oxide (NOx) and a 95 percent reduction in Particulate Matter (PM) emissions annually. Locomotive manufacturers have indicated that the new technology could reduce fuel usage by up to 10 percent over our present equipment. In addition, if Metrolink would qualify to acquire these new locomotives under RRIF, it would protect our passengers’ pocketbooks from rising gas prices. Investment in new locomotives would allow us to increase horsepower per unit over 50 percent from 3000HP to approximately 4700 HP. Therefore, more efficient and cleaner locomotives will allow us to increase capacity (add more rail cars to the trains) and move more people. Advanced technology locomotives would reduce PM equivalent to the removal of 137,000 automobiles, and the reduction in NOx emissions would equate to the removal of 175,400 automobiles annually. After careful investigation, Metrolink has found that we are ineligible to participate in the existing RRIF program. Some reasons might be unique to Metrolink and passenger railroads, but other major reasons involve larger issues in the RRIF program, which are shared by other rail industry witnesses today. Prior to joining Metrolink, I served as President of one of the country's larger short line holding companies. We applied for two RRIF loans and in both cases the process took over a year and a half. In the case of the second loan the delay was so long that the rehabilitation needs changed and we had to rewrite the application to accommodate the facts on the ground. It is very difficult to run a business, be it private or public, with these kinds of delay. From my perspective and experience in both the private and public sectors, I would like to discuss the most significant barriers with the RRIF program. I will also provide some recommendations to address some of the challenges that I believe undermine the potential of the RRIF program. RRIF PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS Coordination with FTA Programs For state and local public passenger authorities like Metrolink, most of our hard assets were acquired with assistance of FTA capital funds, or state or local capital funds. Property acquired with assistance of FTA funds has a condition giving FTA rights to the property if the property is no longer used for public transportation purposes. Often state transportation capital funds have similar requirements. For RRIF loans, the FRA requires a first lien on hard assets. The challenge arises when SCRRA cannot use an asset as collateral because the FTA has prior rights. The collateral requirement prevents state and local rail authorities like Metrolink from utilizing the RRIF loan program. The RRIF program is one example that highlights the disconnect between federal agencies. In practice, these barriers undermine the success of the RRIF program. Metrolink wishes to work with the committee to further address these issues. Greater flexibility by FRA in considering collateral and repayment conditions, especially for state and local government rail authorities, would make a significant difference. 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 0.9 Mb. Share with your friends:
|