High Speed Rail Affirmative 1ac – Energy Module (1/4)
Download 0.59 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A/T: Expensive – Operating Subsidies
A/T: ExpensiveWe only need to invest enough to build the HSR infrastructure. Once HSR is up and running it will be financially sustainable, able to cover its own costs. Eric C. Peterson, January 2012 [Consultant for American Public Transportation Association, Peterson has held significant leadership roles on Capitol Hill, with national and regional transportation associations, and within the U.S. Department of Transportation where he was the first Deputy Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. He currently serves as a Research Associate for the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University. “An Inventory of the Criticisms of High Speed Rail with Suggested Responses and Counterpoints,” http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdf] In a Newsweek editorial on February 27, 2011, noted pundit George Will observed that: “Promotion of high-speed rail is an illumination of the progressive mind.” He supported his claim by quoting Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute: “ A. High-speed rail connects big-city downtowns where only 7 percent of Americans work and 1 percent live, and B. High-speed rail will not displace enough cars to measurably reduce congestion.” George Will went on in the same editorial to proclaim: “According to the Washington Post, China’s fast trains are priced beyond ordinary workers’ budgets, and in France and likewise in Japan there is only one high-speed rail line that is profitable.” That may be true, but it’s beside the point and the charge is intended to incite, not inform the reader. There is a vast difference between the economic conditions of China and the United States. One day, Chinese workers’ average wages may rival American workers, so the $9.00 (82 RMB) high-speed rail coach fare between Shanghai and Hangzhou will seem insignificant as it would to any regular traveler in the Northeast Corridor who pays $79.00 to travel between Washington, D.C. and New York. As to the French TGV and the Japanese Shinkansen, there have been many valuable lessons learned from which the United States will benefit as we go forward. The most important of these lessons that the critics acknowledge but refuse to accept is that passenger trains, if allowed to compete in an even environment with other modes, can cover their costs and in some instances even turn a profit. According to the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, high-speed rail lines generally cover their operating costs with fare revenues. In the United States, a financially sustainable high-speed rail system will likely not require operating subsidies from taxpayers (although public funding is essential to getting the system up and running). High-speed rail service generates enough operating profit that it can subsidize other, less-profitable intercity rail lines in countries such as France and Spain, as well as in the U.S. Northeast. [p8] A/T: Expensive – Operating SubsidiesHSR doesn’t need operating subsidies. It is competitive with other transportation and will pay for itself Eric C. Peterson, January 2012 [Consultant for American Public Transportation Association, Peterson has held significant leadership roles on Capitol Hill, with national and regional transportation associations, and within the U.S. Department of Transportation where he was the first Deputy Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. He currently serves as a Research Associate for the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University. “An Inventory of the Criticisms of High Speed Rail with Suggested Responses and Counterpoints,” http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdf] Now, the critics turn their arguments to suggest that intercity passenger rail, and especially high-speed rail is too revolutionary, and will not work in the United States. Take for example this statement from “A Due Diligence Report”: “High-speed rail systems operate in a number of countries overseas. The state of California is proceeding with its HSR plan based on assumptions that are appropriate to European and Asian environments but generally hold little applicability in the state.” According to The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHRSA), the California high-speed rail system will carry up to 117 million passengers annually by 2030, with the capacity to also carry high-value, lightweight freight. The system will meet the need for a safe and reliable mode of travel at less than half the cost of building more freeways and airport runways; and will link the major metropolitan areas of the state and deliver predictable, consistent travel times sustainable over time. It will not require an operating subsidy. It will serve tourist and leisure travel, business travel, and long-distance commuters over a variety of long, intermediate, and relatively short-distance trips (such as Los Angeles to Anaheim, Palmdale, Riverside, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and the Bay Area). The system will share rail alignments throughout much of the system and will improve joint facilities benefiting safety and operations of existing freight, commuter, and conventional passenger rail services. It will provide quick, competitive travel times between California’s major intercity markets; provide door-to-door travel times for longer distance intercity markets that will be comparable to air transportation, and less than one-half as long as automobile travel times; provide considerably quicker travel times for intermediate intercity trips than either air or automobile transportation; and bring frequent high-speed train service to many parts of the state that are not well served by air transportation. The system will offer lower passenger costs than travel by automobile or air for the same intercity markets; and a new intercity, interregional and regional passenger mode—the high-speed train—which would improve mobility, connectivity, and accessibility to other existing transit modes and airports compared to the other alternatives, improving the travel options available in the Central Valley and other areas of the state with limited bus, rail, and air service for intercity trips. It will provide transportation options in cases of extreme events, such as adverse weather or petroleum shortages. It will be a predominantly separate transportation system that will be less susceptible to many factors influencing reliability such as capacity constraints, congestion, and incidents that disrupt service— meaning it will have superior on-time reliability with a lower accident and fatality rate than automobile travel, avoiding over 10,000 auto accidents yearly with their attendant deaths, injuries, and property damage when compared to exclusive reliance on highways. Offering greater opportunities to expand service and capacity with minimal expansion of infrastructure, the system will add capacity to the state’s transportation infrastructure and reduce traffic on certain intercity highways and around airports to the extent that intercity trips are diverted to the high-speed train system, thereby eliminating traffic delays at existing at-grade crossings where the high-speed train system would provide grade separation by using train technology proven to be the safest, most reliable form of transportation known through extensive regular revenue service in Europe and Asia. Expanding airports and highways to meet the intercity travel demands of 2020 would cost two-to-three times more than building the high-speed train system. [55-6] Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.59 Mb. Share with your friends:
|