High Speed Rail Affirmative
AC Non-dedicated Tracks CP
Download 487.05 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Using existing tracks places many limitations on train speed – empirically proven
- 2AC Elections/Obama Good DA
2AC Non-dedicated Tracks CPNon-dedicated tracks will be slower and hence less competitiveUnited States Government Accountability Office, ’09 – the audit, evaluation, and investigation arm of the United States Congress (“High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role,” Report to Congressional Requesters, March 2009, p. 25, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf?source=ra) // SP Incremental projects tend to cost less than new dedicated track projects. Construction costs per mile for the 6 proposed incremental projects that we reviewed ranged from $4.1 million to $11.4 million per mile. Top and average speeds for the incremental projects, however, ranged from 80 to 110 miles per hour—substantially slower than dedicated track speeds. This slower speed could make these projects less competitive with other transportation modes and less reliable than dedicated track because of the need to share rail lines with other passenger and freight operations. Using existing tracks places many limitations on train speed – empirically provenPeterman, Frittelli, and Mallett ‘09 –Analyst in Transportation Policy, Specialists in Transportation Policy, from the Congressional Research Service- prepares information for members and committees of Congress (“High Speed Rail (HSR) in the United States” CRS Report for Congress, December 8 2009, p. 3, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40973.pdf) // SP There are two options to developing high speed rail service; the option chosen determines the level of high speed service that can be attained: • Upgrading existing track, signaling systems, and equipment (e.g., tilting trains) to enable trains to travel somewhat faster over the existing rail network, or • Building new rail lines enabling trains to travel at much higher speeds than are possible over the existing rail network, which is shared with freight rail. The advantage of upgrading existing track is its lower cost; one estimate puts the average cost of such upgrades at around $7 million per mile.6 One limitation of that approach is that the existing network usually has many limitations on train speed—curves, at-grade road crossings, etc.—that limit the potential speed improvements. For example, in the 1990s Amtrak (and commuter railroads7) spent around $2 billion—an average of around $9 million per mile, in 2003 dollars— to upgrade the 229-mile north end of the Northeast Corridor (connecting Boston to New York City), including electrifying the route and replacing a bridge.8 This reduced rail travel time between Boston and New York City from 4 hours to 3 hours and 24 minutes—an increase in average speed over the route from 57 mph to 67 mph. 2AC Elections/Obama Good DAClaims that the public hates HSR are patently false – only 3 governors turned down federal money and one later reapplied – and polls show broad public supportAmerican Public Transportation Association, ’12 – non-profit that advocates for the advancement of public transportation programs in the U.S. ( “An Inventory of the Criticisms of High-Speed Rail: with Suggested Responses and Counterpoints,” January 2012, p. 29, http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdf) // SP As is clear, there are specific, over-drawn extrapolations in each of these statements. For example, they suggest that because three governors (one of whom would later reapply for funding) who campaigned against rail improvements in their respective states and won, all governors are against federal passenger rail improvement funding and all voters everywhere also oppose the federal initiative. Even the most basic understanding of logic would tell the casual reader that this construction does not hold up. Plus, there are ample and recent polls that show broad public support for the federal passenger rail improvement initiative. Strong public support for HSR – 23 states accepted federal funding, Amtrak ridership is at its highest level, and polls show 2/3 supportAmerican Public Transportation Association, ’12 – non-profit that advocates for the advancement of public transportation programs in the U.S. ( “An Inventory of the Criticisms of High-Speed Rail: with Suggested Responses and Counterpoints,” January 2012, p. 30, http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdf) // SP In the case of Florida, where, with the nudging of the Reason Foundation, the gubernatorial candidate argued that accepting the federal funding would straight-jacket taxpayers into at least a $3 billion subsidy, private- sector interests had stepped forward to assume the full costs of the project beyond the federal funding and state financing that was previously approved by the state legislature as well as cover any operating loses that might occur. In early March, the state department of transportation released a study done by an independent consultant that showed the proposed first leg of the proposed high-speed rail system would generate a $10 million surplus in its first year of operations, and that the surplus would grow to more than $26 million annually by the 10th year of that leg’s operation. To date, 23 states (excluding the three that returned theirs) have received rail stimulus funding, and each of them has made every effort to capture all or a portion of the more than $3 billion Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio returned to the Federal Railroad Administration following the governors’ denouncement of the rail initiative. And in a real twist of irony, Governor Walker of Wisconsin has reapplied for a portion of the funding he turned back. Probably one of the most telling measures of public support for passenger rail lies in the fact that Amtrak is enjoying the highest levels of ridership in its history. Additionally, the BizTimes Daily on December 1, 2010 reported a poll commissioned by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) showing that: “Nearly two-thirds of American adults (62 percent) said they would definitely or probably use high-speed rail service for leisure or business travel if it were an option. The survey, taken among 24,711 adults, also asked how important various factors would be in choosing high-speed rail service. Ninety-one percent of respondents said high-speed rail should offer shorter travel times compared to driving to their destinations; 91 percent said the rail service should be less expensive than flying; 89 percent said it should be less expensive than driving; and 85 percent said the rail service should integrate with local public transit so they could avoid using rental cars and cabs, and paying parking fees.” use high-speed rail service for leisure or business travel if it were an option. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012 2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? 2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco 2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching 2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates 2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge 2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians 2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak 2012 -> William goldman 2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review Download 487.05 Kb. Share with your friends:
|