High Speed Rail Affirmative
Download 0.58 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- HSR is Competitive-Empirics
- HSR is Competetive-Comparative Evidence
- State initiatives fail-Federal capital investment is critical to sustain projects─
- Federal funding K2 Long-Term Success
- Federal Funding K2 HSR-Confidence
***Solvency***Federal Funding Solves HSR-Laundry ListThe Plan is key to restore economic growth and energy efficiency-Only federal funding sustains the confidences needed for large scale projectsForbes 11 (“High-Speed Rail Critics Imperil Economic Growth, Bombardier President Says”, 3/29/2011 @ 4:21PM, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/03/29/high-speed-rail-critics-imperil-economic-growth-bombardier-president-says/ |SK) Opposition to high-speed rail imperils U.S. economic growth, the North America president of a leading train manufacturer said in Chicago Tuesday. “Although some may be of the opinion that we can’t afford passenger rail investment at this time, I can assure you from Bombardier’s experience around the world that the opposite is true,” said Raymond Bachant of Bombardier Transportation, a Canadian firm that participated in the development and manufacturing of 95 percent of Europe’s high-speed trains. “Investment in passenger rail infrastructure is a decision that will create long-term jobs and strengthen the economy,” Bachant told several hundred corporate executives, trade officials, and rail enthusiasts gathered at the Mid-America Club on the 80th floor of Chicago’s Aon building. High-speed rail was a favorite target of the Tea Party movement that seized the House of Representatives and several governor’s mansions last November. Newly elected governors in Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio have turned down funding for high-speed rail. “We have seen some setbacks in some states, where some states have decided to return the money,” Bachant said. “Of course that makes other states happy because they will receive the money.” The Obama Administration has offered the $2.4 billion returned by Florida, for example, to other states through a fast-track funding program. Several states are rushing to file applications before the April 4 deadline, including Michigan, Missouri, New York, Virginia, Vermont, Delaware, and Rhode Island. One state’s folly may be another state’s fortune, but Bachant sees peril in the politics nonetheless. “Rail funding can’t be a political football. It must be entrenched in a long-term economic vision.” Industry will only invest in high speed rail if it sees a permanent commitment from government, he said. “If the U.S. makes it clear that passenger rail is a priority, and that it’s here to stay and to grow, businesses will invest even more than they do today.” President Obama agrees. In his State of the Union Address, Obama called for 80 percent of Americans to have access to high-speed trains within a quarter of a century. The president outlined a six-year, $53 billion spending plan for high-speed rail. But Bachant emphasized the investment has to continue beyond the Obama Administration for the U.S. to develop a transportation infrastructure that will ensure its own continued competitiveness. “For too long passenger rail funding—in many countries of the world—has gone up and down like a yo-yo. A country cannot create a sustainable industry, supply base or clear economic impact based on a feast or famine market.” The United States fell to third place in world funding for clean energy technology last year, and it lags further behind other developed nations in passenger rail transportation. “To rival what is being done in Europe or Asia, Canada and the U.S. have a long way to go, Bachant said. “It is anticipated that in the next 10 years, European countries will double their existing networks to have more than 10,000 miles of high-speed links, while China will lead the way by building more than 30,000 miles of high speed railway.” Eventually, traffic congestion and greenhouse gas concerns will choke U.S. economic growth, Bachant said. There will be 2.5 billion cars on the world’s roadways by 2030, and the U.S. already loses $87.2 billion per year because of traffic congestion, according to the Texas Institute for Transportation. “Anyone who’s been stuck in bumper to bumper traffic knows this is not good news,” Bachant said. ”People still need to move, and communities must be able to operate and grow, and so, we truly believe that sustainable mobility is at the heart of economic growth and development.” HSR is Competitive-EmpiricsHSR is competitive with air travel b/c of faster times and frequency---empirically proven in the London-Paris market.Behrens and Pels 10 (Christiaan and Eric, Department of Spatial Economics, VU University, The Netherlands, “Intermodal competition in the London–Paris passenger market: High-Speed Rail and air transport”, Received 11 March 2010. Available online 29 December 2011., http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119011000921, LEXUS|SK) This paper studies inter- and intramodal competition in the London–Paris passenger market during the period 2003–2009. We identify the degree to and conditions under which High-Speed Rail is a viable substitute for airline travel. Using pooled cross-sectional data we estimate multinomial and mixed logit models to examine actual travel behaviour. Our model allows us to analyse the reaction of passenger behaviour on the withdrawal of aviation alternatives and the completion of the High-Speed Rail link between the two cities in November 2007. The results show that travel time and frequency are the main determinants of travel behaviour. The valuation of total travel times changes over the years following the opening of the High-Speed Rail link. Furthermore, we show that the direct elasticity of market share with respect to frequency for a number of aviation alternatives is above 1, indicating that these alternatives are not able to maximise profits. These alternatives subsequently left the market in our sample period. For the remaining aviation alternatives, except for easyJet, we find elasticities of market share with respect to frequency close to 1. Therefore, we conjecture that competition in this market will decline in the long run. In medium-haul passenger markets, High-Speed Rail (HSR) and airlines are increasingly competing for passengers. In this paper we study the degree to and conditions under which HSR is a viable or even a dominating substitute for airline travel using the London–Paris passenger market as the prime example. In Europe and Asia HSR plays a significant role in the medium- to long-haul markets. Examples of such markets are Frankfurt–Cologne, Madrid–Barcelona, Beijing–Tianjin and Tokyo–Osaka. Furthermore, there are ongoing projects to develop HSR networks in the United States. The California High-Speed Rail Authority proposes to connect Los Angeles with San Francisco and its international airports via HSR, while the Midwest High-Speed Rail Association is studying the possibility of connecting Chicago O’Hare airport with downtown Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit and Indianapolis.1 The expansion of HSR around the world and its observed dominance, particularly in the direct city-to-city markets, calls for an analysis of intermodal competition and the extent to which HSR is a viable substitute for air travel. The authors are aware of just a few studies that have analysed intermodal competition and the role of HSR. Two studies for the European Commission (Transport and Energy Directorate General), IATA (2003) and Steer Davies Gleave (2006), explore HSR in Europe and briefly address the London–Paris market. IATA (2003) concludes that connectivity and access time are the most important determinants of the competition between HSR and aviation. Steer Davies Gleave (2006) discusses travel time improvements of the HSR and concludes that service frequency and fare levels will not be affected in this market. Adler et al. (2010) develop a network competition model including HSR, low cost airlines and conventional airlines for Europe. They show that investment in HSR, despite the massive fixed costs, is favourable from a social welfare perspective. Both Bhat (1997) and Koppelman and Wen (2000) conclude that, using discrete choice modelling, travel time is the most important mode choice determinant in the by car, train and airline served Toronto–Montreal passenger market. González-Savignat (2004) studies the viability of the (at that time) developing HSR between Madrid and Barcelona. She mentions fares, travel time, frequency, and trip purpose as the main mode choice determinants; furthermore she speculates about a dominant position of HSR in this market. Park and Ha (2006) study the projected HSR in the Seoul–Daejon market. They mention fare as the most important mode choice determinant and predict a decline in aviation demand by approximately 85% after the introduction of HSR. Finally, Ortúzar and Simonetti (2008) study the effect of a hypothetical HSR in the Santiago–Concepción market and conclude that travel time, fare and service delay are the most important mode choice determinants. Our paper also deals with airport airline competition in multi-airport markets and therefore combines these fields in the economics literature. In the airport airline competition literature most of the contributions focuses on the San Francisco Bay multi-airport area.2 [Pels et al., 2003] and [Basar and Bhat, 2004], and Ishii et al. (2009) all use discrete choice modelling to analyse travel behaviour in this market. Both Pels et al. (2003) and Basar and Bhat (2004) find that access time and service frequency are main determinants of the airline airport choice. In contrast to the above two studies, Ishii et al. (2009) do not focus on all routes in this market but focus on specific origin–destination pairs. They conclude that non-price characteristics of airport–airline combinations are the main determinants. Empirical studies regarding HSR and intermodal competition are ex ante studies using stated preference data and discrete choice modelling. We extend the existing literature by combining intermodal and airport airline competition in a specific market using revealed preference data. Furthermore, our study is the first to examine intermodal competition over time using cross sectional data over the years 2003–2009. We follow the literature regarding the econometric methods, the set of explanatory variables and the distinction between trip purpose (see e.g. Pels et al. (2003) and González-Savignat (2004)). Like Ishii et al. (2009), we focus on a specific market and non-price characteristics. In this paper we study how the introduction of a new alternative (HSR) affects passenger preferences and market shares of travel alternatives in the London–Paris market. The analysis explains how developments in HSR in the London–Paris market changes the competitive environment and the subsequent reaction of airlines in this market. The purpose of our analysis is to use the estimation results to define the degree of competition using the measure of elasticity of market share and to define the conditions, in travel time and geographical distance, under which HSR is a viable alternative for air travel. The authors conjecture that the analysis and results may be valid for medium- to long-haul passenger markets in general, so that the paper can be used as input in policy making concerning the Los Angeles – San Francisco HSR market. HSR is Competetive-Comparative EvidenceHSR would be competitive with other forms of transportation, prefer our evidence because it makes actual comparisons.Hart Jr. 5/23 (Thomas, Thomas Hart Jr. is director of government relations at Quarles & Brady, and vice president of government affairs for the US High Speed Rail Association., “High-speed rail's many benefits”, Politico, 5/23/12 9:29 PM EDT, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76682.html |SK) Even as Congress looks into a new surface transportation bill, U.S. transportation systems confront daunting challenges of overcrowding and disrepair. Delays and waste cost the nation more than $100 billion per year in lost time, productivity and energy. The U.S. needs modern public transportation not dependent on oil or traffic patterns. Most developed nations now have high-speed rail, sleek trains that reach more than 200 mph. Here, this option would be most viable in two distinct corridors on the East and West Coasts – the Northeast Corridor, from Boston to Washington, and California. The Northeast Corridor is already one of most valuable U.S. transportation assets. With I-95, it’s the only continuous link between the major population centers of Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston. This is the nation’s most densely populated region with 18 percent of the U.S. population living in just 2 percent of its land area. The NEC region alone would be the world’s sixth-largest economy, with a gross domestic product of $2.59 trillion. The NEC is already a mature rail corridor — Amtrak and regional rail services show ridership spikes whenever gas prices increase. Amtrak’s Acela service, however, averages only 80 mph. True high-speed rail in this corridor could prove competitive with air travel, particularly because rail can easily connect to other local and regional transit networks. Federal Funding K2 HSRState initiatives fail-Federal capital investment is critical to sustain projects─Sweet ‘9. Matthias N. Sweet. “Planning for High-speed Rail in the United States.” Chapter 13: Financing High-speed Rail [http://www.design.upenn.edu/hsr2011/planningforhsr.pdf] Simply by providing initial funds for capital investment, federal policy will shape the design, extent, and service levels of the national HSR network. At present, only Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor’s Acela service can be classified as HSR and despite some successes, it falls short of European and Asian extent and levels of service. Amtrak operates service, maintains infrastructure and owns much of the right-of-way in the Northeast Corridor, the most successful of its national passenger rail services. Although legally a private corporation, Amtrak shares are predominantly owned by the federal government, underscoring the importance of sustained federal funding for rail infrastructure198 . Without federal involvement, HSR proposals in the U.S. have gone nowhere. In the past, California, Florida, Ohio, and Texas have attempted to invest in HSR based on a formula of state and private financing; the Texas plans fell victim to powerful airline opposition, while California’s system is currently the closest to being built. Federal funding K2 Long-Term SuccessDedicated Funding is key-Rodda ‘9. Bryan Rodda December 9th, 2009, written for PennDesign, the University Of Pennsylvania School Of Design, “Planning for High-speed Rail in the United States,” If a national network of high-speed rail lines is to be built, it will require a stable, dedicated federal funding source to facilitate an on-going process of planning, design, construction, and expansion of the system. High-speed rail simply cannot be a long-term, sustained success if it must operate at the whim of year-to-year Congressional appropriations. Federal Funding K2 HSR-ConfidenceThe plan is key to offer certainty to investors and local communities. Projects won’t succeed without itRep. Earl Blumenauer, December 16th, 2010, congressman, D-Oregon, “Rail Projects Key to Economic Growth,” http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2010/12/highspeed-rail-political-footb.php#1820909 I find it baffling that many of my Republican colleagues are turning against high-speed rail projects at a time when our country desperately needs to invest in rebuilding and renewing the foundation of our economic prosperity: our infrastructure. There is b road agreement among economists that, dollar for dollar, money invested in transportation and infrastructure projects does more to create jobs than cutting taxes. While it may be politically convenient to point to the timeframe required for major infrastructure projects like high speed rail as “taking too long,” the promise of increased investment, an anchor for community development and additional transportation options are enough to spur economic growth – long before a rail line is finished. That’s why we are already seeing an upsurge in economic development in areas where high speed rail projects are planned. High-speed rail isn’t just about the jobs that the construction and operation of new lines will create; it is about offering certainty to communities and investors, allowing them to plan ahead for the economic activity that will be created by new projects. Already, economists are estimating that the $8 billion the United States is investing in high speed rail will generate another $19 billion in new business around major cluster points in Florida, California and the Midwest. Newly-elected governors who are shutting down high-speed rail projects in their states are shooting economic growth and job creation in the foot. The rail line now opposed by Governor-elect Scott Walker in Wisconsin, for instance, had been projected to create at least 4,500 new jobs; the Ohio line opposed by Governor-elect John Kasich would likely create at least 8,000 jobs. This is not a theoretical debate: this bizarre opposition to rebuilding and renewing our country’s infrastructure will cost us jobs and threaten our economic competitiveness. 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 0.58 Mb. Share with your friends:
|