Map-21 is a highway bill, not a transportation bill, it cuts support for public transit in favor of highway expansion

Transportation policies are shaped by racism – they deny minorities the same benefits as white Americans

Community leaders are demanding an end to racist transportation policies and practices that favor white suburbanites over people of color- policies that use tax dollars to subsidize suburban sprawl and spur the demise of urban inner-city neighborhoods. Even when middle-income people of color make the move to the suburbs, transportation dollars and investments do not follow them as in the case of middle-income whites. Racial and economic redlining- practices closely akin to those commonly directed at black inner-city neighborhoods- strange these black suburbs.

Current infrastructure is 21^st century apartheid

Bullard 4 (Robert, Ware Professor of Sociology and Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, “Addressing Urban Transportation Equity in the United States,” Fordham Urb. L.J. 31,2003-2004, p.1184) APB
For millions, transportation is defined as a basic right. Transportation is basic to many other quality of life indicators such as health, education, employment, economic development, access to municipal services, residential mobility, and environmental quality. The continued residential segregation of people of color away from suburban job centers (where public transit is inadequate or nonexistent) may signal a new urban crisis and a new form of "residential apartheid." Transportation investments, enhancements, and financial resources have provided advantages for some communities, while at the same time; other communities have been disadvantaged by transportation decision-making.
The suburban shift traps minorities in central cities and divides urban communities by putting highways through neighborhoods
Dombroski 5 (Matthew A., M.A. Population Geography from University of Georgia, Managing Editor of the Columbia Law Review, Securing Access to Transportation for the Urban Poor, Columbia Law Review, 105(2), 2005, pgs. 509-510) PCS
One result of this urban-to-suburban shift is that residents of the central city, disproportionately minorities and low-income earners, have little convenient access to good jobs, essential services such as medical care, and shopping, much of which as followed higher income residents to the suburbs. Because zoning laws separate residential from commercial districts, the businesses that remain may be out of walking distance, especially for the elderly. Exacerbating this situation is the scarcity of transportation options near low-income areas in many central cities. This lack of transportation not only limits access to local services and shopping, but also isolates low-income communities from more prosperous areas in other parts of the city and beyond. Furthermore, while the high-ways necessary to connect suburbs and exurbs to the central city occasionally pass through affluent areas, they are more likely to pass through poor minority areas, destroying and dividing neighborhoods and making travel by foot unsafe in the process. Thus, for many poor residents of the central city, safe and quick transportation is only possible with an automobile, meaning that cars have become an unaffordable necessity.
Access to transportation for the urban poor is limited, and also increases transportation costs and environmental degradation
Dombroski 5 (Matthew A., M.A. Population Geography from University of Georgia, Managing Editor of the Columbia Law Review, Securing Access to Transportation for the Urban Poor, Columbia Law Review, 105(2), 2005, pgs. 509-510) PCS
Although gentrification brought with it increased economic development, it also put severe economic pressure on those with low incomes by increasing housing values and thus, the cost of home rental and purchase, as well as property taxes. In many cases, dilapidated suburbs became the only affordable housing option, pushing low-income and minority residents away from the recovering central city to suburbs with the same dearth of services that had been previously lacking in the central city, but with even fewer transportation options. Other negative effects of the predominant transportation regime in most American cities span class, race, and age. These include increased commuting times, and transportation costs, environmental degradation, and impeded economic development. Nonetheless, the greatest effects of American landscape development and the resulting transportation regime burden the urban poor. Through the process of industrialization, urbanization, suburbanization, segregation, gentrification, and the growth of car dependence, the United States has evolved from a collection of small, self-sufficient, and closely knit urban and rural communities to an interdependent urban society in which mobility is essential, but access to transportation, especially for the urban poor is limited. That the socioeconomic effects of suburbanization and car dependence on the urban poor have not been legally addressed may be a symptom of the fact that the effects of these processes have become apparent only within the last half-century. Furthermore, the groups most directly disadvantaged by this process historically suffer from a lack of political power, leaving them with a reduced ability to press for legislative change.
The plan is key to addressing the most disadvantaged groups
Dombroski 5 (Matthew A., M.A. Population Geography from University of Georgia, Managing Editor of the Columbia Law Review, Securing Access to Transportation for the Urban Poor, Columbia Law Review, 105(2), 2005, pgs. 511-512) PCS
Although gentrification brought with it increased economic development, it also put severe economic pressure on those with low incomes by increasing housing values and thus, the cost of home rental and purchase, as well as property taxes. In many cases, dilapidated suburbs became the only affordable housing option, pushing low-income and minority residents away from the recovering central city to suburbs with the same dearth of services that had been previously lacking in the central city, but with even fewer transportation options. Other negative effects of the predominant transportation regime in most American cities span class, race, and age. These include increased commuting times, and transportation costs, environmental degradation, and impeded economic development. Nonetheless, the greatest effects of American landscape development and the resulting transportation regime burden the urban poor. Through the process of industrialization, urbanization, suburbanization, segregation, gentrification, and the growth of car dependence, the United States has evolved from a collection of small, self-sufficient, and closely knit urban and rural communities to an interdependent urban society in which mobility is essential, but access to transportation, especially for the urban poor is limited. That the socioeconomic effects of suburbanization and car dependence on the urban poor have not been legally addressed may be a symptom of the fact that the effects of these processes have become apparent only within the last half-century. Furthermore, the groups most directly disadvantaged by this process historically suffer from a lack of political power, leaving them with a reduced ability to press for legislative change.
Perm solves- states and the fed need to work together to solve
Dombroski 5 (Matthew A., M.A. Population Geography from University of Georgia, Managing Editor of the Columbia Law Review, Securing Access to Transportation for the Urban Poor, Columbia Law Review, 105(2), 2005, pgs. 513) PCS
Any claim in which a right to transportation is asserted would likely implicate state and federal government involvement. On a small scale, development that limits mobility stems from innumerable individual decisions regarding the use of a particular piece of land. On a larger scale, however, the government guides and restricts individual land-use decisions. Zoning restrictions, transportation projects, and general infrastructure, all of which dictate the shape of the landscape, are the province of state government under the police power. Nonetheless, the police power, though broad, is subject to constitutional limitations.
The status quo urban environment is the intentional result of a system aimed at isolating impoverished and minority individuals
Garrett and Taylor 99 (Mark, Information Technology Manager at the Pennsylvania Department, and Brian, Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, Director of the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies, Reconsidering Social Equity in Public Transport, Berkeley Planning Journal, Volume 13, 1999, pgs. 7-8) PCS
The allocation of transit services between rich and poor, whites and people of color, suburbanites and inner-city residents, is not happenstance, but is directly connected to social and economic processes that have produced the current racial and economic polarization between suburbs and central cities. Mainstream planning has paid insufficient attention to the redistribution of economic and political power that is at least partly responsible for these patterns of uneven urban development. The tradition of equity planning, on the other hand, has been centrally concerned with reducing such urban inequalities. Norman Krumholz (1982:163) has eloquently defined equity planning as an effort to provide more “choices to those...residents who have few, if any choices.” In his tenure as Planning Director for the City of Cleveland, Krumholz formulated his notion of equity planning to counteract what he perceived to be the inherent unfairness and exploitative nature of the urban development process, a process that excluded the poor from the suburbs and concentrated them in declining inner-city areas. A key factor in the process of isolating the poor was the lack of adequate public transportation. Related to this was the government’s policy during this era of massive public investment in urban freeways that helped to empty out central cities of middle- and upper-income residents.
Current transportation policies reinforce racial discrimination and the impacts of social isolation
Garrett and Taylor 99 (Mark, Information Technology Manager at the Pennsylvania Department, and Brian, Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, Director of the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies, Reconsidering Social Equity in Public Transport, Berkeley Planning Journal, Volume 13, 1999, pg. 10) PCS
Fixed-route transit systems work best at connecting dense suburban residential concentrations to dense central areas. They are far less effective in connecting inner-city residents to dispersed suburban employment sites, especially without time-consuming transfers. In a study of low-wage job access by mode in Los Angeles, Ong and Blumenberg (1999) find that the number of low wage jobs that can be accessed in a 30-minute trip by transit is 77.1 percent lower than by automobile in the central city neighborhood of Pico-Union. It is 97.1 percent lower in the low-income suburb of Watts. The enormous employment access advantage of automobiles helps to explain why, in 1990, over 60 percent of the workers living in poverty households drove to work alone (Pisarski, 1992). It also explains why so many reverse-commute transit programs lose riders to automobiles when low-wage reverse commuters buy cars (Ong, 1996; Rosenbloom, 1992). Reverse commute transit programs can play a role in increasing job access for low-income central city residents. However, improving the quality of heavily patronized local transit service and reducing fares for short and off-peak trips would clearly do more to connect workers without cars to urban employment opportunities (Wachs and Taylor, 1998). The incongruence between transit ridership patterns and subsidy policies has both social and spatial consequences that can potentially reinforce existing patterns of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation. Poor or mediocre public transit service in areas with high proportions of transit dependents exacerbates problems of social and economic isolation. From the standpoint of equity planning, this serves only to decrease choices for those who already have limited transportation options.
Policy makers favor subsidizing the white and well-off suburban commuter- ignoring inner-city residents who utilize public transportation
Garrett and Taylor 99 (Mark, Information Technology Manager at the Pennsylvania Department, and Brian, Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, Director of the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies, Reconsidering Social Equity in Public Transport, Berkeley Planning Journal, Volume 13, 1999, pgs. 7-8) PCS
Finally, there is a spatial dimension to the changes occurring in transit use. Public transit service is concentrated in the oldest, largest, and most densely developed American cities. Nearly 60 percent of transit passengers nationwide are served by the ten largest big city transit systems, and the remaining 40 percent by the other 5,000 plus systems (Taylor and McCullough, 1998). While overall transit use has declined slightly since the 1980s, the drop in the number of transit riders has been greatest in central cities, though ridership losses were proportionately greater in suburbs. Use of buses, streetcars, and subways is highest in central cities, while commuter railroads account for a higher percentage of all suburban trips (Pisarski, 1996). These shifting patterns of transit use mirror the growing economic and racial disparities in urban areas since central city residents tend to be poorer, mostly minority, and more transit dependent than suburbanites. To summarize, the demographic shifts within transit modes have created a two-tier system characterized by differences in race, ethnicity, income, and location. Inner-city residents, who on average are much poorer and more often from minority groups than the general population, rely far more on buses and subways, while suburban commuters are by and large white, comparatively well-off and more likely to use automobiles, express buses, and commuter rail. Policy makers and planners have generally failed, however, to acknowledge these distinct patterns in transit ridership demographics. In fact, more and more, transit subsidy policies favor investment in suburban transit and expensive new commuter bus and rail lines that disproportionately serve a wealthier, less transit-dependent population than do central city transit services.

U.S. transportation perpetuates the same discriminatory racial prejudices that were instilled by Plessy v. Ferguson

Bullard 7 (Robert, Robert, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University and author of Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism and New Routes to Equality, Growing Smarter: Achieving Livable Communities, Environmental Justice, and Regional Equity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2007, pgs. 34-35) PCS
U.S. transportation policies, at least in the figurative sense, still relegate African Americans to the back of the bus. For more than a century, African Americans and other people of color have struggled to end transportation discrimination on buses, trains, and highways (Bullard and Johnson 1997). This form of racial apartheid, which clearly violates constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, was codified in 1896 by Plessy v. Ferguson, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Louisiana’s segregated “white” and “colored” seating on railroad cars, ushering in the infamous doctrine of “separate but equal.” Plessy not only codified apartheid for transportation facilities but also served as the legal basis for racial segregation in education until it was overturned in 1954 by Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, another U.S. Supreme Court decision. The modern civil rights movement has its roots in transportation. In 1953, nearly half a century after Plessy v. Ferguson, African Americans in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, staged the nation’s first successful bus boycott. Two years later, on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat at the front of a Montgomery city bus to a white man. In so doing, Parks ignited the modern civil rights movement. By the early 1960s, young “Freedom Riders” risked death by riding Greyhound buses into the Deep South as a way to fight transportation apartheid and segregation in interstate travel. Writing in the foreword to Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism and New Routes to Equity, Congressperson John Lewis (2004) summed up the challenge that lies ahead, “Our struggle is not over. The physical signs are gone, but the legacy of ‘Jim Crow’ transportation is still with us” (viii).
Transportation inequity is a regime of white supremacy
Seiler 7 (Cotten, Associate Professor of American Studies, Department Chair for American Studies, Dickinson College, The Significance of Race to Transport History, Journal of Transport History, 28(2), 2007, pg. 308) PCS
I recount the Plessy case and the restrictions it emplaced to emphasise the ever-present racial prerogatives of mobility. Because self-directed mobility signifies freedom and self-transformation, regimes of white supremacy have sought to police the movement of racial Others both to preserve physical racial separation and to guard the integrity of racial identity itself. The motion of racial Others, therefore, has tended to be characterised as threatening to a social order based on spatial, cultural, and biological segregation of the fictive categories known as races. Given the significance of racial status to an individual’s power to move (or to keep from being moved), the inattention to this connection is remark- able. My own archival research on early automobility in the United States, for example, furnished virtually no documentary evidence of a widespread awareness of driving as a privilege of whiteness—though of course it was. Even the guidebooks mentioned above dared not speak this truth explicitly. This historical vacuum can be partially attributed to the ways in which white supremacy was a discourse both commonsensical (therefore not in need of explication) and logically tenuous (therefore deliberately hidden from scrutiny).
Communities of color are at a significant transportation disadvantage because federal funding is empirically geared towards highways that benefit affluent white citizens
Rubin 9 (Victor, PolicyLink Vice President for Research, PhD in City and Regional Planning, All Aboard! Making Equity and Inclusion Central to Federal Transportation Policy, PolicyLink, 2009, pg. 7) PCS
Car users have been the primary beneficiaries of federal and state transportation investment, and an automobile-focused pattern of metropolitan development has become entrenched. About 80 percent of federal transportation expenditure goes toward highways, while the infrastructure for all other modes of travel competes for the remaining 20 percent. As a result of these funding disparities, lower-income people and communities of color, who rely more on public transit for mobility and access since they have significantly lower rates of car ownership, have not fared nearly as well as higher-income and white Americans. It is therefore not surprising that people of color, who tend to have significantly lower incomes, use public transportation to travel to work at rates that are up to four times higher than whites, or that African-Americans and Latinos together make up 54 percent of public transportation users in urban areas. To ensure people who do not use cars benefit from transportation investment, the next authorization must shift federal spending away from the current bias of highway building and into a “mode-neutral” system that can diversify regional transportation offerings. This could enable a “fix-it-first” approach for maintaining existing facilities and spending more on transit and other modes in which we have underinvested.
The continual funding of highways for the purpose of privileging white culture traps in and destroys inner-city black communities
Bullard 7 (Robert, Robert, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University and author of Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism and New Routes to Equality, The Black Metropolis in the Twenty-First Century: Race, Power, and Politics of Place, Rowman and Littlefield Publishing, June 30, 2007, pg. 51) PCS
The government also facilitated racialized space by funding “the largest public works program in the history of the world”- a highway system to the white suburbs. With the Federal Highway Act of 1956, the federal government became the largest subsidizer of the interstate highway system. These highways were intended for long-distance travel, but over half of the funding had gone to highways within metropolitan regions as of the mid-1990s. The highway system walled-in black communities, using the highways to clearly demarcate “bad” black from “good” white neighborhoods. It also frequently tore through “vibrant black commercial corridors,” clearing out inner-city “blight.” While the funding and construction of highways demarcated and destroyed black neighborhoods, it also forestalled the development of the kind of public transportation that metropolitan people of color were more likely to use. Highway spending has eclipsed transit spending by a five-to-one margin over the past half-dozen decades. Simultaneously, the federal government bankrolled white flight not only through the construction of the highway system, but through federal subsidies of gasoline, suburban sewage-treatment plants (infrastructure that supports suburban living), and other policies that have made possible further abandonment of the central city and the inner-ring suburbs.

Transportation decisions typically benefit the wealthy and burden the poor and people of color

Bullard 1 (Robert, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University and author of Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism and New Routes to Equality, Transportation Equity in the 21st Century, Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, 1(1), 2000, pg. 2) PCS
Transportation decisions may have distributive impacts (positive and negative) that are geographic and spatial, such as rural vs. urban vs. central city. Some communities are physically located on the “wrong side of the tracks” and often receive substandard services. Environmental justice concerns revolve around the extent that transportation systems address outcomes (diversity and quality of services, resources and investments, facilities and infrastructure, access to primary employment centers, etc.) that disproportionately favor one geographic area or spatial location over another. Social Inequity. The distribution of transportation benefits and burdens are not randomly distributed across population groups. Generally, transportation amenities (benefits) accrue to the wealthier and more educated segment of society, while transportation disamenities (burdens) fall disproportionately on people of color and individuals at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. Intergenerational equity issues are also subsumed under this category. For example, the impacts and consequences of some transportation decisions may reach into several generations.
Transportation decisions contribute to inequity by furthering dominant power arrangements to benefit the affluent- reducing urban access to public transportation
Bullard 1 (Robert, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University and author of Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism and New Routes to Equality, Transportation Equity in the 21st Century, Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, 1(1), 2000, pg. 2) PCS
Transportation decision-making--whether at the federal, regional, state, or local level--often mirrors the power arrangements of the dominant society and its institutions. Some transportation policies distribute the costs in a regressive pattern while providing disproportionate benefits for individuals who fall at the upper end of the education and income scale. All transportation modes are not created equal. Federal transportation policies, taxing structure, and funding schemes have contributed to the inequity between the various transportation modes, e.g., private automobile, rail, buses, air, etc. Central cities and suburbs are not equal. They often compete for scarce resources. One need not be a rocket scientist to predict the outcome between affluent suburbs and their less affluent central city competitors. Freeways are the lifelines for suburban commuters, while millions of central city residents are dependent on public transportation as their primary mode of travel. But cuts in mass transit subsidies and fare hikes have reduced access to essential social services and economic activities.

Highway investment and other transportation infrastructure decisions of the past have racially segregated urban communities

Sanchez et al 3 (Thomas, associated professor of Urban Affairs and Planning, research fellow in the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, Rich Stolz, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Community Change, and Jacinta Ma, Legal Policy and Advocacy Associate at The Civil Rights Project at Harvard, Moving to Equity: Addressing Inequitable Effects of Transportation Policies on Minorities, The Civil Rights Project at Harvard, 2003, pg. 17) PCS
One of the central indirect effects is the reinforcement of residential segregation. The form that we currently think of as “the city” is a product of both land use and transportation investment decisions. Highway investments in combination with federal housing and lending policies leading to post–World War II suburbanization played a significant role in “white flight” from central cities to suburbs, which had a profound impact in defining urban form and racial segregation patterns. Highway investment encourages the development of suburbs located increasingly farther away from central cities and has played an important role in fostering residential segregation patterns and income inequalities. Inequitable or inefficient land use patterns such as those resulting in residential segregation often are reinforced by policies, such as transportation investment decisions, that were established several decades ago.

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 0.57 Mb.

Share with your friends: