**Mass Transit 1ac 1ac – economy advantage
Download 0.91 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Federal leadership on mass transit is vital to create jobs, decrease oil dependence and reduce warming
1ac – planThe United States federal government should substantially increase mass transit investment in the United States.1ac – solvencyExpanding federal investment will expand mass transit – key to leveraging private sector investment and altering current pro-highway federal incentivesPuentes, 8 - Fellow and Director, Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative Brookings Institution (Robert, "Strengthening the Ability of Public Transportation to Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil” Congressional Testimony, 9/9, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/testimony/2008/9/09%20transportation%20puentes/0909_transportation_puentes.pdf)//DH 2. Yet, most metropolitan areas are beset with limited transit and overall travel options In addition to these struggles, the reality is that the availability and accessibility of public transportation across the country's 100 largest metro areas is seriously lacking. Although nearly every metropolitan area enjoys bus service, more than half is concentrated in just 10 large metros like New York, Miami, and Seattle. Heavy rail—also referred to as subways—exist in only 11 metros like Philadelphia and San Francisco. Commuter rail is in only 14 metropolitan areas, primarily in the Northeast and California. And light rail can be found in only 26, like Salt Lake City, Charlotte, and Denver. Therefore, based simply on the amount of transit infrastructure available, 54 of the 100 largest metros do not have any rail transit service and also have relatively weak bus systems. This includes large metros like Orlando and Indianapolis; fast growing metros like Raleigh and Jacksonville, FL and slow growing metros like Youngstown and Rochester, NY. This lack of metropolitan travel options means tens of millions of Americans are tethered to their cars for their daily travel needs. That is, assuming they can afford the high costs of owning a car. As employment has dispersed throughout metropolitan America, lower income workers are finding themselves increasingly isolated and therefore need to spend higher proportions of their income to reach their jobs. Many simply have no choice but to spend $4 for a gallon of gas. Information drawn from the three most recent years of the American Housing Survey shows that only 55 percent of respondents reported that transit is even available to them. More disturbing is that only one-third of respondents in newly-constructed housing reported that transit was present. Transit was much more readily available in center cities (82 percent) than in suburbs (52 percent). 21 One reason the metropolitan transportation system—which should serve as the connective tissue within and between metropolitan areas—is woefully incomplete, is due to flaws in federal policy. Federal transportation policy has long favored highway building over transit investments. 22 Transit projects are evaluated and funded differently than highways. The pot of available federal transit funding is so small that the federal government oversees a competitive process for new transit funding, requiring multiple hypercompetitive bureaucratic reviews that demonstrate a project's cost-effectiveness. Funding is also subject to annual congressional appropriations. Highways do not undergo the same level of scrutiny or funding uncertainty. Also, while highways typically receive up to 80 percent of federal funds (and 90 percent for improvements and maintenance), new transit projects' federal contribution is often less than half of the project cost. 23 Taken together, these biases ensure that state transportation policy pursued under federal law works against many metropolitan areas' efforts to maintain modern and integrated transportation networks 3. The investments that have been made in transit are not having the effect they could At the convergence of these trends is the realization that a substantial market exists for a new form of walkable, mixed-use urban development around transit stops in real estate markets as diverse as suburban New Jersey, Atlanta, Dallas and Chicago. Overall, transit-oriented developments (TODs) are designed to weave transit stations into the fabric of the surrounding community, and to increase the role of transit in the transportation system, and more generally the day-to-day life of the surrounding area. These transit-oriented developments have the potential to lower household transportation expenses, reduce environmental and energy impacts, and provide real alternatives to traffic congestion. Residents who live in transit-oriented housing typically use transit 2 to 5 times more than other commuters in the region. In addition, those households are twice as likely to not own a car at all, and generally own half as many cars as similar households not living in transit rich neighborhoods. 24 Other research shows the benefit of TOD on household budgets. In just eight cities, more than 100,000 federally assisted housing units sheltering more than 300,000 individuals are located in transit rich neighborhoods. Approximately 65,500 of these units are covered by federal rental assistance contracts expiring before the end of 2012. 25 A recent federal transit administration study shows that families that live in TOD neighborhoods spend just 9 percent of their household budget on transportation, compared to 25 percent for those in automobile-dependent suburbs. 26 While the share of spending on housing is equal, the transportation savings are critically important to low income families for whom transportation eats up a disproportionately large share of their annual income. The benefits of TOD could be bolstered by synergies with other policies, notably policies that encourage urban infilling, such as the rejuvenation of brownfields, the development of urban enterprise zones, locating new federal buildings in promising mixed-use, higher-density commercial areas, and the use of alternative mortgage products such as energy efficient and locationally efficient mortgages. The results will give metropolitan areas more flexibility and the nation expanded options for addressing large-scale challenges. However, many of these benefits are not being realized. Although TOD is now starting to be recognized as a viable type of development, there is still a widespread lack of understanding of its nature, its potential, the challenges it faces, and the tools needed to overcome these challenges. For one, there is no universally accepted premise about exactly what TOD should accomplish, nor are there standard benchmarks for success. For example, some developments are labeled TOD by virtue of their proximity to a transit station, regardless of how well they capitalize on that proximity or capture the increase in land value. In addition, there are multiple actors engaged in TOD projects including the transit agency, riders, neighbors, developers, lenders, and government at all levels. They often bring different goals to the table, pursue strategies that work at cross-purposes to each other, and lack unifying policy objectives. 27 In short, TOD requires synergy among many different uses and functions that is difficult to achieve. As a result, TOD almost always involves more complexity, greater uncertainty, and higher costs than other forms of infill development. We need to make TOD easy and non-leveraged investments hard. In other words, we need to flip the system. The federal government can play a critical role in supporting the planning of such projects and corridors, coordinating with private sector developers and lenders, and promoting metropolitan diversity in project selection. Such considerations would catalyze the nearly $75 billion in public dollars invested in rail transit over the past 11 years and go a long way to reducing energy consumption as an explicit national goal. Federal action is key to investor predictability – the private sector won’t lend for transit infrastructure without consistent federal supportMelaniphy, 12 - President & CEO American Public Transportation Association (Michael, Testimony efore The Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 3/21, http://www.apta.com/gap/testimony/2012/Pages/120319_SenateTestimony.aspx) APTA’s highest priority continues to be the enactment of a well-funded, multi-modal surface transportation authorization bill. We recognize the challenge that the absence of an authorization bill places on the Appropriations Committee, yet we must stress the tremendous needs that persist for public transportation agencies throughout the country, and remind Congress that investment in transportation infrastructure puts Americans to work. Failure to invest will force private sector businesses in the transit industry and other industries to lay off employees and to invest overseas, while increased federal investment addresses the need for much-needed capital investments and the growth of the industry. For the nation’s tens of millions of transit riders, any cuts will mean less service, fewer travel options, higher costs and longer commutes. Americans took 10.4 billion trips on public transportation in 2011, a 2.31% increase from 2010 and the second highest annual ridership total since 1957. Only ridership in 2008, when gas rose to more than $4 a gallon, surpassed last year’s ridership, and today gas prices are continuing to rise. About APTA APTA is a nonprofit international association of 1,500 public and private member organizations, including transit systems and high-speed, intercity and commuter rail operators; planning, design, construction, and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; transit associations and state departments of transportation. Overview of FY 2013 Funding Requests First, let me applaud the Senate for its work on passing the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), with strong bipartisan support. It has been more than two years since the expiration of SAFETEA-LU, and we are excited to see progress being made towards a new authorization law. However, in the absence of a finalized piece of legislation, APTA continues to look towards existing law, appropriations, and current budget proposals for appropriations request guidance. It is important that steady and growing investment continue despite economic or fiscal situations, as demand and long-term planning requirements for transportation investment continue as well. In the Obama Administration’s FY 2013 Budget Proposal, along with their proposed six-year surface transportation authorization proposal, the President requests $10.8 billion for public transportation programs in FY 2013 and would additionally include $50 billion for a one-time state of good repair investment program, spread across highway and transit programs. The President’s proposal also requests $2.5 billion for high-speed and intercity passenger rail. APTA applauds the President’s proposed public transportation budget request. While we recognize the growing pressures that are impacting general fund budget authority allocations, APTA urges Congress to resist efforts to make further cuts to general fund components of the federal transit program, such as Capital Investment Grants and research, as these are important elements of federal surface transportation investment. In particular, many in the transit industry were particularly concerned about cuts in FY 2012 to the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), an important program that produces basic research that is used by transit agencies nationwide to improve efficiency, safety and technical capacity. Finally, we encourage Congress to fund the Rail Safety Technology Grants program (Section 105) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) at a level significantly higher than the $50 million authorized annually through FY 2013, to assist with the implementation of congressionally mandated positive train control systems. The federal deadline for implementation of positive train control systems is rapidly approaching, and to date, Congress has not provided the necessary funding to support implementation of this important safety program. The Need for Federal Transit Investment In previous testimony to this subcommittee, APTA presented the case for increasing federal investment in public transportation. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that a one-time investment $78 billion is needed to bring currently operating transit infrastructure up to a state of good repair, and this does not include annual costs to maintain, expand or operate the existing system. Research on transit needs shows that capital investment from all sources - federal, state, and local - should be doubled if we are to prepare for future ridership demands. APTA’s overall funding recommendation continues to be informed by our recommendations for surface transportation authorization and the estimated federal funding growth required to meet at least 50 percent of the $60 billion in annual transit capital needs. These levels are intended to support a projected doubling of transit ridership over the next 20 years. It is important to stress that the demand for public transportation and the need for federal leadership will not diminish in the months and years ahead. As gasoline prices continue to increase, Americans are turning to public transportation in record numbers, just as they did in 2008 when gas reached an average price of $4.11 per gallon. Public transportation is a vital component of the nation’s total transportation infrastructure picture, and with ridership projected to grow, dependable public transportation systems will be vital to the transportation needs of millions of Americans. While Congress continues to consider how to proceed on a well-funded, multi-modal surface transportation bill, it remains critically important that annual appropriations bills support both current and growing needs. Federal Transit Administration Programs Capital Investment Grants (New Starts) – APTA was pleased to see the Senate continue to support the New Starts program in MAP-21. The New Starts program is the primary source of federal investment in the construction or expansion of heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit projects. The success of these major, multi-year capital projects requires predictable support by Congress and the FTA. Congress established Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs) to provide this predictability. A continued commitment to federal investment will also influence the willingness of private financial markets to finance public transportation projects and it will help ensure that the bond ratings will remain high and interest rates will remain low. We urge the Congress to recognize the importance of long-term, predictable funding for all highway and transit programs, including New Starts. APTA believes that the New Starts program should grow at the same rate as the rest of the transit program, as it is essential to enhancing our nation’s mobility, accessibility and economic prosperity, while promoting energy conservation and environmental quality. Federal leadership on mass transit is vital to create jobs, decrease oil dependence and reduce warmingMark, 11 - editor of quarterly environmental magazine Earth Island Journal (Jason, “Are We There Yet?”, The American Prospect, July 6th) //AC "[The transportation-reauthorization bill] is arguably the biggest policy lever that can still be pulled by Congress in a way that helps to reduce oil dependence and reduce pollution due to the combustion of oil," says Deron Lovaas, the transportation policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of the environmental organizations lobbying for a bill that invests more heavily in mass transit. Congress last passed a comprehensive transportation-spending bill in 2003. That law expired in 2009, and for the last two years, the Department of Transportation has been running on temporary extensions. The current one expires on September 30. For policy-makers, the crucial question is whether we will continue spending our money on highways and roads or undergo a long-overdue shift to mass transit that creates bikeable, walkable, and more environmentally friendly communities. For its part, the White House has proposed spending $556 billion over six years on transportation -- almost double what the 2003 legislation appropriated. The new funds will be used to create a "National Infrastructure Bank" to pay for bridge and road repairs, and the bill also provides $119 billion for mass-transit projects. President Barack Obama's proposal makes headway in correcting some of the perversities of transportation policy that have long put mass transit at a disadvantage. The federal government now pays up to 80 percent of the cost of highway construction (state and local governments cover the rest), but only 50 percent of the cost on average for mass transit. Competitive-grant programs -- modeled after the Department of Education's "Race to the Top" system -- would help redirect funds from highways to mass transit. The Federal Railroad Administration would get an extra $8 billion for high-speed rail projects. Republicans -- especially anti-government radicals in the House -- are likely to oppose such an increase. But that doesn't mean the legislation is dead. Transportation has historically been an area of bipartisan collaboration for the obvious reason that transportation spending is one of the surest ways for legislators to draw federal dollars to their districts. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat and chair of the of Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, and ranking member James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, couldn't be more at odds when it comes to climate change and oil dependence. Both of them, however, have an interest in delivering federal infrastructure projects to their constituents. For progressives, the trick will be ensuring that a greater proportion of those projects support mass transit instead of the usual highway spending. Environmentalists' interest in the transportation bill is clear. Transportation accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation's oil use and about 25 percent of its carbon-dioxide emissions. Greens' sound bites about breaking our "oil addiction" and "dumping the pump" are useful when preaching to the choir. But the fact is that Americans will be hooked on oil until they have workable alternatives to the automobile. Investing in urban light rail and regional high-speed rail networks; boosting funds for bus systems; constructing bike lanes; and focusing on repairing existing roads instead of building news ones are a first step in changing, at a fundamental level, how we move around. If we want Americans to ditch their cars, that will require giving them choices, and that means creating a mass-transit system that makes the car -- and not the bus -- look like a pain. NRDC's Lovaas estimates that the White House plan would save the United States about 1 million barrels of oil a day by 2030. That would reduce daily greenhouse-gas emission by more than 300,000 metric tons. Improving the transit system would, in turn, open up new opportunities to create denser "new urbanist" communities -- ones that are pedestrian-friendly, with a vibrant mix of retail and housing -- that will further weaken our cars' grip on us. Reducing the reliance on our cars, of course, also serves U.S. national-security interests. "Building walkable, urban places is the number one way we are going to have energy security and not buy as much oil from nasty people and to address climate change," says Christopher Leinberger, a developer who is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. Some labor unions are joining with environmentalists in pushing for a transportation bill that prioritizes transit and road repair over new road construction. According to the Laborers' International Union, a six-year transportation bill that invests substantially in mass transit could create up to 8 million jobs nationwide. Trade unionists also point out that repairing the country's decrepit roads and bridges (the American Society of Civil Engineers rates the country's infrastructure as a D) is essential for sustaining the United States' long-term economic competitiveness. "These are the things that America has to do to maintain its leadership in the 21st century," says David Miller, a spokesperson for the Laborers'. "You look at China, they are spending 10 percent of their GDP on bullet trains and super highways. This is not something we can fall behind on." 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 0.91 Mb. Share with your friends:
|