Mass Transit Affirmative 1AC

Mass transit costs are rising

In Washington, D.C., commuters on the Metro will soon see many trains expand from six cars to eight. In New York City, the transportation agency is spending millions of dollars to modernize the subway system's antiquated signaling system, so significantly more trains can travel through its underground tunnels at one time. Across the US, public-transit officials are scrambling to accommodate a record number of people who are leaving their cars at home and hopping the bus or the train to work. More than 90 percent of public-transit officials report that their ridership is up over the past three years, according to a survey released this week by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). And more than 90 percent credited the sky-high gasoline prices. At the same time, many transit agencies find themselves squeezed by the higher fuel prices and smaller local government subsidies, which are shrinking because of the economic downturn. Almost 70 percent have had to raise fares, and some have even been forced to curtail services to cope with the high energy prices, even as the demand is increasing. "You've got a time in history where these agencies could be tapping a new market and attracting the suburban people who, heretofore, have been less likely to ride [public transit]," says Stephen Reich, director of the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida in Tampa. "Some agencies are even contracting service because of fuel costs and decreasing government support." The Seattle area has seen the biggest increase in the number of people riding the commuter rails: up 28 percent from last year. The primary reason is not just gasoline price hikes. Sound Transit, which runs the region's commuter trains, light rail, and buses, is in the process of finishing an ambitious expansion program started 1996. It built commuter-rail lines north and south of Seattle that started operating in 2001. In 2006, only half the number of commuters predicted 10 years earlier were riding the rails. But growth started to pick up in 2006, along with gasoline prices, and now it's going "gangbusters."

Plan Unpopular – Public

Public believes roads and bridged should be repaired before public transit

Smart Growth America, February 4, 2011, (New report reveals smart transportation spending creates jobs, grows economy http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/2011/02/04/new-report-reveals-smart-transportation-spending-creates-jobs-grows-the-economy/)
A national poll conducted by Smart Growth America and Hart Research in November 2010 found that nearly 91% of voters believe maintaining and repairing our roads and bridges should be the top or a high priority for state spending on transportation programs, and 68% of voters believe that improving and expanding public transportation options should be the top or a high priority.¶ “Recent Lessons from the Stimulus” ranks all 50 states by how each state invested its ARRA flexible transportation dollars, as reported by the states to Congress. Eight states spent 100% of their ARRA flexible transportation funds to preserve existing roads and bridges and ranked among the top states. Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Kansas, and Arkansas spent the majority of funds building new roads and bridges and comprised the bottom five in terms of average jobs created per dollar spent. Florida and Kansas can point to roads that are in good shape relative to other states and thus less need for repair and maintenance. However, the vast majority of states find themselves in a very different situation, with large unmet maintenance and repair needs that, if allowed to continue, will cost even more to fix later

Plan unpopular with the public- car addiction

Barnes, Executive Editor at The Weekly Standard, ’11 (Fred, March 7, “The Way We Drive Now”, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/way-we-drive-now_552546.html) CW
For most Americans—make that most of mankind—the car is an instrument of mobility, flexibility, and speed. Yet officials in Washington, transportation experts, state and local functionaries, planners, and transit officials are puzzled why their efforts to lure people from their cars continue to fail.¶ The Obama administration is only the latest to be bewildered. It has proposed every alternative it can think of to the car: high-speed rail, light rail, mass transit in general, bikeways, bus lanes, walking paths, the return of streetcars. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has embraced the “livability” movement, which is anti-car.¶ Those are just the positive attractions. There are punitive policies, too, both active and passive. Urban growth boundaries have put a virtual wall around cities like Portland, Oregon, to prevent sprawl and the cars that come with it. Limits in many locations on parking lots and on-street parking discourage the use of cars. Refusal to ease traffic congestion by building more roads and inertia in the face of rising gasoline prices make driving a car less appealing, even if those policies are not pursued with that purpose in mind. Restricted lanes for buses and bikes often infuriate urban drivers.¶ President Obama and LaHood have also tried persuasion and hype. In his State of the Union, Obama touted high-speed trains accessible to 80 percent of Americans, as if the country should be clamoring for them. LaHood envisions soothingly “livable” neighborhoods with “affordable housing next to walking paths and biking paths.”¶ None of this has worked. Nor did President Bush’s warning about a nation “addicted to oil” or the Clinton administration’s support of technology-driven ideas like “smart highways,” which became a code for building fewer roads or lanes.

Plan unpopular with public- Cars are less expensive

Burnam-Fink, Research Assistant Lewis & Clark College: Environmental Studies Program, ’12 (Richard, May, “The Difficulty of Accurate Planning: A Study of Portland’s Light Rail Transit System”, https://sge.lclark.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/RBF-Thesis.pdf) CW
One of the main issues in shifting transportation away from private car use and onto ¶ public transit in urban areas is the lack of explicit costs car users face. While car users must pay ¶ for gas for their vehicle, they often receive free parking, drive for free on roadways constructed ¶ by the government, and are not charged for the social or environmental impact of their trips. ¶ These indirect subsidies have been calculated in the range of $400 billion to $900 billion per year, ¶ and one study concluded that car drivers pay only 60 percent of their total true travel costs ¶ (Vuchic 1999, 69). This impedes public transit system implementation because even a wellplanned transit system will be underutilized if the costs of car use aren’t explicitly paid for while ¶ the costs of using the transit system are explicitly paid.

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 0.65 Mb.

Share with your friends: