Mass Transit Affirmative 1AC

Download 0.65 Mb.

Page	3/17
Date	17.11.2017
Size	0.65 Mb.
	#34096

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17

Road focus and car dependence promotes sprawl which harms the environment
Urban sprawl is the biggest cause of habitat loss and biodiversity
Habitat loss and species reduction risks extinction
Urban sprawl and car dependence drastically increases air pollution
Air pollution causes extinction
Mass transit focus is reverse causal – ending road focus leads to high density urban planning and more efficient land use patterns
Oil Advantage
Federal support for mass transit is vital to shifting away from new road construction – it’s vital to substantially decreasing oil dependence
Expanding mass transit facilitates higher density land use – multiple studies prove
Increasing land use density reduces emissions and leads to sustainable travel – a stronger mass transit investment is key
Oil dependence escalates multiple flashpoints globally
Expanding federal investment will expand mass transit – key to leveraging private sector investment and altering current pro-highway federal incentives
Federal action is key to investor predictability – the private sector won’t lend for transit infrastructure without consistent federal support.
Federal leadership on mass transit is vital

Urban Sprawl Advantage

Urban sprawl hurts the environment – mass transit key to solve

Islam, Lynn, Maher, 2K7 (Most recent citation within article, University Of Michigan, Negative Environmental Impacts of American Suburban Sprawl and the Environmental Argument for New Urbanism, http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section007group5/home, be)
Conspicuous consumption arrived in the United States post-WWII as an outcome of modernity. Mass consumption of houses, automobiles and manufactured goods permeated Middle America. The enchantment of materialism manifested itself in the acquisition of houses. They became, “totem objects”, symbols of self-identity and fundamental components of the new identity kit for middle-class status (Knox 36)” These new symbols of self-identity, manifested in ‘suburban sprawl’, have created an array of negative environmental impacts through excess resource consumption, and automobile dependency. The nations best interest therefore is to invest in new urban growth that minimizes excessive consumption and resource exploitation through more sustainable methods. There are several detrimental environmental impacts of American ‘Suburban Sprawl’ compared to ‘New Urban Growth’, specifically in relation to excess resource consumption. Suburban sprawl, or the development of areas using single-use zoning, leads to excess resource consumption (Gillham 22). Excessive consumption manifested itself in converting wetlands, creating large highways, deforestation, leveling of land and limiting public space in these areas of suburbanization. The unfortunate government support through subsidizing resources, land, rent and housing formed its roots in the creation of Federal Housing Administration loans in the 1930’s (Jackson 204). However, in order to stem this excessive consumption we must move to more sustainable growth offered in the new urbanization. This type of growth focuses on mixed land-use development (mixed-use zoning), pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, efficient use of natural resources, limited automobile dependency (mass transit system), preservation of open spaces, reinvestment in existing communities (infill development), and transit-oriented development (Duany et al 4-6) . The dependency on automobiles for transportation is one of the biggest factors in the environmental impacts of “suburban sprawl” and “urban growth.” Suburban growth as a result of highways being built after WWII made rural areas more accessible for development increasing the reliance on automobiles to get to and from the city for work (Southerland 164). This reliance has been furthermore encouraged through the relative decrease in gasoline prices since the 1970s (Southerland 165). City development in the past has been mainly focused on planning, “…towns and cities at a larger scale with a reliance primarily on automobile travel (Doi 485).” This type of urban growth results in a number of adverse effects on the environment. Growth of this nature requires people to travel larger distances for even basic needs, therefore making automobiles a necessary form of travel. One of the strategies for solving the overwhelming reliance on automobiles has been the construction of “compact cities.” The idea is that “compact cities” offer a closer community, a neighborhood, and a better quality of life that decreases the reliance on automobiles and therefore promotes a more environmentally friendly city. Mass transit and public transportation drastically decreases the amount of air pollution and reliance on oil. Suburban sprawl is often referred to as “unsustainable development” by regional planners and “smart growth” developers. More “sustainable growth” is present in “New Urbanism” and “smart growth.” “New Urban Growth” is the reformation of cities and suburbs to work together to improve the standard of living, economy, traffic, neighbor relationships, schools and the values of homes (Duany et al. 85). “Smart growth” establishes pedestrian friendly communities that encourage neighbors to shop and interact in the local mixed-use areas. The cities of “New Urban Growth” will be formatted more like Western European cities are pedestrian-friendly, small shop based and strong city economies. There would be less traffic if cities and suburbs were designed more effectively. Mass transit would be easier to establish with better roads and a denser city structure. The mixed land-use development is characterized by street level shops and housing above (Jackson 134). Infill development is a philosophy to fill city areas of more housing and shops, instead of using “leap frog” development of suburban sprawl (Duany et al 85-88). With sensible growth development of infill and reuse philosophy, the expansion of cities will prevent over resource use. The standard of living for citizen, the economies as well as the aesthetic value of the cities and suburbs will improve through “New Urban Growth.”

Road focus and car dependence promotes sprawl which harms the environment

Islam et.al. 8 (Anna Brandon Lynn, and Bridget Maher, “Negative Environmental Impacts of American Suburban Sprawl and the Environmental Argument for New Urbanism”

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section007group5/home)

The dependency on automobiles for transportation is one of the biggest factors in the environmental impacts of “suburban sprawl” and “urban growth.” Suburban growth as a result of highways being built after WWII made rural areas more accessible for development increasing the reliance on automobiles to get to and from the city for work (Southerland 164). This reliance has been furthermore encouraged through the relative decrease in gasoline prices since the 1970s (Southerland 165). City development in the past has been mainly focused on planning, “…towns and cities at a larger scale with a reliance primarily on automobile travel (Doi 485).” This type of urban growth results in a number of adverse effects on the environment. Growth of this nature requires people to travel larger distances for even basic needs, therefore making automobiles a necessary form of travel. One of the strategies for solving the overwhelming reliance on automobiles has been the construction of “compact cities.” The idea is that “compact cities” offer a closer community, a neighborhood, and a better quality of life that decreases the reliance on automobiles and therefore promotes a more environmentally friendly city. Mass transit and public transportation drastically decreases the amount of air pollution and reliance on oil.

Urban sprawl is the biggest cause of habitat loss and biodiversity

Johnson and Klemens ‘05 Director, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society (Elizabeth A. and Michael W., “Nature in Fragments”, 19)//DD

Patterns of development associated with sprawl lead directly to habitat loss and fragmentation, with a concomitant reduction in biodiversity. In addition, sprawl plays a significant role in amplifying other threats to biodiversity. Humans alter the Earth's natural landscape in three main ways: through agriculture, natural-resource extraction, and urban and rural settlement (Vitousek et al. 1997; Marzluff and Hamel 2001). In many areas in the United States, settlement is replacing agriculture and resource extraction as the major land use (Heinz Center 2002). Sprawl and urbanization endanger more species than any other human activity in the United States and are more geographically widespread than all activities except for agriculture (Czech, Krausman, and Devers 2000). According to Meyer and Turner (1992), human dwellings and infrastructure now occupy 2.5 to 6 percent of the Earth, and approximately 10 percent of this area is covered with impervious surfaces.

Habitat loss and species reduction risks extinction

Richard Tobin, Associate Professor of Political Science at SUNY-Buffalo, 1990, The Expendable Future: U.S. Politics and the Protection of Biological Diversity, p. 13-14

Every time a human contributes to a species’ extinction, a range of choices and opportunities is either eliminated or diminished. The demise of the last pupfish might have appeared inconsequential, but the eradication of other species could mean that an undiscovered cure for some cancers has been carelessly discarded. The extinction of a small bird, an innocent amphibian, or an unappealing plant might disrupt an ecosystem, increased the incidence and areal distribution of a disease, preclude the discovery of new industrial products, prevent the natural recycling of some wastes, or destroy a source of easily grown and readily available food. By way of analogy, the anthropo-genic extinction of a plant or animal can be compared to the senseless destruction of a priceless Renaissance painting or to the burning of an irreplaceable book that has never been opened. In an era when many people believe that limits to development are being tested or even breached, can humans afford to risk an expendable future, to squander the infinite potential that species offer, and to waste nature’s ability and willingness to provide inexpensive solutions to many of humankind’s problems? Many scientists do not believe so, and they are fearful of the consequences of anthropogenic extinctions. These scientists quickly admit their ignorance of the biological consequences of most individual extinctions, but widespread agreement exists that massive anthropogenic extinctions can bring catastrophic results. In fact, when compared to all other environmental problems, human-caused extinctions are likely to be of far greater concern. Extinction is the permanent destruction of unique life forms and the only irreversible ecological change that humans can cause. No matter what the effort or sincerity of intentions, extinct species can never be replaced. “From the standpoint of permanent despoliation of the planet,” Norman Meyers observes, no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species.” Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions. To Wilson, the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or even nuclear war. As frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that they can “be repaired within a few generations. The one process ongoing…that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats.” David Ehrenfeld succinctly summarizes the problem and the need for a solution: “We are masters of extermination, yet creation is beyond our powers… Complacency in the face of this terrible dilemma is inexcusable.” Ehrenfeld wrote these words in the early 1970s. Were he to write today he would likely add a note of dire urgency. If scientists are correct in their assessments of current extinctions and reasonably confident about extinction rates in the near future, then a concerted and effective response to human-caused extinctions is essential. The chapters that follow evaluate that response in the United States.

Urban sprawl and car dependence drastically increases air pollution

Frumkin, 02-Professor of Environmental and Health sciences at University of Washington (Howard, “Urban Sprawl and Public Health,” 201-204)//I.S.

One of the cardinal features of sprawl is driving, reflecting a well-established, close relationship between lower density development and more automobile travel. For example, in the Atlanta metropolitan area, one of the nation’s leading examples of urban sprawl, the average person travels 34.1 miles in a car each day—an average that includes the entire population, both drivers and non-drivers.17 More densely populated metropolitan areas have far lower per capita daily driving figures than Atlanta, e.g., 16.9 miles for Philadelphia, 19.9 for Chicago, and 21.2 for San Francisco.17 On a neighborhood scale, the same pattern is observed. In the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago metropolitan areas, vehicle miles traveled increase as neighborhood density decreases. Automobile use offers extraordinary personal mobility and independence. However, it is also associated with health hazards, including air pollution, motor vehicle crashes, and pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Motor vehicles are a leading source of air pollution.20 Even though automobile and truck engines have be- come far cleaner in recent decades, the sheer quantity of vehicle miles driven results in large releases of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons into the air. Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, in the presence of sunlight, form ozone. Nationwide, “mobile sources” (mostly cars and trucks) account for approximately 30% of emissions of oxides of nitrogen and 30% of hydrocarbon emissions. However, in automobile-dependent metropolitan areas, the proportion may be substantially higher. In the 10-county metropolitan Atlanta area, for ex- ample, on-road cars and trucks account for 58% of emissions of nitrogen oxides and 47% of hydrocarbon emissions, figures that underestimate the full impact of vehicle traffic because they exclude emissions from related sources, such as fuel storage facilities and filling stations. In various combinations, the pollutants that originate from cars and trucks, especially nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, ozone, and particulate matter, account for a substantial part of the air pollution burden of American cities. Of note, the highest air pollution levels in a metropolitan area may occur not at the point of formation but downwind, due to regional transport. Thus, air pollution is a problem not only alongside roadways (or in close proximity to other sources) but also on the scale of entire regions. The health hazards of air pollution are well known.24 Ozone is an airways irritant. Higher ozone levels are associated with higher incidence and severity of respiratory symptoms, worse lung function, more emergency room visits and hospitalizations, more medication use, and more absenteeism from school and work. Although healthy people may demonstrate these effects, people with asthma and other respiratory diseases are especially susceptible. Particulate matter is associated with many of the same respiratory effects and, in addition, with elevated mortality. People who are especially susceptible to the effects of air pollution include the elderly, the very young, and those with underlying cardiopulmonary disease. Carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas, accounting for approximately 80% of emissions with global warming potential. Motor vehicles are also a major source of other greenhouse gases, including methane, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds. As a result, automobile traffic is a major contributor to global climate change, accounting for approximately 26% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.28 During the decade of the 1990s, greenhouse gases from mobile sources increased 18%, primarily a re- flection of more vehicle miles traveled.28 In turn, global climate change threatens human health in a number of ways, including the direct effects of heat, enhanced formation of some air pollutants, and increased prevalence of some infectious diseases. Thus, the link between sprawl and respiratory health is as follows: Sprawl is associated with high levels of driving, driving contributes to air pollution, and air pollution causes morbidity and mortality. In heavily automobile-dependent cities, air pollution can rise to hazardous levels, and driving can account for a majority of the emissions. Although ongoing research is exploring the pathophysiology of air pollution expo- sure and related issues, there are also important re- search questions that revolve around prevention. Technical issues include such challenges as the development of low-emission vehicles and other clean technologies. Policy research needs to identify approaches to land use and transportation that would reduce the need for motor vehicle travel. Behavioral research needs to identify factors that motivate people to choose less-polluting travel behaviors, such as walking, carpooling, or use of more efficient vehicles. Sprawl and car usage have been linked together, which has in turn been linked to pollution. Stone, 06-(Brian, “Urban sprawl and air quality in large U.S. cities,” 689-690)//I.S. A significant relationship between land use and vehicle travel has been widely documented (Transportation Research Board, 1995; Apogee, 1998). Perhaps the most compelling evidence of this relationship is provided by the handful of studies that has examined readily available measures of land use and travel within a large number of cities. In one of the most widely cited of these studies, Newman and Kenworthy (1989) documented a strong and significant negative relationship between population density and per capita fuel usage within 63 large metropolitan regions around the world (R2 1⁄4 0:86).1 Similar significant relationships have been found to exist between population density and vehicle ownership, vehicle trip generation, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in American cities and abroad (Pucher and Lefevre, 1996).

Air pollution causes extinction

Driesen 3 (David, Associate Professor – Syracuse Univeristy Law, 10 Buff. Envt'l. L.J. 25, Fall/Spring, Lexis)

Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends and harming the health of both future and present generations. The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles that are relevant to air pollution. These principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs that is worth achieving. Agenda 21, in turn, states a program of action for realizing those goals. Between them, they aid understanding of sustainable development's meaning for air quality. The first principle is that "human beings. . . are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature", because they are "at the center of concerns for sustainable development." 3 While the Rio Declaration refers to human health, its reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects a concern about the natural environment. 4 Since air pollution damages both human health and the environment, air quality implicates both of these concerns. 5

Mass transit focus is reverse causal – ending road focus leads to high density urban planning and more efficient land use patterns

Giuliano 04 (Genevieve, “The Geography of Urban Transportation: Chapter 9, Land Use Impacts of Transportation Investments”, August 6, 2004)//DD

The ability of transportation investments to shape or influence urban structure is also a widely held conviction. Today many urban geographers and policymakers are advocating higher density, mixed-use development as a means for solving urban congestion and environmental problems. "Smart Growth" proponents see transit-based accessibililty as a key element in fostering higher density development patterns (Bernick & Cervero 1997; Newman & Kenworthy, 1998). Smart growth proponents target expressways as a major cause of urban sprawl, meaning low-density, dispersed land use patterns.

Oil Advantage

The current roads focus in transportation policy exacerbates oil dependence

Sandalow, 7 - David Sandalow is Energy and Environment Scholar at The Brookings Institution (“Ending Oil Dependence”, 1/22, http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/fellows/sandalow20070122.pdf)

Americans are driving more and enjoying it less. Between 1993 and 2003, vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. increased 26%. Drivers report spending more time in their cars each day – up from 49 minute average in 1990 to 62 minutes today. Traffic congestion is a growing frustration for millions. 32 More sensible growth patterns could help improve quality of life while reducing oil dependence. “Transit-oriented development” – building mixed-use communities around transit stations – is one increasingly popular approach. A recent study found that doubling ridership on mass transit nationally could save 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline per year. 33 Longstanding federal subsidies for urban highway construction have contributed to the current mix of traffic congestion, driver unhappiness and oil consumption. Ironically, repeated experiences in major U.S. cities demonstrate that building more roads fails to solve traffic congestion. One expert summed it up by saying: “Trying to cure traffic congestion by building more roads is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt.” 34 The most recent federal highway bill, passed in August 2005, provides four times more funding for highways than mass transit. 35

Federal support for mass transit is vital to shifting away from new road construction – it’s vital to substantially decreasing oil dependence

Nelder, 9 - Chris Nelder is an energy analyst and consultant who has written about energy and investing for more than a decade (“Is Obama's Infrastructure Plan Built to Last?,” Energy & Capital, 1/14, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/obama-infrastructure-energy/813)//DH

It is abundantly clear to me, as it is to any student of peak oil or anybody who has read my column or my books, that rail is the obvious priority for the future of transportation. Rail is by far the cheapest and most fuel-efficient form of transport, requiring about a third less fuel than air for personal travel, and as little as 3% of the energy for freight. Yet, our current rail system is a joke compared to the rest of the developed world. As James Howard Kunstler has remarked, even Bulgaria would be ashamed of our rail system. Destinations are limited, especially in the West, and most of the trains run on diesel. Our fastest train, Amtrak's Acela, only does about 100 mph on its short run from Boston to D.C., less than half the speed of modern high-speed trains elsewhere. If we really intend to have an infrastructure that survives peak oil, we have to transform it to run on renewably generated electricity. We also have to expand it massively and take millions of cars and transport trucks off the road. Doing so would probably cost trillions of dollars and would be worth every penny. For example, a high-speed rail corridor for the Northeast would run about $32 billion. Laying high-speed rail between the major cities of California would cost north of $40 billion. So far, however, I have seen little suggestion of such an ambitious transformation. The funding package approved in October by Congress would grant a paltry $13 billion to passenger rail over five years, of which three-fourths would go to Amtrak. Another $5 billion is currently proposed by the House transportation and infrastructure committee for intercity rail. That's not transformation spending; that's barely better than maintenance spending. In fact, despite Obama's pledge to devote funds to projects beyond "roads and bridges," it's now looking like the states might hijack those funds and try to pour much of the Obama stimulus package money into roads and cars. According to a report by Bloomberg, Missouri plans to spend $750 million of it on highways and nothing on mass transit. Utah would devote 87% of its share to new roads, and Arizona would spend $869 million on highways. Presumably, other states have similar priorities. I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the states. Saddled with declining revenues due to the recession and a crumbling road, bridge and airport infrastructure badly in need of repair, they have to do something. In the absence of strong federal leadership into mass transit, they have little choice but to try to maintain what they have. A spokesman for House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar quoted in the Bloomberg article was blunt: "We like the environmentally friendly way of doing things but the charge we were given was to come up with something that can happen quickly," he said. "We can't lose sight of what the primary goal here is, and that is to put people to work." Not Just Jobs, but the Right Jobs Which brings us to the key point: Instead of seeking "shovel ready" projects that can be started within 180 days to create new jobs ASAP, the Obama team should be looking at the long view on energy and ensuring what we build now is truly built to last. Roads—especially new roads—are definitely not that. According to the director of Washington-based Building America's Future, some $16.5 billion in mass transit projects can be started within a year. (By comparison, tens of billions of dollars have already been committed to high-speed electric rail in Europe and Asia.) Those projects should be our immediate national priority, followed by some deep and serious planning for a long-term transportation infrastructure that will survive $150 oil and declining supply. President Roosevelt created just such a planning board as part of the New Deal, which eventually resulted in the interstate highway system. By planning for it now, we could achieve a somewhat orderly transition away from liquid fuels and toward efficient electric transport. We'll still create millions of new jobs, only they'll be theright jobs. Jobs that won't disappear the next time oil spikes.

Expanding mass transit facilitates higher density land use – multiple studies prove

Hodges, 9 - Office of Budget and Policy Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT (Tina, “Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change”, January, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange.pdf)//DH

Public transportation reduces emissions by facilitating higher density development, which conserves land and decreases the distances people need to travel to reach destinations. In many cases, higher density development would be more difficult without the existence of public transportation because more land would need to be devoted to parking and travel lanes. By facilitating higher density development, public transportation can shrink the footprint of an urban area and reduce overall trip lengths. In addition, public transportation supports increased foot traffic, street-level retail, and mixed land uses that enable a shift from driving to walking and biking. Public transportation can also facilitate trip chaining, such as combining dry-cleaning pick-up, shopping, and other errands on the way home from a station. Finally, households living close to public transportation tend to own fewer cars on average, as they may not need a car for commuting and other trips. A reduced number of cars per household tends to lead to reduced car use, and driving may cease to be the habitual choice for every trip.'

Multiple studies have quantified this relationship between public transportation, land use, and reduction in travel. The studies show that for every additional passenger mile traveled on public transportation, auto travel declines by 1.4 to 9 miIes.Â° In other words, in areas served by public transportation, even non-transit users drive less because destinations are closer together. A recent study used modeling to isolate just the effect of public transportation on driving patterns (rather than that effect combined with denser land use creating a need for improved public transportation). That study, conducted by consulting firm ICF and funded through the Transit Cooperative Research Program, found that each mile traveled on U.S. public transportation reduced driving by 1.9 miles. It concluded that public transportation reduces U.S. travel by an estimated 102.2 billion vehicle miles traveled (VMT) each year or 3.4% of annual U.S. VMT A study published by the Urban Land Institute found that within areas of compact development, driving is reduced 20% to 40% compared to average U.S. development patterns."

Increasing land use density reduces emissions and leads to sustainable travel – a stronger mass transit investment is key

II. CURRENT TRANSPORTATION TRENDS

A healthy national economy depends on healthy metropolitan economies—and enhancing mobility for residents by expanding transit options is a critical component. Therefore, for our transportation system to continue to provide a competitive edge, reducing energy consumption by improving the movement of people by multiple means both within and between metropolitan areas should continue to be an explicit national priority. We are already seeing transformations of dramatic scale and complexity when it comes to our transportation system and how Americans are traveling. We know most people can't stop traveling altogether—nor should they—but some can change how they travel.

Oil dependence escalates multiple flashpoints globally

Mark Rosen (Deputy General Counsel at the Center for Naval Analyses & Professor of Homeland Security Law and Policy at George Washington University) 2010 “Energy Independence and Climate Change: The Economic and National Security Consequences of Failing to Act” University of Richmond Law Review, Lexis

There is a growing consensus in U.S. national security circles that American dependence on imported oil constitutes a threat to the United States because a substantial portion of those oil reserves are controlled by governments that have historically pursued policies inimical to U.S. interests. For example, Venezuela, which represents eleven percent of U.S. oil imports, "regularly espouses anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric both at home and abroad ... [and] ... promotes ... [an] anti-U.S. influence in parts of Latin and South America ..." 72 that retards the growth of friendly political and economic ties among the United States, Venezuela, and a few other states in Latin and South America. This scenario plays out in many different regions. Russia, for example, has used its oil leverage to exert extreme political pressure upon Ukraine and Belarus. 73 Longstanding Western commercial relations with repressive regimes in the Middle East - i.e., Iran, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia - raise similar issues because of the mixed strategic messages that are being sent. Of course, large wealth [*989] transfers have allowed the Taliban in Saudi Arabia to bankroll terrorism. 74 A. Chokepoints and Flashpoints For the foreseeable future, the U.S. military will most likely be involved in protecting access to oil supplies - including the political independence of oil producers - and the global movements of using oil to help sustain the smooth functioning of the world economy. The security challenges associated with preserving access to oil are complicated by geographical "chokepoints," through which oil flows or is transported, but which are vulnerable to piracy or closure. 75 "Flashpoints" also exist as a result of political - and sometimes military - competition to secure commercial or sovereign access to oil in the face of disputed maritime and land claims that are associated with oil and gas deposits. Together, these challenges have necessitated that the United States and its allies maintain costly navies and air forces to protect sea lanes, ocean access, and maintain a presence to deter military competition in disputed regions. A selection of today's chokepoints and flashpoints follow. The Strait of Hormuz. This strait is the narrow waterway that allows access from the Indian Ocean into the Persian Gulf. Two-thirds of the world's oil is transported by ocean, and a very large percentage of that trade moves through Hormuz. The northern tip of Oman forms the southern shoreline of the strait. 76 Hormuz is protected by the constant transits of the U.S. Navy and its allies. Even though the strait has not been closed, the Persian Gulf has been the scene of extensive military conflict. 77 On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, initiating an eight-year war between the two countries that featured the "War of the Tankers," in which 543 ships, including the USS Stark, were attacked, while the U.S. Navy provided escort services to protect tankers [*990] that were transiting the Persian Gulf. 78 There have been past threats by Iran to militarily close the strait. 79 Additionally, there are ongoing territorial disputes between the United Arab Emirates and Iran over ownership of three islands that are located in approaches to the strait. 80 Closure of the strait would cause severe disruption in the movements of the world's oil supplies and, at a minimum, cause significant price increases and perhaps supply shortages in many regions for the duration of the closure. 81 During the War of the Tankers, oil prices increased from $ 13 per barrel to $ 31 a barrel due to supply disruptions and other "fear" factors. 82 Bab el-Mandeb. The strait separates Africa (Djibouti and Eritrea) and Asia (Yemen), and it connects the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean via the Gulf of Aden. The strait is an oil transit chokepoint since most of Europe's crude oil from the Middle East passes north through Bab el-Mandeb into the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal. 83 Closure of the strait due to terrorist activities or for political/military reasons, could keep tankers from the Persian Gulf from reaching the Suez Canal and Sumed Pipeline complex, diverting them around the southern tip of Africa (the Cape of Good Hope). 84 This would add greatly to transit time and cost, and would effectively tie-up spare tanker capacity. Closure of the Bab el-Mandeb would effectively block non-oil shipping from using the Suez Canal. 85 In October 2002 the French-flagged tanker Limburg was attacked off the coast of Yemen by terrorists. 86 During the [*991] Yom Kippur War in 1973, Egypt closed the strait as a means of blockading the southern Israeli port of Eilat. 87 The Turkish Straits and Caspian Oil. The term "Turkish Straits" refers to the two narrow straits in northwestern Turkey, the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, which connect the Sea of Marmara with the Black Sea on one side and the Aegean arm of the Mediterranean Sea on the other. Turkey and Russia have been locked in a longstanding dispute over passage issues involving the Turkish Straits. 88 The 1936 Montreux Convention puts Turkey in charge of regulating traffic through the straits; 89 yet Turkey has been hard pressed to stop an onslaught of Russian, Ukrainian, and Cypriot tankers, which transport Caspian Sea oil to markets in Western Europe. 90 Because of the very heavy shipping traffic and very challenging geography, there have been many collisions and groundings in the past, creating terrible pollution incidents and death. 91 Thus far, none of these incidents have been attributed to state-on-state-conflict or terrorism; 92 however, the confined waterway is an especially attractive target because of the grave economic and environmental damage that would result from a well-timed and well-placed attack on a loaded tanker. The issues surrounding the straits are also a subset of larger problems associated with the exploitation of Caspian oil, including severe pollution of the Caspian Sea as a result of imprudent extraction techniques, as well as the ever-present potential for conflict among the various claimants to the Caspian's hydrocarbon resources due to an inability of the various Caspian littoral states to agree on their maritime boundaries - and their [*992] legal areas in which to drill. 93 Any one of these problems could become a major flashpoint in the future. China vs. Japan. The Daiyu/Senkaku islands located in the East China Sea have become an increasingly contentious dispute because both claimants have, in the past, used modern military platforms to patrol the areas of their claims in which there are suspected oil and gas deposits in the seabed. 94 In September 2005, for example, China dispatched five warships to disputed waters surrounding its oil and gas platforms, which were spotted by a Japanese maritime patrol aircraft. 95 There have been other similar military-to-military encounters. 96 Given the fact that both countries have modern armed forces and are comparatively energy starved, it is not difficult to envision serious conflict erupting over these disputed areas. The Arctic Super Highway. Traditionalists would probably not include the Arctic as a security

chokepoint. The oil connection is reasonably well known: "22 percent of the world's undiscovered energy reserves are projected to be in the region (including 13 percent of the world's petroleum and 30 percent of natural gas)." 97 However, given the very small margins that transporters earn transporting oil from point A to B, 98 shipping companies are always in search of shorter routes to transport oil to market. As the thawing of the Arctic Ocean continues as a result of climate change, 99 this may create new shipping routes that transporters of [*993] oil and other goods will use to maximize their profits and minimize their transit times. As supplies of readily exploitable crude oil are reduced, the probability increases that some of this trade will result from exploitation activities in the land and littoral areas adjacent to the Arctic Sea. This development is concerning for a number of reasons: (1) the area is very remote and could provide a safe haven to pirates seeking to hijack cargoes; (2) the environmental sensitivity of the area, and the concomitant difficulty of mounting a cleanup effort, means that an oil spill in that marine environment will be much more persistent than an oil spill in temperate waters; 100 (3) the Arctic presents unique navigational difficulties due to the lack of good charts, navigational aids, and communications towers, as well as the impacts of extreme cold on the operational effectiveness of systems; 101 (4) the unsettled nature of claims by various countries, including the United States, to the seabed continental shelf resources in the littoral areas off their coastlines creates the potential for military competition and conflict over these claims. 102 The International Maritime Organization ("IMO") is now circulating draft guidelines for ships operating in Arctic areas to promote - but not require - ship hardening against an iceberg strike, better crew training, and environmental protection measures. 103 These guidelines are merely advisory and can only be implemented via the flag states. 104 Also, neither IMO nor any of the UN Law of the Sea Institutions have mandatory jurisdiction over any of the flashpoint issues relating [*994] to competing continental shelf claims in the Arctic, 105 meaning that any disputes will remain unresolved for a long time. The above is only a selected list of potential flashpoints in which oil is the main culprit. Disputes between China and six other nations of the Spratly Islands, and other territories in the South China Sea, remain unresolved. 106 The Spratly Islands could become a flashpoint in the future, involving the United States or its allies, because of the proximity of those areas to the major sea routes to Japan and Korea. 107 The strategic straits of Malacca, Lombok, and Sunda in Southeast Asia are absolutely essential to the movement of raw materials to Japan, Korea, and China. 108 Because of Lombok's depth and strategic location, it is a major transit route for very large crude carriers that move between the Middle East and Asia. 109 Lombok is an undefended waterway that is only eighteen kilometers in width at its southern opening, making it an attractive chokepoint for hijacking or eco-terrorism in which the waters of the environmentally sensitive Indonesian archipelago would be held hostage. 110

Solvency Contention

Expanding federal investment will expand mass transit – key to leveraging private sector investment and altering current pro-highway federal incentives

Puentes, 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)

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 support.

Melaniphy, 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.
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 Fiscal Year (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.
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

Mark, 2011

(Jason, “Are We There Yet?” editor of the quarterly environmental magazine, JULY 6, http://prospect.org/article/are-we-there-yet)

"[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: 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:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17