The fifty states of the United States should
States solve – mass transit
Download 327.41 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- States solve mass transit – local is better for investment
- States create better transit service
- States solve – clean tek
- States solve clean energy tech - Federal Government has little control
- Interstate solutions are comparatively faster and more efficient then Federal policy
- Greater competition at the state level causes more effective innovation.
States solve – mass transitStates necessary to build mass transit – crucial to the economyMcGeehan 2/1 (Michael McGeehan, State Rep, Philadelphia, “McGeehan, Stack call for solution to state’s transportation infrastructure crisis” http://www.pahouse.com/pr/173020112.asp, Feb.1, 2012, SSR) Last year, approximately 1 million people used SEPTA daily to get to work, school, appointments, tourist attractions and more. More than 613 of those riders used the Holmesburg Junction Station, at 4799 Rhawn St., every day.¶ “Our regional rail lines are functional but they have been ignored for far too long,” Stack said. “The Holmesburg station has few passenger amenities and has had very few upgrades in the past 50 years. If we want to attract more residents and visitors to use SEPTA, we must make repairs and modernize. Holmesburg is just one example of the critical need to invest in our states public transit systems.” Infrastructure investment creates jobs immediately and has long-term economic benefits. According to Senate Democratic Caucus calculations, a $1 investment in public transportation generates $4 in new economic activity; a $100 infrastructure investment returns $350 to our economy; and a $1 billion investment in highway and bridge improvements supports 30,000 jobs.¶ “Structurally sound mass transit systems are crucial to our safety, our economy, our tourism and our prosperity,” Stack said. “This crisis must not be ignored any longer. It demands a comprehensive, long-term funding solution.” States solve mass transit – local is better for investmentO’Toole ’06 (Randal O’Toole, CATO, “A Desire Named Streetcar: How Federal Subsidies Encourage Wasteful Local Transit Systems,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa559.pdf, January 5th, 2006, SSR) The effectiveness of local transit systems is¶ undermined by federal subsidies, which encourage¶ the construction of highly visible and expensive services¶ such as light-rail trains to suburban areas¶ despite the chronically low number of riders on¶ those routes. Federal subsidies to transit advocacy regulations also encourage a large investment of taxpayer money in wasteful transit systems. The ideal solution would be to devolve transit and other transportation funding entirely to state and local governments. Short of that, Congress¶ should reform the federal transportation funding¶ system to minimize the adverse incentives it creates. States create better transit serviceO’Toole ’06 (Randal O’Toole, CATO, “A Desire Named Streetcar: How Federal Subsidies Encourage Wasteful Local Transit Systems,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa559.pdf, January 5th, 2006, SSR) Just as Congress¶ now includes thousands of earmarks in the¶ transportation reauthorization bills when a¶ few decades ago there were almost none, a¶ transportation bill amended as described¶ above would still be susceptible to powerful¶ members of Congress seeking exemptions¶ for their states or districts. In the long run,¶ the best solution for transit riders and taxpayers would be to get the federal government out of the urban transportation business entirely. Devolution of federal urban transportation programs to state and local governments would likely result in better transit service for transit-dependent people as well as better transportation for everyone else.¶ Transit agencies would be encouraged to¶ focus more on their customers and less on¶ powerful members of Congress who want to¶ build urban monuments. Supporters of better transportation policy should work¶ toward this goal before the next reauthorization¶ bill is due in five years. States solve – clean tekStates can reduce emissions and promote clean energy for carsClaussen, ‘8 (Eilee, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Speech: Eileen Claussen Remarks at Pew Center State-Federal Workshop, February 25,2008, Accessed 07/23/12, http://www.c2es.org/newsroom/speeches/eileen-claussen-remarks-pew-center-state-federal-workshop, RDP) States also recognize that they have real authority to reduce emissions. They are empowered to take action. States can promote clean electricity and energy efficiency with policy tools such as net metering, green pricing, and public benefit funds. States have authority to adopt building efficiency codes, which can have a major impact when you consider that energy use in buildings produces about 43 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. States also have great control over smart growth policies and transportation policies aimed at reducing emissions from cars and trucks. These are examples of things that fall within a state’s authority and in many instances, outside the authority of the federal government. States solve clean energy tech - Federal Government has little controlCEG' 12 (Clean Energy Group, "Clean Energy Federalism" , Accessed 07/23/12, http://www.cleanegroup.org/what-we-do/clean-energy-federalism/ RDP) It makes sense that states have been on the cutting edge of clean energy technology deployment. In addition to financial support for clean energy, through their utility regulators, states decide what kind of power plants — coal, oil, solar, or wind — are financed and built in the U.S. While the federal government can influence state energy investment decisions through research and development funding and tax incentives, federal agencies ultimately have little control over those electric power generation decisions. Interstate solutions are comparatively faster and more efficient then Federal policyTaylor '6 (Meggan , State Energy Solutions, “Trends Alert” Council of State Governments, http://www.csg.org/policy/enviro/documents/State_Energy_Solutions.pdf RDP) Because the federal government has been slow to meaningfully reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, states are working together to reduce domestic energy consumption, reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, and increase fuel diversity. The Western Governors’ Association created the Clean and Diversified Energy Advisory Committee to increase energy efficiency in all 18 participating states and three territories 20 percent by 2020.11 Seven Eastern states have come together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the creation of a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, setting a 10 percent emission reduction goal for 2019.12 Thirteen states have set aside specific funds for building renewable energy markets, and have created the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA) using those funds—focusing on research, information exchange, suggested policy and investment in clean energy corporations Greater competition at the state level causes more effective innovation.Lowry '92 (William, Department of Political Science at Washington U, phD from Stanford, Mba U of Illinois, Chicago “The Dimensions of Federalism: State Governments and Pollution Control Policies,” RDP) Fifth, the development of state political institutions has fostered competition in policy arena. Competition often takes the form of innovation and new ideas, thereby providing policy leadership. Evidence for institutional growth is found in all branches. Governorships have centralized and consolidated. All but three states now have four-year terms for their governors and allow successive terms. Further, governors now have power to make more appointments and veto more legislation. All but seven state legislatures now meet annually and have become more like the national legislature in terms of longevity, salaries, and committee structure. State courts have become more active and more involved in numerous areas. Finally, state bureaucracies have paralleled elected bodies in their growing sophistication and professionalization. While the impact of each individual change is debatable, together they at least suggest increasing activity at the state level. 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 327.41 Kb. Share with your friends:
|