The fifty states of the United States should

Download 327.41 Kb.

Page	10/11
Date	01.02.2018
Size	327.41 Kb.
	#38482

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

States solve – equity

States use highway construction to better equity

Transportation Equity Network 11 ( TEN is a campaign of Gamaliel, a faith-based organization with regional affiliates around the United States, “ The Road To Good Jobs: Making Training Work Boosting construction job access through training and apprenticeship programs”, October 2011, http://transportationequity.org/Making-Training-Work-ExecSummary.pdf)
The on-the-job training (OJT) and apprenticeship programs administered by state Departments of Transportation are an indispensible first step toward expanding job access for women and minorities in the highway construction field. If transportation investments are to fuel an equitable economic recovery, states must make robust use of these training programs to break down historical barriers and help build careers, lives, and communities. The Transportation Equity Network (TEN) report The Road to Good Jobs: Making Training Work presents the first-ever compilation of data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia on the use of OJT and apprenticeship programs to boost job access for minorities and women in the federal highway construction field.

Missouri and Ohio prove states can solve equity

Renn 10 (Aaron M Reen is a leading national writer on urban affairs and have been a policy advisor to senior leaders in several public and private sector organizations in this space, “REFORMING ANTI-URBAN BIAS IN TRANSPORTATION SPENDING”, 02/04/2010, http://www.newgeography.com/content/001391-reforming-anti-urban-bias-transportation-spending)
Exhibit A is transportation. Two-thirds of Americans live in large metro areas, yet less than half the federal transportation stimulus funds are going to the top 100 metro areas. Missouri is spending half its stimulus money on 89 small counties that account for only a quarter of the state's population. In Ohio, the state cancelled plans to spend $100 million in stimulus funds on the crumbling Cleveland Inner Belt bridge in order to divert them to paying for a $150 million bypass around Nelsonville – a town of only 5,000 people. This is part of a plan to construct a four lane divided highway into sparsely populated southeast Ohio as part of a “build it and they will come” economic development plan. Mecklenburg County, NC, the state's largest and home to Charlotte, received only $7.8 million out of the first $423 million in projects in that state. The Atlantic Monthly described this as a contest between a “mayor's stimulus” and a “governor's stimulus” - and the governor won.

States solve urban planning – grants.

Logan 2004 (eHow Mom, Catalina Logan, skilled mom, “Urban Sustainability Grants,” 13/11/04, eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7758453_urban-sustainability-grants.html#ixzz21VdV8Jg0, azp)
State Government Grants Grants at the state government level can also support smaller efforts that contribute to urban sustainability goals. In Wisconsin and California, grants have been awarded to local governments across the states to help communities develop and adopt plans that will address long-term needs, promote commerce and guide land-use decisions in the future. In New York state, environmental restoration activities can get funding under the state's Environmental Restoration Program.

States support equitable development by targeting location-efficient areas

Cohen 11

(Rebecca Cohen, Senior Policy Analyst at Bipartisan Policy Center, former Senior Research Associate at Center for Housing Policy, “State Policy Options to Support Sustainable

and Equitable Development,” September 2011, http://www.nhc.org/media/documents/ORAMstate_brief_final.pdf)
Increasingly, states are recognizing the benefits of targeting infrastructure, housing, and economic development investments in a coordinated fashion to location-efficient areas. These are areas where residents can reduce the number and duration of necessary car trips, such as neighborhoods within walking distance of public transit stations or within walking, biking, or short driving distance of job centers, as well as village or town centers. Among many other benefits, policies to foster location-efficient development can generate: ` Savings on public infrastructure costs due to more intensive utilization of both existing and new infrastructure investments, such as water, sewer, and roadways ` Reductions in energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, commute times, and traffic congestion due to reductions in the number and frequency of necessary car trips ` Increased ridership to support public transit ` Economic growth arising from the clustering of people, jobs, and businesses While desirable in many respects, the targeting of infrastructure investments to location-efficient areas can also have the unintended consequence of stimulating sizable increases in nearby land costs that price out the low- and moderate-income families who could benefit most from access to public transit and other amenities. Consider, for example, the impact of announcing a new light rail transit system. In many cases, developers will bid up the price of land around proposed stations based on the increased development potential of such well-located property. Similar price effects can sometimes be seen in neighborhoods undergoing more modest redevelopment activities as well. Unless balanced by an effective affordable housing strategy, rising land prices will displace existing low- and moderate income families, causing them to relocate to outlying locations and undermining many of the energy and infrastructure costs savings associated with location-efficient development. The solution to this dilemma is for state agencies and departments to encourage and support local policies that ensure that new development near transit stations and job centers and in village and town centers is affordable to families of all incomes. Such policies can help to: ` Provide equitable access to public transit and location-efficient areas by families of all incomes, races, and ethnicities ` Minimize displacement of existing residents, preventing a flight to more remote areas that would undermine the environmental and ridership goals of location-efficient development Increase the diversity and vitality of these communities ` Advance public health goals by expanding access to walkable neighborhoods and—by decreasing the combined costs of transportation and housing for low- and moderate-income families—increase the amount of funds such families have available to spend on nutritious food and health care

States can help build support for equitable development

States have jurisdiction over local transit and can increase transportation infrastructure in underprivileged areas

Bullard et al. '7 (Robert D. Bullard, Glenn S. Johnson, Angel O. Torres, "Dismantling Transportation Apartheid in the United States Before and After Disasters Strike" ABA, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol34_2007/summer2007/hr_summer07_bujoto.html)

The federal government funds most transportation projects in the United States, with most of the money's distributed via each state’s department of transportation (DOT) and the local metropolitan planning organization (MPO) of each city. MPOs are the official planning bodies for regions with populations over 200,000 and have existed since the 1960s. The state DOTs have responsibility for all areas not within the jurisdiction of the MPOs; these areas are referred to as transportation management areas.¶ Generally, MPOs are mandated to institute two types of plans before any type of transportation program can be funded: a regional transportation plan (RTP) and a transportation improvement program (TIP). By law, the RTP is a regional transportation blueprint extending for a minimum of twenty years into the future. The RTP must be updated every three years in areas that do not meet federal air quality standards. The RTP includes a balanced mix of projects such as bridges, bicycle paths, sidewalks, transit services, new and upgraded roadways, safety improvements, transportation demand management initiatives, and emission reduction strategies. The long-range RTP forms the basis upon which an annual short-range TIP is developed. The TIP is a list of projects that attempt to solve a region’s transportation problems with short-term solutions. Each year hard choices must be made about which improvements to move forward and which to defer. TIPs must be consistent with the long-range RTP and must conform to various state and federal regulatory requirements such as the Clean Air Act Amendments and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA—LU). The TIP allocates federal funds for use in the construction of the highest priority transportation projects. TIPs must cover at least three years, but in many areas they are developed with up to six years’ worth of projects. Only projects in the TIP may receive federal funding.¶ The most successful community groups participate in the TIP and RTP planning process and use the system to get what they want in terms of transportation investments, improvements, and services, from sidewalks to transit stations. People of color across the United States are fighting to get representation on transportation boards and commissions, and to get their fair share of transit services, bus shelters and other amenities, and handicap accessible vehicles. They also seek to maintain affordable fares. Some groups are waging grassroots campaigns to keep dirty diesel buses and bus depots from being dumped in their neighborhoods. These groups also struggle to get public transit systems linked to jobs and economic activity centers. They are challenging public transportation decisions and modernization and enhancement projects that have shortchanged poor people and people of color.¶

States solve – disaster response

States are key to disaster response.

WWU 2012 (Windwood Utilization, June 28 2012, “Disaster Response: State Governments,” http://www.windwoodutilization.org/disaster-response-state.asp, azp)
The links here are contact and informational sources for State governmental offices, governor, DEQ, DOT, forestry, extension, etc and are given along with some disaster reference material to assist states, communities, landowners, service providers and others to understand the process of disaster preparation and response on a state level particularly as it applies to woody debris and timber. It should be noted here that in a disaster situation all branches and departments of a state government including finance, health, marine resources, development authority and others not listed here play vital roles in planning, response, and recovery. Being excluded from this site is simply a reflection of this web site being focused on the utilization and response to woody debris and salvage timber.

States solve – they have their own disaster response programs. – states can request federal assistance – solves all your offense.

FEMA 2003 (FEMA, 10/08/03, State Disaster Management Course – IS 208, “Disaster Sequence of Events,” http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/downloads/is208SDMUnit3.pdf, azp)
When a local jurisdiction does not have the resources it needs to respond to a disaster, it turns to the State government for assistance. The State government may have many local jurisdictions requesting aid at the same time. State governments serve as agents for the local jurisdictions if Federal disaster assistance is needed. Local governments cannot directly access Federal programs.

State response includes…

1. Monitoring the situation.

2. Reviewing and evaluating local:

= SITREPs

= Response efforts

= Requests for assistance

3. Activating the State EOC to coordinate available State assistance.

4. Determining if the situation is beyond the capability of the State and if Federal assistance is needed.

5. Proclaiming a state of emergency by the Governor that:

= Activates the State Disaster Preparedness Plan;

= Provides for the use of State assistance or resources; and

= Begins the process for requesting Federal assistance.

6. Requesting Federal assistance. Requests can include:

= A request for “emergency” or “major disaster declaration” under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended; or

= A request to Federal agencies under their own authorities from existing or emergency programs, such as the Small Business Administration (SBA) or the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

State disaster planning and responsibility management is key to effective disaster response.

MIPT 2002 (MIPT, 2002, Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, “Oklahoma City – Seven Years Later,” http://www.apctoolkits.com/documents/fac/OklahomaCityBombing_7YearsLater.pdf, azp)
Coordination by the governor, the state director of emergency management, the mayor and other state and municipal agencies is critical to direct resources such as the state police and the National Guard and to channel assistance. PLANNING Educate Communities It is your job to educate municipal governments on what is available to them regarding state emergency plans. Develop a State Donations Management Plan A statewide plan should be developed and all local, state and federal agencies should incorporate this plan into their individual plans so that donations can be properly resourced, accounted for and managed. Train for Crime Scene Protection The National Guard has many functions to perform. Training some members to protect the site of a terrorist attack as a crime scene should be added to the list. RESPONSIBILITIES Life Goes on Away from the Scene Even a massive disaster usually leaves other parts of the city and state untouched and in need of routine support and services. If you permit the radius or duration of disruption to extend beyond what is necessary, you are increasing the effectiveness of a terrorist attack.

States solve – accidents

State action can solve vehicular safety

The positive relationship between vehicle size and safety is well established. Larger cars have more mass to absorb crash forces, and they have more interior space in which their occupants can "ride down" a collision before striking a dashboard or side pillar. The smallest cars have occupant death rates that are more than twice those of large cars.

The negative effects of CAFE standards on safety are widely documented. A 2002 National Academy of Sciences study concluded that CAFE's effect on vehicle downsizing contributed between 1,300 and 2,600 deaths annually and to 10 times that many serious injuries. A 1989 Brookings-Harvard study estimated that CAFE standards caused a 14 to 27 percent increase in occupant fatalities.45 A 1999 USA Today analysis concluded that, over its lifetime to that point, CAFE had resulted in about 46,000 additional fatalities.

States solve – ports

Only states have jurisdiction.

Fritelli 2004 (John F. Fritelli, Specialist in Transportation – Resources, Science and Industry Division, August 12 2004, Congressional Research Service – The Library of Congress, “Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress,” http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31733.pdf, azp)
Port Governance and Financing. In considering how to enhance seaport security, it is important to know how they are governed and operated. The governing structure of ports varies from place to place. While the federal government has jurisdiction over interstate and foreign commerce and designated federal waterway channels, state or local governments have ownership over ports. There are ports which are part of state government and others which are part of city government. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Delaware River Port Authority are examples of bi-state or regional port agencies. Ports can be a subsidiary of a public agency but may be structured to act as a private sector corporation. Most ports are “landlord ports,” which means the port provides the basic services and infrastructure but the tenant, such as a terminal operator, performs most of the activity. “Operating ports” both generate and carry out most of the activity at the port. In addition to city law enforcement personnel, some port authorities also have their own police forces. Depending on how they are structured, ports finance infrastructure improvements through a variety of means. Some may levy taxes, if they are granted this authority. Ports may also pay for infrastructure with the general funds they receive from the governments they are a part of, from operating revenues, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, trust fund monies, or loan guarantees. Most ports generally break even or are minimally profitable.

States can do the plan – the Urban Areas Security Initiative Port Grant Program empirically works in seaport infrastructure.

Brunet 2005 (A. Brunet, June 21 2005, This research was supported by the United States Department of Homeland Security through the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), grant number EMW-2004-GR-0112. However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect views of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,USC, Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, “GRANT FUNDING TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY,” http://www.usc.edu/dept/create/assets/001/50788.pdf, azp)

Beginning in fiscal year 2002, and directly in response to 9/11, the State Domestic Preparedness program grew in monetary funding.14 Fiscal year 2002 grants were allocated to all states and divided into funding for training, equipment, and planning for acts of terrorism. These grants included funding (1) for the purchase of specialized equipment to enhance the capability of state and local agencies to respond to incidents of terrorism involving the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), (2) for the protection of critical infrastructure, (3) for costs related to the design, development, conduct and evaluation of WMD exercises, and (4) for administrative costs associated with the implementation of the statewide domestic preparedness strategies. Further changes to the grant program emerged in fiscal years 2003-2005. In 2003, the ‘State and Local Domestic Preparedness Equipment Support Program’ changed in name and in scope. The program become the ‘State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP)’, subsuming the two previously existing programs and adding funding for first responder preparedness (training) and critical infrastructure preparedness (planning). Another significant change emerged in 2003 with the introduction of a new grant program, the Urban Areas Security Initiative. The UASI program provides discretionary grants to provide financial assistance to address the unique planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas, and to assist them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, respond to, and recover from threats or acts of terrorism. In fiscal year 2003, grants were directed to 7 selected U.S. urban areas15; the second stage of 2003 UASI funding provided financial assistance to 30 additional urban areas.16 UASI grants are project grants (not bound by a state minimum) and involve discretionary decisions by DHS federal agency officials on a project basis for specific geographic locations, incidents or programs.17 According to the grant application materials, funding for the 2004 UASI Program was determined by a formula using a combination of current threat estimates, critical assets within the urban area, and population density.18 The formula is a weighted linear combination of each factor, the result of which is ranked and used to calculate the proportional allocation of resources. Other grants emerged as applicable to certain infrastructure, such as grants directed to specific transit systems and ports, the UASI Transit System Security Grant Program (UASI Transit), and the UASI Port Security Grant Program (UASI Port).19 Twenty mass transit systems were identified to receive funding through the UASI Transit program, using a formula based upon ridership and total route miles, using only heavy rail and commuter rail systems. The UASI Port program provided funds for 14 port authorities. Although administered by the SLGCP, the UASI Port program has been coordinated with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which originally reviewed and selected project proposals identified for funding. Port funding is based upon identifying high threat ports in the country and certain Liberty Shield port areas.

A2 Perm – Port security

Federal involvement creates dual regulations and confusion, collapsing maritime security.

Jackovics 2010 (Ted Jackovics, Reporter @ Tampa Bay Online, April 21 2010, “State government report advises streamlining port security rules,” http://duke1.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/21/sp-state-government-report-advises-streamlining-po/, azp)
TAMPA - A recent state government report recommends the Legislature endorse the transfer of key seaport security plans and audits from the ports to federal and state law enforcement. The report states that current laws are confusing and costly. For example, federal laws require ports to plan against threats, even though the ports have no access to intelligence on which to base plans, and state law requires ports to protect empty fields and storage areas that pose no threat, the report states. TranSystems Corp. of Ford Lauderdale created the report for the state's emergency management and drug control offices. "The existence of dual regulations - by both Florida and the federal government, has created confusion, duplication of effort and wasted financial and human resources, all of which could be put to better use enhancing seaport security," the report states. The report was published in February and released last week to Port of Tampa. "The only available threat intelligence is general in nature and found through open source material or on the U.S. Coast Guard's web site," the report states. "Absent port-specific international, regional and local threat intelligence, seaports are left to speculate as to the risk they are obliged to mitigate."

That makes LNG strikes inevitable.

Raj 09 (Andrin Raj, visting research fellow, The Japan Institute for International Affairs (JIIA) Stratad Asia Pacific Research Center, 2009, “Japan’s initiatives in security cooperation in the straits of Malacca on maritime security and in southeast asia: piracy and maritime terrorism,”http://www2.jiia.or.jp/pdf/fellow_report/090331-Andrin_Raj.pdf, azp)

In addition to the high number of pirate attacks in the region, a number of which have involved the hijacking of more high-risk vessels, such as LNG, crude oil or other such inflammable chemical containers has led to worry that terrorist could use copycat methods to takeover a vessel for more sinister reasons. They could also higher local pirates to accomplish these attacks. A visit by Vice Admiral Terry Cross of the U.S. Coast Guard to Malaysia in 2005 told the media that the ease with which pirate attacks were taking place in the Straits of Malacca could “alert terrorist to the opportunities for seizing oil tankers” and that “these could be used as floating bombs”. xxix Similar remarks have been made by IMO on the hijacking of the MT Tri Samudra by pirates in the Straits of Malacca on its cargo of inflammable petrochemical products in 2005.xxx LNG tankers and their potential role in a scenario of this kind have probably received the most attention from security experts. In its liquid state, natural gas is not explosive, and it is in is in this form that it is shipped in large quantities via refrigerated tankers. Once in the open air, LNG quickly evaporates and forms a highly combustible visible cloud. It has been reported that if ignited the resulting fire could be hot enough to melt steel at a distance of 1.200 feet, and could result in second-degree burns on exposed skin a mile away.xxxi A fire of this magnitude would be impossible to extinguish and contrary to the littoral states of preparedness, they would not be able to handle the claustrophobic burning of the LNG. The fire will burn until all fuel is absorbed. The impact of such an attack in a port like Singapore would be devastating. There would be loss of life and severe structural damage in the immediate area. The most likely way a terrorist group would carry out such a major attack is using an LNG tanker rather than any other cargo, whereby to create an explosion onboard the vessel as it is rammed into the target. Although crude oil can be devastating, in my opinion is not of particular interest to terrorist groups to mount an attack using crude oil containers.

Outweighs nuclear war.

Lovins and Lovins 01 (Brittle Power, Amory Bloch Lovins (born November 13, 1947)[3] is an American environmental scientist and writer, Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute. He has worked in the field of energy policy and related areas for four decades. Harvard University-educated, he was named by Time magazine one of the World's 100 most influential people in 2009., L. Hunter Lovins (née Sheldon, born 1950) is an author and a promoter of sustainable development for over 30 years, is president of Natural Capitalism Solutions, a 501(c)3 non-profit in Longmont, Colorado and the Chief Insurgent of the Madrone Project, azp)
LNG is less than half as dense as water, so a cubic meter of LNG (the usual unit of measure) weighs just over half a ton.1 LNG contains about thirty percent less energy per cubic meter than oil, but is potentially far more hazardous.2 Burning oil cannot spread very far on land or water, but a cubic meter of spilled LNG rapidly boils into about six hundred twenty cubic meters of pure natural gas, which in turn mixes with surrounding air. Mixtures of between about five and fourteen percent natural gas in air are flammable. Thus a single cubic meter of spilled LNG can make up to twelve thousand four hundred cubic meters of flammable gas-air mixture. A single modern LNG tanker typically holds one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters of LNG, equivalent to twenty-seven hundred million cubic feet of natural gas. That gas can form between about twenty and fifty billion cubic feet of flammable gas-air mixture—several hundred times the volume of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. About nine percent of such a tankerload of LNG will probably, if spilled onto water, boil to gas in about five minutes.3 (It does not matter how cold the water is; it will be at least two hundred twenty-eight Fahrenheit degrees hotter than the LNG, which it will therefore cause to boil violently.) The resulting gas, however, will be so cold that it will still be denser than air. It will therefore flow in a cloud or plume along the surface until it reaches an ignition source. Such a plume might extend at least three miles downwind from a large tanker spill within ten to twenty minutes.4 It might ultimately reach much farther—perhaps six to twelve miles.5 If not ignited, the gas is asphyxiating. If ignited, it will burn to completion with a turbulent diffusion flame reminiscent of the 1937 Hindenberg disaster but about a hundred times as big. Such a fireball would burn everything within it, and by its radiant heat would cause third-degree burns and start fires a mile or two away.6 An LNG fireball can blow through a city, creating “a very large number of ignitions and explosions across a wide area. No present or foreseeable equipment can put out a very large [LNG]... fire.”7 The energy content of a single standard LNG tanker (one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters) is equivalent to seven-tenths of a megaton of TNT, or about fifty-five Hiroshima bombs.

A2s Perm

Federal organization hurt states and effectiveness

Mica 12 (John L. Mica, U.S. Representative, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, “Us needs long-term transportation bill to create jobs, stimulate economy The hill”, March 20, 2012, http://transportation.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1569, PS)
Unfortunately, we’ve allowed our critical road-and-bridge infrastructure to decay, and now available transportation dollars are scarce. Streamlining our federal transportation bureaucracy is long overdue. While not perfect, the House bill is a responsible and reasonable approach to getting us out of the ditch and on the road to actually repairing and maintaining our nation’s aging infrastructure. The increase in federal transportation program requirements over the years has also eroded the states’ ability to decide which of their diverse needs they need to address. Washington is too intrusive, and we need to get Big Brother out of the states’ way in making important transportation projects a reality. Proposed reforms provide states more authority to direct transportation funding to projects they choose. The bill not only takes decision-making out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats, it sends more net federal tax dollars back to states with less costly federal overhead and more flexibility. Another key reform in this bill is that it contains no earmarks, a clear difference compared to previous transportation bills. The last long-term law contained more than 6,300 earmarks. Even when funding is available, countless federal mandates have led to a project-approval process that bogs down infrastructure improvements. “Shovel-ready” has become a national joke because of federal red tape. Completing projects can take 15 years, while construction costs escalate, safety improvements lag and job creation is delayed. The House proposal condenses the project-review process to half the time, cuts red tape, allows concurrent agency reviews of projects, sets hard approval deadlines and delegates more authority to states. It is always difficult to significantly reform the way Washington does business, but the House’s responsible, long-term transportation-reform proposal will signal that we will not settle for the status quo and business as usual. This measure is the only choice that will demonstrate to taxpayers that Congress has heard their calls for real job creation, reform and better — not bigger — government.

Federal actions fails – State remedies solve better

A.G.C. ‘11

(“THE CASE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE & REFORM: Why and How the Federal Government Should Continue to Fund Vital Infrastructure in the New Age of Public Austerity” – THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA – AGC’s Case for Infrastructure & Reform in based in large part on comments from leaders, including those who participated in a March 2, 2011 panel discussion hosted by the association and The Weekly Standard, including Reason Foundation’s Robert Poole, Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton, Oklahoma Congressman James Lankford and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Bruce Josten. May 19^th – http://www.agc.org/galleries/news/Case-for-Infrastructure-Reform.pdf)

Give State and Local Officials More Flexibility Federal infrastructure programs have become overly prescriptive and insistent on one-size fits-all solutions. This limits the ability of state and local officials to create projects that meet federal needs while accommodating often unique situations. Aside from setting minimum safety standards and ensuring high levels of design and construction quality, federal infrastructure programs should eliminate the high cost of accepting federal funds by eliminating uniform requirements, including Buy America provisions, and the tremendous amount of paperwork that comes with those requirements.

Perm links most to spending

The flow of federal funding to the states for highways comes part-in-parcel with top-down regulations. The growing mass of federal regulations makes highway building more expensive in numerous ways. First, federal specifications for road construction standards can be more demanding than state standards. But one-size-fits-all federal rules may ignore unique features of the states and not allow state officials to make efficient trade-offs on highway design.

A second problem is that federal grants usually come with an array of extraneous federal regulations that increase costs. Highway grants, for example, come with Davis-Bacon rules and Buy America provisions, which raise highway costs substantially. Davis-Bacon rules require that workers on federally funded projects be paid "prevailing wages" in an area, which typically means higher union wages. Davis-Bacon rules increase the costs of federally funded projects by an average of about 10 percent, which wastes billions of dollars per year.

Ralph Stanley, the entrepreneur who created the private Dulles Greenway toll highway in Virginia, estimated that federal regulations increase highway construction costs by about 20 percent. Robert Farris, who was commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and also head of the Federal Highway Administration, suggested that federal regulations increase costs by 30 percent.

Finally, federal intervention adds substantial administrative costs to highway building. Planning for federally financed highways requires the detailed involvement of both federal and state governments. By dividing responsibility for projects, this split system encourages waste at both levels of government. Total federal, state, and local expenditures on highway "administration and research" when the highway trust fund was established in 1956 were 6.8 percent of construction costs. By 2002, these costs had risen to 17 percent of expenditures. The rise in federal intervention appears to have pushed up these expenditures substantially.

Perm doesn’t solve federalism

Perm fails – cooperative federalism doesn’t result in substantial benefits – it’s more likely to be used to justify federal domination of the states

Adler 5 (Jonathan, Associate Professor of Law and Associate Director. Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law., ARTICLE: Judicial Federalism and the Future of Federal Environmental Regulation, 90 Iowa L. Rev. 377)
While federal environmental laws grant expansive regulatory authority to federal agencies, most environmental statutes are implemented following a "cooperative federalism" mode l. n35 The federal government outlines the contours of a given regulatory program , typically through statutory mandates elaborated upon by regulatory measures. n36 States are then encouraged to implement the program in lieu of the federal government , in accordance with federal guidelines. Provided these standards are met, states are free to tailor the details of their individual programs to accommodate local conditions and concerns. In most cases the federal standards operate as a floor - albeit a highly prescriptive one - and states remain free to adopt more stringent measures. n37 State programs that meet federal standards are typically eligible for federal financial assistance.n38 States that fail to adopt adequate programs are not only denied the relevant federal funding, they can also be subject to various sanctions and federal preemption of their programs . n39 That is, if states refuse to regulate in accordance with federal guidelines, the federal government may regulate in their place. [*385] In this system, the states are "indispensable," though not "equal partners ." n40 While characterized as a "cooperative" structure, the federal-state relationship in environmental policy is often adversarial and ridden with conflict . n41 State officials "resent what they believe to be an overly prescriptive federal orientation toward state programs, especially in light of stable or decreasing grant awards," according to one recent study. n42 The proliferation of additional requirements without corresponding increases in federal financial assistance raises state and local concerns about "unfunded federal mandates." n43 To some observers, the partnership of cooperative federalism is more akin to a feudal relationship between a federal lord and state" vassals ." n44

States must either operate autonomously or be tools for the federal agency

Weiser 01 (Philip J. Weiser, Dean of the Law School, Thompson Professor of Law, and Executive Director and Founder of the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado, “FEDERAL COMMON LAW, COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM, AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE TELECOM ACT”, 19-NOV-01, http://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf, PS)
The lack of a coherent vision for the respective roles of federal agencies, state agencies, and federal courts in implementing cooperative federalism regulatory programs threatens to undermine their success. Cooperative federalism regulatory programs, which combine federal and state authority in creative ways, strike many courts and commentators as a messy and chaotic means of generating federal law. Compounding the hostility to such regimes, some argue that globalization and technological change leave little or no role for states in implementing complex regulatory regimes and thus endorse a “preemptive federalism” that relies primarily or exclusively on federal courts or administrative agencies to develop unitary and pinpointed federal policies. Attacking cooperative federalism programs from the other end of the spectrum, some focus on the importance of preserving states as sovereign and distinct entities, calling for a “dual federalism” that leaves the states as autonomous actors separated from the federal government.

Cooperation would undermine the state – proven by NAAQS

Rosenberg 90 (Ronald H. Rosenberg, College of William & Mary Law School, Scholarship Repository, Associate Dean, Academic Affairs, Chancellor Professor of Law, master of city and regional planning and law degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “Cooperative Failure: An Analysis of Intergovernmental Relationships and the Problem of Air Quality Non-Attainment”, 1990, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=facpubs, PS)
It was apparent that the true price for the uniform attainment of the NAAQS under the 1977 legislation would have to be paid at the state and local level. By focusing on stationary source and transportation control measures and setting forth enhanced planning and permitting regulatory requirements applicable only to sources in non-attainment areas, the Act established an undesirable classification surely unwanted by state and local governments. 91 For classification of part of a state's territory as nonattainment would limit its industrial growth and demand greater air quality planning effort. While operating within the general structure of the 1970 air quality planning program, the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments altered the principles of cooperative federalism stated by the prior Act: any idea that the air pollution law would harness the collaborative energies of equals was surely abandoned. The elements set out in subpart D specified state participation in terms of precise programmatic and permitting requirements. State government was to be viewed not as an equal partner in the pollution control effort but rather as an unwilling instrument of the federal air pollution policy. Within this revised statutory scheme, Congress gave little thought to the continuing relationship of the EPA and the states. While the ultimate objective of reaching attainment was clearly set out, little statutory attention was given to the direction of the EPA in its management of the subpart D program. The absence of guidance to the Agency combined with the lack of truly effective state inducements and sanctions created the potential for a program which would fail to achieve its purpose. Like its predecessor, the 1977 Act also failed to consider the possibility that attainment would not be achieved by the extended attainment dates. Possibly, this failure reflected its confidence in the new regulatory program and optimism about the program's eventual success. The experience since 1977 shows that this confidence was misplaced.

Federal agencies take total control

Somin 2 (Ilya Somin, clerk to Judge J.E. Smith, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 2002, Georgetown Law Journal)
The danger of federal control over state legislatures and executive bureaucracies is the touchstone of the Supreme Court's anti-commandeering decisions , New York v. United States and Printz v. United States. In these cases the Court established the principle that " the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement , by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs ." Federal commandeering of state governments is condemned because it takes control of state bureaucracies away from their own governments and "reduces [them] to puppets of a ventriloquist Congress ." According to the Court, Congress "may not conscript state governments as its agents ."

Federal agencies roll over state agencies

Weissman 11 (Steven Weissman, associate director of UC Berkeley's Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment, “Putting Cooperation Into Cooperative Federalism”, February 15, 2011, PS)
When federal law tells a federal agency to consult with the states before issuing its rules, what is the agency obliged to do? Is it enough to allow the states to file comments on a proposed rule, or to invite their representatives to speak at a public hearing? According to the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Cal Wilderness v. U.S. Department of Energy, at least when it comes identifying critical areas for new electric transmission lines, the answer is “no.” Traditionally, when siting new transmission lines, the states determined whether the line was needed and, if so, where to put it. Proponents of vigorous wholesale power markets and long-distance movement of renewable power became worried that the traditional approach was a recipe for gridlock. When a transmission line would cross state borders, it could only take one not-so-interested state to stop an important project. With its passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress tried to address this concern by granting limited “backstop” transmission siting authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But it was left to the Department of Energy to define the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors in which FERC would be allowed to exercise its jurisdiction. Congress required that DOE consult with the states before designating those corridors. DOE caught many states by surprise when it announced its two proposed “corridors”. One cut a broad swath across Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. The other included parts of southern Arizona and all of southern California. These were hardly corridors in the traditional sense — more like broad jurisdictional strongholds. FERC would be free to overrule the states concerning not just the large, interstate lines, but also the smallest, shortest line that might be contemplated for construction anywhere within the “corridors”. The effected states voiced their disapproval through filed comments and public statements, but DOE did little else to work through the states’ concerns. The federal law in question called for DOE to consult with the states, but did not specify the nature of the consultation. DOE found these instructions to be ambiguous, and suggested to the court that this left the agency free to adopt any reasonable interpretation. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. The common definition of “consult” is “confer,” and DOE had made no effort to confer with the states. According to the court,” Congress intended that affected States would participate in a study…” Despite this intent, “(n)o draft was circulated to the States, no committee was created that included representatives from the States, and the affected States were not given access to the supporting data.” The Ninth Circuit also rejected DOE’s assertion that, if it erred, the error was harmless. “DOE admits that its determinations and conclusions in the Congestion Study were not decisions compelled by some mathematical formulae, but important discretionary decisions for which there was little guidance. The value of consulting with an agency before it makes a decision is greatest when the agency is tasked with adopting a ‘novel approach’ that will then affect all stakeholders. In such a situation, as here, a court can hardly conclude that the agency’s refusal to consult with the affected States had no bearing on the substance of the decision reached.” Even if the court had not invalidated the corridor determination based on a failure to cooperate with the states, it would have rejected it based on a failure to consider the environmental consequences of its actions.

A2 No money

State Budgets have the money and are more efficient in building transportation infrastructure

Holler '12 (Dan, Communications Director for Heritage Action for America, "Thinking Outside the Beltway" April, 4, 2012, http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/paying-for-it.php#2190872)
When it comes to the problem of how to pay for our nation’s transportation needs, the temptation in Washington is to view Washington as the solution. After tens of billions in Highway Trust Fund bailouts and nine short-term extensions, it is clear Washington does not hold the answer. The real answer is outside the beltway. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell recently scoffed at the idea of looking beyond Washington for transportation funding solutions, saying proponents of such a move “haven’t looked at any of the state budgets recently.” But the Governor misses the point. It is not that states are awash in cash (the federal government isn’t either), but rather that states are much more efficient. Last year, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels explained his state “can build in 1/2 the time at 2/3 the cost when we use our own money only and are free from the federal rulebook.” Literally just outside the Washington Beltway, a private company is adding four high-occupancy toll lanes for half the cost the government projected, and the lanes are better designed, too. Instead of looking for an innovative solution, too many in Congress prefer to debate various funding mechanisms for months on end knowing they will settle for a gimmick that ensures insolvency. There is a better way; lawmakers just need to know where to look.

States help complete Infrastructure more effectively – Prevents Paralysis in Washington

Horowitz '12 (Daniel, "A Real Solution to the Gridlock Over the Highway Bill" Madison Project, http://madisonproject.com/2012/03/a-real-solution-to-the-gridlock-over-the-highway-bill/)
There is no doubt that many localities are in need of some infrastructure updates. But there is an obvious solution to this problem. Let’s stop pooling the gas tax revenue of all 50 states into one pile for the inane and inefficient process of federal transportation policy. Every state, due to diverse topography, population density, and economic orientation, has its own transportation needs. By sucking up all the money into one pile in Washington, every district is forced to beg with open arms at the federal trough. Moreover, a large portion of the transportation funds are consumed by federal mandates for wasteful projects, mass transit, Davis-Bacon union wages, and environmental regulations. This is why we need to devolve most authority for transportation projects to the states. That way every state can raise the requisite revenue needed to purvey its own infrastructure projects. The residents of the state, who are presumably acquainted with those projects, will easily be able to judge on the prudence of the projects and decide whether they are worth the higher taxes. If they want more airports, mass transit, or bike lanes, that’s fine – but let’s have that debate on a local level. We have been promoting Tom Graves’s (H.R. 3264) devolution bill for some time in these pages. Since the completion of the interstate highway system, there is complete connectivity between the east and west coasts – the original purpose of the federal highway fund. Graves’s bill would leave a few cents of the gas tax revenue in the fund to cover projects that are still national in scope. The rest would be up to the states; freeing Washington of the paralysis, waste, and fraud that is associated with the lobbyist-driven earmarking process that has defined our transportation policy for far too long. The next time your members of Congress complains about being hamstrung from the earmark ban, ask them if they plan to cosponsor the devolution bill.

Federal financing schemes are less sustainable – states can spend best without federal intervention

The federal government plays a large role in transportation policy through subsidy programs for state governments and a growing array of regulatory mandates. Modern federal highway aid to the states began in 1916. Then the interstate highway system was launched in 1956 and federal involvement in transportation has been growing ever since.¶ Today, the interstate highway system is long complete and federal financing has become an increasingly inefficient way to modernize America's highways. Federal spending is often misallocated to low-value activities, and the regulations that go hand-in-hand with federal aid stifle innovation and boost highway costs.¶ The Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration will spend about $52 billion in fiscal 2010, of which about $11 billion is from the 2009 economic stimulus bill.1 FHWA's budget mainly consists of grants to state governments, and FHWA programs are primarily funded from taxes on gasoline and other fuels.2¶ Congress implements highway policy through multi-year authorization bills. The last of these was passed in 2005 as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Congress will likely be reauthorizing highway programs in 2011, and it is currently pursuing many misguided policy directions in designing that legislation.¶ One damaging policy direction involves efforts to reduce individual automobile travel, which will harm the economy and undermine mobility choice. Another damaging policy direction is the imposition of federal "livability" standards in transportation planning. Such standards would federalize land-use planning and pose a serious threat to civil liberties and the autonomy of local communities. Finally, ongoing federal mandates to reduce fuel consumption have the serious side effect of making road travel more dangerous. The federal government pursues these misguided goals by use of its fiscal powers and regulatory controls, and by diverting dedicated vehicle fuel taxes into less efficient forms of transportation.¶ This essay reviews the history of federal involvement in highways, describing the evolution from simple highway funding to today's attempts to centrally plan the transportation sector. It describes why federal intervention reduces innovation, creates inefficiencies in state highway systems, and damages society by reducing individual freedom and increasing highway fatalities.¶ Taxpayers and transportation users would be better off if federal highway spending, fuel taxes, and related regulations were eliminated. State and local governments can tackle transportation without federal intervention. They should move toward market pricing for transportation usage and expand the private sector's role in the funding and operation of highways.  ¶ rating in open markets. 

States Fund Through Tolls

Roth ‘10 (Federal Highway Funding “Federal Intervention Increases Highway Costs” June 2010 by Gabriel Roth, civil engineer and transportation economist at the Independent Institute http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding)

One of the promising advances to relieving urban congestion is High-Occupancy or Toll (HOT) highways. Networks of HOT lanes can be structured for use by vehicles with payment of variable tolls combined with buses at no charge. The tolls are collected electronically and set at levels high enough to ensure acceptable traffic conditions at all times. A current obstacle to expanding HOT lane programs is that it is difficult to add tolls to roads constructed with federal funds.¶ The first HOT lanes in the United States were introduced in 1995 on California's State Route 91 near Anaheim. The California Private Transportation Company conceived, designed, financed, constructed, and opened two pairs of "express lanes" in the median of a 10-mile stretch of the highway.40 Express lane users pay tolls by means of identifiers, similar to those used by EZPass systems, with the payments debited electronically from accounts opened with the company.¶ Following the lead of the private sector, California's public sector implemented a similar project on Route I-15 north of San Diego. It has also proven popular. The rates charged on the I-15 lanes are varied automatically in real time to respond to traffic conditions. HOT lanes have also been implemented in Denver and Minneapolis, and are planned for the Washington, D.C., area. Payments for the use of roads can now be made as easily as payments for the use of telephones, without vehicles having to stop. Such changes in payment methods can have profound effects on the management and financing of roads.¶ If the federal government removed itself from highway financing, direct payments for road use could be made directly to state governments through tolls. These sorts of tolls are already in place in New York and New Jersey. An even better solution would be payment of tolls for road use directly to private highway companies, which would cut out government financing completely. This is now technically feasible.¶ Following the success of the HOT lanes in Southern California, many other projects are being pursued across the country. One project is in Northern Virginia. Fluor-Transurban is building and providing most of the funding for HOT lanes on a 14-mile stretch of the Capital Beltway. Drivers will pay to use the lanes with electronic tolling, which will recoup the company's roughly $1 billion investment.¶ HOT lane projects are attractive to governments because they can make use of existing capacity and because the tolls can pay for all or most of the costs. Such networks offer congestion-free expressways for those wanting to pay a premium price, in addition to reducing congestion on other roads and creating faster bus services. ¶ There are many exciting technological developments in highways, and ending federal intervention would make state governments more likely to seek innovative solutions. Technological advances—such as electronic tolling—have made paying for road services as simple as paying for other sorts of goods. In a world where a fuel tax that is levied on gasoline is an imperfect measure of the wear-and-tear each driver puts on roads, it is vital to explore better ways to finance highways. 

A2 No coordination

No unique link – federal investments are random and short-sighted.

Puentes ‘10

(Robert Puentes – Senior Fellow @ Brooking’s Metropolitan Policy Program – Congressional Testimony – Hearing on Infrastructure Banks – May 13, 2010 – http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/05/13-infrastructure-puentes)

The federal government spends about $65 billion each year on infrastructure—transportation, energy, water and environmental protection [1]. While the figure is not negligible, the investment in infrastructure is only 2.2 percent of total federal spending. More than three-quarters of this spending consists of transportation grants to state and local governments ($50.4 billion) [2]. While most of the attention has been on increasing funding for projects, there are also renewed calls to improve the way the federal government invests in infrastructure. Today, the federal government generally does not select projects on a merit basis, is biased against maintenance, and involves little long term planning. In this context, there is interest in a new federal entity for funding and financing infrastructure projects through a national infrastructure bank.

Delegation legit

Yes, our fiat is real-world. Delegation to States is advocated in best survey of policy-literature.

A.G.C. ‘11

Given the essential role the federal government clearly must play in investing in the nation’s infrastructure, as well as the significant problems with our current approach, it is clear that we need to rethink and reform virtually every aspect of our approach to infrastructure. That is why the Associated General Contractors of America has undertaken an exhaustive review of the many ideas currently being offered for reforming infrastructure. We’ve met with leading policy thinkers and former members of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, reviewed reports from two Congressionally-chartered study commissions, and even convened, in cooperation with The Weekly Standard, our own policy panel to discuss the best way to reform our approach to infrastructure. The association compiled those many reform proposals and has selected many of the most promising ones. In addition, we crafted new proposals based on many of the insights and observations others have made about our current infrastructure approach. In assembling and crafting these recommendations, we wanted to make sure that our proposed changes also help refocus the federal role exclusively on areas and projects that are clearly in the federal interest, and get the federal government out of other potentially worthwhile undertakings that should more suitably be handled at the state or local levels. Our recommendations include: Eliminate Transportation Spending Programs that Are Not Truly Federal Since the completion of much of the Interstate Highway System in the 1980’s, the federal surface transportation program has lost focus. Too many politicians have diverted gas tax revenue away from highway maintenance and expansions and instead use them to fund personal priorities. As a result, gas tax payers are being forced to fund programs designed to encourage children to walk to school, to preserve covered bridges that handle little to no interstate commerce, and to finance fitness and recreational facilities. As a result, less than 70 percent of Highway Trust Fund dollars go to road maintenance or capacity projects of any kind. Congress and the Administration should either eliminate these programs that are not truly federal and/or devolve them to state and local governments where they would be more appropriate.

Theory – 50 State Fiat Good

First is offense:

1. Negative ground – it’s the best core generic on the topic, and resolutionally grounded in the words ‘federal’ and ‘its.’

2. Best policy option – debate is a training ground for policymaking, this means the goal should be to search for the best policy – solves all of their offense. If the counterplan is a better world than the plan you have no reason to vote affirmative.

3. Topic specific education – debate about the state’s isn’t just limited to enactment, core of the topic literature exists about state vs. federal efficacy.

Peppard 2010 (Collin, National Resource Defense Council, “Getting Back on Track: States, Transportation Policy, and Climate Change,” pg online @ http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cpeppard/getting_back_on_track_states_t.html)
In the past, this blog has focused on what the federal government must do to address this problem. As important as the federal transportation bill is, we also must remember that the 50 states are in a unique position to bring down transportation-related GHG emissions. States have a major role in making transportation policy decisions, and are responsible for directing massive amounts of funding to transportation projects across the country.

Next, defense:

1. Real world – absent federal action states enact transportation policy, proves it’s a real world debate.

Puentes 2011 (Robert, senior fellow with the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program where he also directs the Program's Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative, “State Transportation Reform: Cut to Invest in Transportation, to Deliver the Next Economy,” pg online @ http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/2/22%20infrastructure%20puentes/0222_infrastructure_puentes.pdf)
In the absence of federal action, the debate on transportation policy will shift to the state level. Few areas of policy are as critical to states’ long term economic health. Transportation is also a relatively significant portion of most states’ budgets. At 7.9 percent of general state expenditures, “transportation” generally ranks third among state spending categories after only “education” and “public welfare,” though this varies quite a bit among the states (Alabama ranks last at 3.1 percent; Nevada ranks first at 16.7 percent. Missouri is the median at 10.7 percent).1

2. Reciprocity – they fiat numerous independent actors in different senators and representatives.

3. No ground loss – states is at the core of predictability– they still have access to federalism impact turns and disads to state action – not our fault they weren’t prepared to debate the biggest process counterplan on the topic.

4. Reject the argument not the team – blanket rejection rewards procedure over actual content – they haven’t proved a reason why this argument made it harder for them to beat our other positions.

5. Err neg on theory –

a. Structural bias – the aff has infinite prep, the first and last speech, and gets to pick the grounds for the debate.

b. Topic bias – the topic is a positive action which explodes aff ground – means that generics like the states CP are uniquely key to checking squirrelly affs.

Federalism ev

Federal transportation legislation strips the states of authority, tipping the balance away from the states

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:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11