Affirmative Evidence Packet
Download 0.65 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- General Solvency Extensions
- Now is the time
- Short term investment means long term solution
- Government investment is necessary. Even voluntary arrangements need government investment
Solvency ExtensionsThere are six different solvency “blocks” available for the affirmative to choose from and they each have a different purpose. We encourage you to read them carefully as the evidence can be used to make multiple arguments. The first block is a general set of arguments indicating that there is a need for federal support, that now is an appropriate time to fund the plan, and that federal support will lead to other groups supporting the plan. The second block is a defense of planning for equity planning. These arguments stress that it is possible to identify projects and areas in need of equity support. The third block stresses that investing in public and active transit is cost-beneficial. This evidence is very useful and might be helpful in answering the spending disadvantage. The fourth block is designed to prove that people will take advantage of these investments and actually use public transit and active transit systems if they are made available. The fifth block makes the case that public and active transit will improve public health. This occurs for multiple reasons outlined in the evidence. Public transit increases access to health care and healthy diets. Active transit increases exercise. And decreased auto traffic reduces pollution and lowers stress, both contributing to improved public health. The sixth block provides examples of past successes of increased investment in public and active transit. General Solvency Extensions
Gostin and Pomeranz, 2009. (Lawrence O. Gostin, Georgetown University Law Center and Jennifer L. Pomeranz, Yale University) “Improving Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37:62-75 (Supp. 1 2009), http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/486 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1729227 Public transit is currently seeing record-high ridership, with more than 10.3 billion riders annually, and the demand is expected to continue as gas prices remain high.39 For public transportation to grow and meet the rising demand, more funding will be required from federal, state, and local sources. Rising fuel costs and the need to upgrade vehicles and deploy information technology are driving up public transportation costs across the country. New and expanded revenue sources must be identified. Transit systems are funded by multiple sources. Most get substantial annual funds from the federal government — called “formula” funds because they are based on population — and many also get discretionary funds for bus purchases. The discretionary funds are often referred to as earmarks. The single most important role public health advocates can play in supporting public transportation is to push for additional funding under the federal six-year transportation bill that will expire in November 2009. This bill, called the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) is the primary federal legislation that authorizes programming, sets priorities, and allocates funds over a six-year period for all modes of transportation. The reauthorization of this bill is an opportunity to provide new funding mechanisms and significant increases in federal funding for public transportation.40 The current transportation bill for 2004-2009 included about $53 billion for public transportation.41 Advocates say that figure will need to be increased substantially to supply the country with safe and efficient public transportation throughout the urban communities and into rural areas as well.42
John Preston 2009 Transportation Research Group, School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, “Epilogue: Transport policy and social exclusion—Some reflections” Transport Policy 16 (2009) 140–142 It may be that the time for talking is over—the need for action has become paramount. For all the focus on combating social exclusion over the last decade or so, in most advanced economies inequalities, at least in terms of income, have widened (OECD, 2008). There is a need for more demonstration projects that tackle head-on the issues surrounding transport-related social exclusions. These projects should be aimed at the city or regional scale rather than the more micro-scale projects such as those reviewed by Lucas et al. in this Special Issue or the recent work of Bristow et al. (2008). They should not necessarily be targeted at pre-conceived hotspots of economic deprivation nor particularly targeted at perceived disadvantaged groups. They should be comprehensive in their coverage. For example, in the UK a sustainable travel demonstration town could be set up with a specific remit to pay full attention to the social aspects of the sustainability concept and hence meet transport-related social exclusion head-on. Alternatively, or preferably additionally, a locale might be established as a centre of excellence in polices to tackle social exclusion with transport policies enacted in combination with the whole gamut of other sectoral policies that might reduce social exclusionary processes. It is likely that the current global recession will have increased the need to deal with issues concerning social exclusion and transport policy may be one of the most appropriate tools to provide short to medium term redress. Now is the time for action. General Solvency Extensions
Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740 Thus, policy makers and advocates, as well as researchers themselves, must be careful not to overstate the strength of the available evidence; cross-sectional results are often cited as evidence that an intervention will cause a certain outcome (Winship and Morgan, 1999). On the other hand, the absence of a body of intervention studies that provides strong evidence of the effects of an intervention does not mean that communities should not attempt walking and cycling interventions. After all, cross- sectional studies can provide solid evidence on potentially promising approaches. The body of intervention studies will only grow if communities are willing to try new approaches--and to work with researchers to rigorously evaluate them. In the meantime, interventions can be taken on with a realistic but not overly confident assessment, based on available evidence, of their potential.
Lindholm, 2011, (Raymond Lindholm, Georgia State University College of Law, Center for Health, Law, & Society) “Combating childhood obesity: A survey of laws affecting the built environments of low-income and minority children”, Review of Environment and Health 2011 While there exists a growing public awareness of the problem, scientific understanding of its mechanisms and desire on a broad level to implement effective solutions, it is important to acknowledge that there are also barriers to changing the built environment. Changing infrastructure is a slow and costly process, and investors want constant and predictable rules that protect their investments. As a result, there may be entrenched and well-funded interests that will fight to keep the status quo. However, there is one thing that is inevitable: the built environment will change. Old buildings and infrastructure are being replaced and renovated at every moment. As more information is gathered on the extent of the problem, there will be greater political will to enact tough changes. Implementing positive policy changes now will bear fruit for years on down the road. That is the nature of the built environment. In a certain sense, that is a point of optimism. We do not have to change the whole system overnight. The system is changing and evolving. We only just need to guide it as it changes, so that our children can live healthy, full lives regardless of their racial or socioeconomic backgrounds.-
Karen Lucas, 2012, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, ‘Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?” Transport Policy 20 (2012) 105–113 What is clear from the case studies that are already available is that there is no panacea for addressing the problem of transport- related exclusion. One size definitely does not fit all and so many more examples are needed of what does and does not work in practice, within different geographical and social contexts and for different groups of people. If properly designed and delivered, public transport can provide a part of this solution, but it is most likely that other forms of more flexible (and often informal) transport services will be needed to complement these mainstream services. This does not come cheap and, as the UK experience demonstrates, if not properly supported and subsidised, these complementary measures will not deliver their desired outcomes Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012 2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? 2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco 2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching 2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates 2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge 2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians 2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak 2012 -> William goldman 2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review Download 0.65 Mb. Share with your friends:
|