States Counterplan
Generic States Solvency
States Solve – Funding
States solve best – Flexible funding mechanisms allow for innovation
Dickers and Mattingly, 09 Dickers, Greg, and Justin Mattingly. "How States and Territories Fund Transportation."Ibtta.org.
IBTTA, 2009. Web. 28 June 2012. <http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/How%20States%20fund%20transportation%20strategies.pdf>.
Recognizing the need for new ways to complement and address gaps in traditional funding sources,
states are looking to a number of innovative funding and financing tools for transportation. According to
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), innovative financing encompasses a combination of techniques and mechanisms that include new
or nontraditional sources of revenue; new financing mechanisms designed to leverage resources; new funds management techniques; and new
institutional arrangements. 38 It also includes new approaches to more traditional instruments, such as new bonding authorities and
congestion-pricing-based tolling. Leading
categories of new and innovative transportation funding and
financing include the following: New debt financing strategies, including new bonding authority,
federal credit assistance, and state infrastructure banks; Congestion and cordon pricing; Public-private
partnerships; Vehicle miles traveled fees; and Other programs such as international vehicle emissions
fees, impact fees, container fees, and traffic camera fees
States Solve – Bonds
State governments can utilize bonds to effectively construct transit facilities
Atlanta Regional Commision. No Date. "Financing Transportation." Atlantaregional.com. Atlanta Regional Commision,
n.d. Web. <http://www.atlantaregional.com/transportation/financing-transportation>.
The State of Georgia also issues bonds to construct roads and transit facilities. Bonds
are a valuable tool enabling needed
facilities to be built sooner than the traditional pay as you go method. Bonds can be backed and
transportation projects can be funded from a variety of anticipated state revenue sources including
state motor fuel funds, federal transportation funds, toll revenue, or any combination of these
sources. The most recent State bonding program for transportation investment was Governor Sonny Perdue’s Fast Forward Congestion
Relief Program, which is a 6-year $15.5 billion program enacted in 2004 to relieve congestion and spur economic growth through the
acceleration of programmed projects. It is important to note that bonds are not new sources of funding but are used to optimize cash flow and
build infrastructure sooner than current revenues could allow. Bonds must be paid back over time out of future revenues from taxes or user
fees.
Solvency-Private Activity Bonds can fund state transportation
Dickers and Mattingly, 09 Dickers, Greg, and Justin Mattingly. "How States and Territories Fund Transportation."Ibtta.org.
IBTTA, 2009. Web. 28 June 2012. <http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/How%20States%20fund%20transportation%20strategies.pdf>.
Private Activity Bonds (PABs) were authorized for highway and intermodal transfer stations in 2005.
That year, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amended the
Internal Revenue Code to include “qualified highway or surface freight transfer facilities” as eligible
projects for tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs), which can finance projects that meet certain public
purpose criteria. In other words, any conceivable highway project, as well as intermodal transfer stations,
is eligible for PABs. Tax-exempt PABs are limited to straight-line depreciation, and only 25 percent of the funds can be used for real
estate. The total amount of private activity bonding that a state can issue is subject to annual federal limits. 45 Currently, the nationwide
volume cap for PABs is $15 billion, as authorized by SAFETEA-LU.
States Solve – GARVEEs
State funding best - Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles can fund transportation
investment
Dickers and Mattingly, 09 Dickers, Greg, and Justin Mattingly. "How States and Territories Fund Transportation."Ibtta.org.
IBTTA, 2009. Web. 28 June 2012. <http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/How%20States%20fund%20transportation%20strategies.pdf>.
Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs) GARVEEs, or GARVEE bonds,
are any debt financing instrument (bond, note,
by a state whose principal and interest are repaid primarily by future
federal-aid funds. 41 Authorized under Section 122 of Title 23, U.S. Code, GARVEEs generate up-front capital for major
transportation projects at tax exempt rates. They can be used for almost any highway project or
transit project, including the purchase of transit vehicles or connections to intermodal ports and
stations. 42 Before their creation in 1995, states could not use federal-aid funds to support bonding. As
of 2008, 30 states and territories were authorized to use federal-aid funds provided under Section 122
Title 23, U.S.C. GARVEE bonds, with 32 issuances worth $9.3 billion, or approximately 40 percent of
state bonds for transportation purposes. 43 An additional five states issued eight “indirect” GARVEEs that pledge other future
certificate, mortgage, or lease) issued
sources of federal highway funds for debt service and repayment. Through the end of 2007, the total dollar amount of state GARVEE-related
transactions had grown to $7.6 billion. Individual issuances range from relatively small amounts of under $40 million in New Mexico and Ohio
to extremely large issuances of over a half-billion dollars in California, Colorado, and Georgia. A $750 million GARVEE issuance has been
approved for a single project in Maryland.
States Solve – TIFIA
The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act makes funding most
efficient
Dickers and Mattingly, 09 Dickers, Greg, and Justin Mattingly. "How States and Territories Fund Transportation."Ibtta.org.
IBTTA, 2009. Web. 28 June 2012. <http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/How%20States%20fund%20transportation%20strategies.pdf>.
Through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program, the federal government
provides credit assistance for nationally or regionally significant transportation projects. TIFIA
provides three forms of assistance to eligible state project sponsors: direct loans, loan guarantees,
and lines of credit. TIFIA credit assistance can cover up to 33 percent of total project costs. Eligible
projects must be supported at least partially with user charges or other nonfederal, dedicated funding
sources and must be designed to attract private investment in transportation infrastructure. 51 As of
April 2009, 17 projects in 12 states and territories have used TIFIA financing worth $6 billion. In Texas, for
example, a TIFIA loan agreement was executed with a private partner to construct two segments of a new 91 mile tollway. About one-third of
the project’s $1.3 billion total cost is a direct TIFIA loan, 15 percent of the cost is borne by the private partners, and a little more than half
comes from bank loans. 52
States Solve – Decentralization
State action solves - Decentralization allows for innovation at the local level which is
key
Edwards 11 Edwards, Chris. "Federal Infrastructure Investment." The Cato Institute. The Cato Institute, 16 Nov. 2011. Web. 27 June
2012. <http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/federal-infrastructure-investment>.
The U.S. economy needs infrastructure, but state and local governments and the private sector are
generally the best places to fund and manage it. The states should be the "laboratories of democracy" for infrastructure,
and they should be able to innovate freely with new ways of financing and managing their roads,
bridges, airports, seaports, and other facilities. It is true that — like the federal government — the states
can make infrastructure mistakes. But at least state-level mistakes aren't automatically repeated
across the country. If we ended federal involvement in high-speed rail, for example, California could continue to move ahead with its
own system. Other states could wait and see how California's system was performing before putting their own taxpayers on the hook. A big
step toward devolving infrastructure financing would be to cut or eliminate the federal gasoline tax
and allow the states to replace the funds with their own financing sources. President Reagan tried to partly
devolve highway funding to the states, and more recent legislation by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) would move in that
direction.15 Reforms
to decentralize highway funding would give states more freedom to innovate with the
financing, construction, and management of their systems.
States Good – Economic Flexibility
CP Solves - states needed for our economy – Washington fails to solve current issues
Jennifer Bradley, Bruce Katz, and Amy Liu, November 2010, Metropolitan Policy Program, Great Lakes Economic Initiative
directors/ contributors, Cato institute, Delivering the Next Economy: The States Step Up,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2010/11/17-states-next-economy, [6/26/12])
37 governors, many of them new, will take office facing daunting challenges, including many
immediate needs for which there is precious little time or money to meet. But at the same time, they
have an opportunity to lead their states, and the nation, into the next economy, which must be driven by
exports, powered by low carbon, fueled by innovation, rich with opportunity. An economy with those characteristics will
also be metropolitan-led. Leadership at the state level will be crucial, as the political environment in
Washington, DC is very likely to produce little more than partisanship and rancor . We must instead
rely on the kind of innovation at the state level that has so often propelled our federalist system.
In January,
Deeper budget cuts and more public sector layoffs will not re-balance and re-start our economy. Only wise, strategic investment does that.
States should, therefore, do three things to revive their state economies and lay the groundwork for future prosperity: 1)
Invest in new
ways to support the assets that drive the next economy. The next economy will be created through
smart public and private interventions around the assets that matter: innovation, human capital,
infrastructure and quality of place. Making these investments requires significant policy reforms because
current policies are out of synch with both the changing structure and metropolitan geography of the
economy. Thus, states will likely need a new network of market-oriented, private-sector-leveraging, performance-driven institutions. These
investments and institutions do not necessarily require new public resources, but they do demand that existing dollars be spent in a sharper,
more targeted, metro-aware fashion. 2) Cut to invest to jumpstart the transition to the next economy. At this point in the state fiscal crisis, the
simple cuts and program reorganizations have been made already. Now, new or incumbent governors have to make some tough, long-delayed
decisions. This includes shifting money out of legacy programs that lack accountability, do not focus on metros, or are not oriented to the next
economy, and using it to support the assets that matter, such as education, innovation, and infrastructure. Governors may also need to turn to
voters for new dedicated taxes or other new sources of state revenue, validated by voter referenda. 3) Leverage investments through smart
metropolitan strategies. The benefits of state investments are amplified when they are aligned with the specific advantages of particular
metropolitan areas, whether that is a group of interconnected firms in a particular economic sector, or strength in fast-growing service exports,
or globally powerful research institutions or community colleges that develop customized job training. States can provide rich, comparable data
sets to help metropolitan areas quickly understand market strengths. They can provide small investments in regional capacity, such as cluster
grants. Perhaps most critically, states can break out of agency silos that no longer match economic or geographic imperatives and create crossagency teams that focus on delivering what regions say they need to succeed. None of these efforts are especially expensive: most of them aim
to use existing resources in a more targeted and efficient way. While the current political climate in Washington makes major reforms difficult
there are some tasks that the federal government must take to help states and metropolitan areas move forward in the next economy. The
federal government must modernize the tax code to stop encouraging consumption and instead fostering production. It should commit to new
investments in transportation. And it could reprise a familiar bargain with states and metros: more flexibility to experiment in return for stricter
The next decade will be one of the most disruptive in American history, given
broader trends of global restructuring, demographic transformation, low carbon imperatives and
technological possibilities. For political, fiscal, and structural reasons, neither metros, nor states, nor Washington can rise to the
accountability standards.
complexities of the moment by themselves. But for these same political, fiscal and structural reasons, the states are best positioned to take the
lead in bringing the nation into the next economy. “The States Step Up” is the first in a series of policy innovation briefs that will be coming
from the Metropolitan Policy Program in the months ahead. Future briefs will provide detailed recommendations on how states can wisely and
cost-effectively support regional industry clusters; bolster exports; devise new approaches to infrastructure spending; promote advanced
manufacturing; connect higher education and workforce development; repurpose urban land to spark an economic revival; and overhaul their
patchwork of local governments. Over time, the series will address longer-term initiatives, highlight policy innovations that a particular state or
handful of states have pioneered and that other states should endeavor to replicate, and explore ways that federal and state governments can
coordinate their efforts to advance the next economy.
Public-Private Partnerships
P3s Solve – Risk Mitigation
Public-Private Partnerships minimize risk and allow for better transportation
infrastructure
Department of Transportation, "REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS." FHWA. United States
Department of Transportation, Dec. 2004. Web. 26 June 2012. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pppdec2004/#3>.
Traditionally, much of the risk associated with the design and construction of a transportation project
is borne by the government. However, public-private partnerships allow for some of the project risk
to be borne by the private sector. The goal of project developers should be to allocate risk to the party best able to manage it.
Proper allocation of risk will result in lower overall risk for the project.[94] And lower overall risk will allow the
public-private partnership to save costs and accelerate delivery of a project. The key to proper risk allocation is
determining which risks are best carried by the public sector and which should be transferred to the private sector. Risks can be determined
and allocated using a myriad of methods. One approach is through the use of performance specifications for warranty and design-build
projects. Performance specifications allow the State highway agency to establish desired quality and outcomes and to allocate risk sharing and
liability issues between the contractor and the State Highway Agency (SHA).[95] For example, by using a warranty, a State can shift the
responsibility and risk for maintaining an acceptable level of pavement quality over a specified period to the contractor.[96] Warranties also
lower the owner’s risk by providing assurance that the contractor will correct early failures from material or workmanship that may have
escaped notice during construction.[97] When private road builders are also responsible for subsequent operations and maintenance, they
have incentives to build roadways that are designed to meet the specific demands and characteristics of users.[98] Assigning risk to the
appropriate party enhances the ability of the m public-private partnership to deliver a project sooner than under the traditional contracting
method. Proper allocation of risk allows for acceleration of projects with schedule and budget assurance.[99] When
the public sector
builds a project under the traditional design-bid-build approach, the public sector makes all decisions
regarding the provision, production, and financing of assets as well as the operation and maintenance
of the services.[100] As a result, very little opportunity exists for the private sector to assume project
risk. In contrast, a public-private partnership allows the private sector greater control over the design,
construction, operation and maintenance of the facility. With this additional control over the facility
comes increasing ability to absorb risk. When considering risk and negotiating a risk allocation position, the public sector entity
should prefer to contract with a single party which is fully accountable to government for all contracted services.[101] From a government point
of view, risk transfer is most effective if there is a ‘whole of cycle’ contract with a single private party, to give that party the strongest incentive
to ensure that the design and construction phases convert into a highly effective operation for delivery of a project.[102]
P3s Solve – Financial Regulation
Partnerships solve best by reducing financial restrictions on infrastructure
Aecom Consult Team 07 Case Studies of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States. Case Studies of
Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States. Federal Highway Administration, 7 July 2007. Web. 26 June 2012. <Case Studies
of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States>.
Many projects proposed by public entities are postponed or do not proceed due to limited financial
resources, and in particular, the provision of upfront capital. PPPs provide an advantage with respect to financing by
allowing the private sector to finance projects using private funds, in effect providing a form of off-balance sheet
financing for public agencies. In turn, financing commitments from the private sector often bring forward the
development of projects that may otherwise not proceed due to a lack of capital.
P3s Solve – Timeframe
CP Solves best – private sector partnerships save time which allows increased
flexibility
DOT DEC 04 United States Department of Transportation. By DOT. Federal Highway Administration, Dec. 2004. Web. 26
June.<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pppdec2004/#3b>.
The benefits of public-private partnerships are not limited to cost savings. By providing access to alternative financing sources, public-private
partnerships can facilitate the construction of projects that might otherwise have been delayed or not built at all. In addition, the same
efficiencies that produce cost savings often enable projects to be constructed faster. Completing
a project faster minimizes
public inconvenience and traffic disruption. In addition, a project constructed earlier than scheduled produces
public safety benefits. Work zones are removed faster and the public is able to benefit from the
additional capacity and safety improvements sooner. This section discusses the benefits a public-private partnership
contributes to design and construction time-savings. The Battelle Report showed that innovative contracting methods can result
in as much as a 50 percent time reduction in project duration when compared to the traditional design-bid-build approach. For
some projects this time-savings is a result of the innovative financing methods brought to the project by
the private sector member of the team. The public-private partnerships can bring additional capital to
a project and enable States to build transportation projects that they want and need to build, but are
prevented from doing so due to fiscal constraints. Following is a discussion of public-private partnership methods and
specific examples of projects built using public-private partnerships that realized significant time-savings as a result of innovative financing.
Only the CP solves – reduces delays which create inefficiencies
Aecom Consult Team 07 Case Studies of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States. Case Studies of
Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States. Federal Highway Administration, 7 July 2007. Web. 26 June 2012. <Case Studies
of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States>.
PPPs can expedite the financing and delivery of transportation projects through the involvement of
the private sector in these phases of a project, that lower project costs by avoiding inflationary cost increases,
applying best practices and new technology, and transferring more technical and other risks to the
private sector which is often better able to manage these risks. The private sector has an incentive to
minimize construction delays in order to minimize costs and bring forward their revenue stream.
Contract conditions including early completion bonus payments and the inclusion of the construction
period within the concession period can provide further incentives to bring forward delivery.
P3s Solve – Cooperation
CP SOLVES BEST- cooperation between the states and companies makes infrastructure
most efficient
Aecom Consult Team 07 Case Studies of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States. Case Studies of
Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States. Federal Highway Administration, 7 July 2007. Web. 26 June 2012. <Case
Studies of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States>.
In comparison to shorter-term procurements methods, PPPs
provide the opportunity for public sector agencies and
private sector providers to develop long-term, high trust relationships. With the need to concentrate on long-term
objectives, there is greater incentive for public sponsors and private providers to understand goals and
share information to develop better long-term solutions. Further, the opportunity to develop strong long-term
relationships provides a better forum in which to resolve problems and issues. With transportation assets typically having long effective lives, a
need exists for the public sector to develop a long term relationship with a provider to assist the
development of transportation infrastructure, guide capital expenditure decisions and ensure that
assets are maintained, safe and are of high quality upon transfer. However, the development of a long-term
relationship will need to account for the possibility that there may be a reduced desire on a providers part to seek the best solution due to the
security of the relationship. Public sponsors will also need to be mindful of the partnership proposing and selecting options that minimize
damage to the relationship, but may not maximize community benefits
P3s Solve – Comparative
Public-private partnerships provide cheaper, faster, and higher quality transportation
projects than traditional federal guided projects
Department of Transportation, "REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS." FHWA. United States
Department of Transportation, Dec. 2004. Web. 26 June 2012. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pppdec2004/#3>.
An increasing number of States are discovering the many advantages of public-private partnerships.
This chapter begins by highlighting the cost and time savings of projects built using public-private partnership. It then explores the factors that
contribute to these savings. These factors include the flexibility to use private sector financing and intellectual capital, the allocation of risk to
the party best able to manage it, and the incorporation of life-cycle costs in the price of the project.
Public-private partnerships provide greater flexibility in the design, construction and maintenance of
transportation facilities through the use of innovative financing, design, and contracting techniques.
As a result, they have the potential to deliver higher quality transportation projects faster and
cheaper than through traditional contracting and financing methods. Importantly, public-private
partnerships can facilitate the construction of projects that have been sidelined due to fiscal
constraints. These advantages are discussed in detail below.
P3s Solve – Empirics
Empirically, P3s have been used successfully in countries throughout the world
Department of Transportation, "REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS." FHWA. United States
Department of Transportation, Dec. 2004. Web. 26 June 2012. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pppdec2004/#3>.
The value of public-private partnerships is also recognized internationally. Public-private partnerships
have been used to a great extent outside of the United States, primarily in Europe. Though the United
Kingdom currently implements the most partnerships, other countries such as Norway, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, Portugal,
the Netherlands and Finland have also taken the international lead in implementing these programs.[122]Of
all highly developed
nations, the United States is among those in the earliest stages of public-private partnership
implementation. This section examines examples of the value added by public-private partnerships used in other countries.
A2 State Spending
Partnerships don’t count towards a States debt
DOT DEC 04 United States Department of Transportation. By DOT. Federal Highway Administration, Dec. 2004. Web. 26
June.<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pppdec2004/#3b>.
Another benefit of private investment in transportation projects is that the
debt issued by the partnerships is generally not
considered debt of the State. It is not backed by State tax revenues and consequently does not
jeopardize the State’s ability to issue bonds for other purposes.[67] Debt repayment is typically through
revenues from tolls, although the State may use tax revenues to enhance the quality of the credit or to cover other expenses. Bond
buyers voluntarily purchase bonds on the basis of the contribution they expect the bonds to make to their portfolios, considering returns, risk,
diversification, maturity, tax status, and other factors.[68] For example, when
the Dulles Greenway partially defaulted on
its debt in 1996, Virginia was not liable for the debt, nor did the debt affect the State’s credit rating.
Similarly, both the Pocahontas Parkway’s and Southern Connector’s bond ratings have been lowered
to below investment grade; however, this has no effect on either Virginia’s or South Carolina’s credit
ratings.[69] But, States that expect to utilize public-private partnerships as part of their long-term financial management strategy have an
interest in not letting private bond ratings fall to the point where investors will not purchase future issues. Both the private and public sectors
have much to learn about the public's willingness to pay tolls in different situations, and how to manage the risks of short-term revenue
shortfalls.
National Infrastructure Bank
SIB Solves – Generic
CP Solves State infrastructure banks effectively work and fund transportation
infrastructure
Sean Slone, transportation policy analyst at The Council of State, July 5 , 2011, Governments and Doug Myers is an energy
and environment policy analyst, Benefits of a State Infrastructure Bank, CGS, http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/stateinfrastructure-banks, [ 6/27/12]
State infrastructure banks can help states stretch their state and federal dollars and meet the
demands of financing large, impactful, long-term infrastructure projects. When government agencies
and authorities must seek yearly grants and allocations to finance projects, the completion of those
projects can be delayed for months or years. State infrastructure banks can identify, promote and lend
money to creditworthy transportation projects to ensure they’re built within a reasonable timeframe and in a
financially sustainable way. And because these banks act as a “revolving fund,” more projects can
ultimately be financed. When bonding is used to finance a project, the bonds are usually one of two types: revenue or general
obligation. Revenue bonds often are used to finance infrastructure projects that have the ability to produce revenue through their operations;
for example, new highway lanes that can be tolled or public transit facilities on which fares can be collected. These types of bonds are typically
guaranteed by the project revenues, but not by the full faith and credit of a state, city or county. General obligation bonds, on the other hand,
are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing authority. These are used to finance projects that rely on government’s general revenues,
such as income, sales and property tax revenue. Cities, counties and states pledge these revenues to issue the bonds and repay them. But the
revolving fund aspect of a state infrastructure bank means states can lend funds for projects and receive loan repayments, which can be
returned to the system for more project loans. The funding also can be turned into much larger credit lines, multiplying transportation
investment capacity. When
transportation projects are financed in a traditional way, funds from a state
department of transportation or the federal Highway Trust Fund are spent and two types of risk are
assumed. Projects are at risk of delay as state officials wait for the state or federal funds to become
available, which may increase the costs and delay the project’s benefits. Secondly, states face the risk
that a poorly selected project will fail to produce social or economic benefits and tie up scarce capital
resources that could have gone to other potentially more successful projects. Both of those risks are
diminished with state infrastructure bank financing. First, projects don’t have to wait for funding and
delays and cost overruns are avoided. Secondly, a state infrastructure bank has a built-in project
evaluation process. Projects are assessed based on their financial viability, which provides a level of economic discipline that is not
always present with traditional state project funding. Better, more benefit-producing projects can be the result.
State Infrastructure Banks fund state transportation infrastructure best
Dickers and Mattingly, 09 Dickers, Greg, and Justin Mattingly. "How States and Territories Fund Transportation."Ibtta.org.
IBTTA, 2009. Web. 28 June 2012. <http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/How%20States%20fund%20transportation%20strategies.pdf>.
SIBs provide states with a new mechanism to finance large transportation projects through direct
loans at attractive interest rates; the revenues from loan repayment and interest are used to fund
subsequent loans. One key element of a SIB is that it offers states a flexible funding source, which can
be tied to a set of state established criteria that evaluate a project’s benefits (such as economic development)
and significance. Thus, SIBs can help states focus their financing assistance on projects that require an
accelerated construction schedule; can help them leverage other federal and/or private capital; or
help them achieve state objectives such as environmental, economic, or safety benefits. 53 States may
capitalize SIBs with funds from a variety of sources, including bonds and up to 10 percent of their federal highway and transit capital funds. SIBs
are in place in 35 states, although more than 95 percent of the funding is concentrated in eight states, and one state accounts for more than
half. They became widespread in 1998 when the federal government expanded eligibility and provided $150 million in seed funding for initial
capitalization. To date, SIBs have provided $6.2 billion in loans for 693 different transportation projects.
South Carolina, which established the South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank in 1997, is a leader in SIB financing. In fact, the state
represents more than 50 percent of the value of SIB loan agreements nationwide. Ohio used $40 million in state general revenue funds and
$120 million in federal highway funds, including National Highway System and Surface Transportation Program funds, to launch its SIB. 54 Other
states, including Arizona, Florida, and Texas, have also used some federal funding for SIB capitalization. 55 Figure 2 shows the states operating
state infrastructure banks.
SIB Solves – Money
CP Solves best – state banks provide flexibility and prevent federal mismanagement –
this evidence assumes your solvency arguments
Freemark, 2012 (Yonah, Writer for The Transportation Politic, “How to Pay for America’s Infrastructure”, the Atlantic Cities, January
2, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/01/solution-americas-infrastructure-woes/845/#)
America's transportation infrastructure is in desperate need of an update, and most politicians would agree that
more funding should be dedicated the nation’s highways and mass transit systems. Yet there is little consensus about where to find those new
funds and Democrats and Republicans disagree stridently over whether Washington should increase its role. One potentially fertile
place
for compromise may be in the form of state infrastructure banks, which have gained support from
both the left and right in recent months. These public agencies, provided some government funds, would be
designed to encourage significant private investment. And they would do so with little interference from the national
government. "I-banks" could lend states, municipalities, and perhaps even private sector agencies a
significant portion of project funds that would later be paid back through user fees, public-private
partnerships, or dedicated taxes. The idea is to get more transportation projects under construction
without significantly expanding the national deficit. And the idea is not particularly new: Infrastructure banks have been
on the radar since 1995, when state banks were initially authorized to receive federal funds. Now, more than thirty states have
them in operation. But most operate on a small scale, and are unprepared to fund large-scale projects.
They are also strongly tilted toward highway infrastructure, not multimodal needs. Yet recent proposals have been much more
ambitious. President Obama has made the case strongly throughout his first term that a national bank run by the U.S.
Department of Transportation would be most effective, since it would be staffed by experts and backed by the federal government. A
proposal announced by the White House earlier this year would put $10 billion in the coffers of such an agency. Democrats in the Congress
introduced a bill to fund such an organization in October, but John Mica (R-FL), chairman
of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, has said that he would refuse to endorse such a concept. Mica
suggests that states are up to the task and that Washington’s involvement would get in the way. Some
Democrats have articulated a compromise. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), for instance, introduced a bill that would pass one billion dollars to
each state to set up their own infrastructure banks. A review of the current work of state infrastructure banks, though, raises the question of
whether state governments are ready to significantly expand their infrastructure banks. Consider the experience of five state infrastructure
banks in Florida, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Total investments have ranged from $60 million in Oregon to $1.1 billion in Florida,
which are about a decade old on average. In the case of Pennsylvania, which has had a bank since 1998 and loaned a total of $132 million in 13
years, a $1 billion allocation from Washington such as has been suggested by Senator Wyden would represent a rapid eight-fold increase in
spending. The
limited funding from state infrastructure banks thus far results from a confluence of
supply and demand. One example - Pennsylvania’s bank currently receives up to $30 million annually
from the state budget, according to the agency. Hugh McGowan, the manager of the state bank, says that "it is a very
popular program" but that annual applications had never reached $30 million. In most states studied, the
vast majority of infrastructure bank funds has gone to roads projects, indicating that the commitment of the federal
government to multi-modality - 20 percent of federal surface transportation spending generally goes to public transit - has not been followed
through in the states. Texas has loaned virtually none of its $477 million total to transit, while Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania have devoted
just two to four percent of their funding to bus and rail improvement projects. Only Florida stands out, with 11 percent of its loans going to
transit, thanks to major investments in projects like the SunRail commuter line. McGowan, of the Pennsylvania bank, said that "there
are no maximums or minimums" for the types of projects approved, one problem might be that few transit
agencies apply for aid. In Ohio, Ohio Department of Transportation Press Secretary Steve Faulkner agreed.
"Any type of transportation project is eligible for state infrastructure bank funding" he says. "So, the number of
transit loans is a direct result of the corresponding number of transit applications received."
SIB Solves – Investment
CP Solves SIB are self-sustaining
Anastasia Christman and Christine Riordan, senior policy analysts with the National Employment Law, December 2011 State
and Local Strategies for Transportation Funding , National Employment Law Project, http://www.nelp.org/page//Job_Creation/State_Infrastructure_Banks.pdf?nocdn=1, [6/27/12]
Many states recognize they must increase funding for their departments of transportation. As
lawmakers and their constituents engage in this dialogue, advocates should urge that some of the
revenues be used to fund an SIB. Managed properly, an SIB can attract private capital to infrastructure
projects, and the revolving loan structure can, with prudent choices in spending, make the SIB selfsustaining.
SIB Solves – Flexibility
CP Solves best, gives starts flexibility to fund what they need
Anastasia Christman and Christine Riordan, senior policy analysts with the National Employment Law, December 2011, Project
State-Funded SIBs, National Employment Law Project, http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Job_Creation/State_Infrastructure_Banks.pdf?nocdn=1,
[6/27/12]
Several states—Kansas, Ohio, Georgia, Florida and Virginia—have established SIBs using only state funds. This also
allows them to do projects “off the highway,” including helping local governments pay for 100percent local projects. For example, Ohio’s state-funded SIB is authorized to fund “any public or
private transportation project as determined by the director of transportation,” including public
transit, aviation, rail, tunnels or parkways.30 Kansas found that its federally-funded SIB couldn’t fund
the projects that its rural population needed. “We can cover huge projects or a small In Arizona, half-a-dozen SIB advisory
board members are members of the general public appointed by various government bodies, and the meetings of the board are explicitly
required to be open to the public. community,” said the manager of the state-funded Kansas Transportation Revolving Fund.31 The Ohio statefunded SIB manager notes that her institution “has assisted every transportation mode except a water project since its creation.”32 However,
even with a state-funded SIB, selection criteria or requirements for local matching dollars can stunt interest in the financing program; for
example, Georgia’s requirement that only projects that can be funded by the motor fuels tax can qualify33 means that in the spring of 2011,
three years after establishing its SIB, Georgia had made only one loan and had more than $30 million in transportation funds sitting idle.34 In
order for a state-funded SIB to consider the greatest number of projects, advocates may want to recommend enabling legislation that blends a
variety of funding sources to ensure flexibility. State-funded
SIBs also allow state departments of transportation to
establish their own regulatory criteria for projects that no longer fall under federal requirements for
environmental studies, “Buy America” provisions, or requirements to pay prevailing wages.35 When Virginia announced some privatesector highway projects that might be financed by a new state-funded SIB, media reports noted that these projects were currently undergoing
environmental scrutiny as federally-funded projects.36 Virginia has also announced it will implement a “design-build” method of funding
projects that allows construction to begin before designs are finalized. While supporters say this method speeds up the construction process,
others caution that by combining the phases of a project, it reduces public opportunities for input and could facilitate contractor shortcuts.37
And as the Ohio Department of Transportation explains, local projects using federal SIB funds are
obligated to conduct full National Environmental Policy Act documentation of Environmental Impact
or Environmental Assessment Statements,38 where as local projects using state SIB funds need only
adhere to state regulations concerning archaeological preservation,39 rules that state nature preserves may only be
taken for other public uses,40 and Ohio Department of Transportation permits.41
NIB Bad - Comparative
CP solves best – National Infrastructure Bank is a waste of money and State Level
Banks solve
Mica, 2011 (John, Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, “National Infrastructure Bank would create more red
tape & federal bureaucracy”, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Press Releases,
http://transportation.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1421)
“We
must use every responsible mechanism possible to move projects and expand our capacity to
finance infrastructure maintenance and improvements, but a National Infrastructure Bank is dead on
arrival in Congress,” said U.S. Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL), Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “There are
several reasons for this. One is that we do not need to create more federal bureaucracy . In fact, with over 100
separate federal surface transportation programs, we need less bureaucracy. “The federal government also
has existing financing programs that serve the same purpose as a National Infrastructure Bank, such as
TIFIA, RRIF and others, that we can improve and strengthen. “Another reason a national bank is DOA is because
there is already such a bank structure in place at the state level. Thirty-three state infrastructure
banks already exist, and we can ensure financing and build upon this foundation without creating a
new level of federal bureaucracy. “If the Administration’s goal is to get people to work immediately, a National
Infrastructure Bank that will require more than a year to create and $270 million to run is not the answer.
That is funding that should be used for infrastructure, but would instead be used to create more red tape. “Unfortunately, the Administration
still hasn’t learned that ‘shovel ready’ has become a national joke. Yesterday, the President announced he would expedite 14 infrastructure
projects, but this plan only pushes these projects to the front of the line with current red tape and rules, while it pushes back or stalls hundreds
of other projects pending federal approval. We must expedite the review process for all projects, not just a handful.”
CP Solves better than NIB
Keith Laing ,political journalist for The Hill, 09/08/11, Mica opposes Obama’s call for national infrastructure bank, The Hill,
thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/highways-bridges-and-roads/180481-gop-chairman-opposes-obamas-call-for-national-infrastructurebank, [6/28/12]
The Republican chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee said Thursday evening that
he is opposed to the call for a national infrastructure bank President Obama made in his speech to a
joint session of Congress. Rep. John Mica (Fla.) said he thought Congress should encourage individual states to
create their own infrastructure banks, arguing as he has in the past that it would give them more
flexibility to design transportation projects that fit their own needs. “While the President reconfirmed that our
highways are clogged and our skies are congested, his well delivered address provided only one specific recommendation for building our
nation’s infrastructure,” Mica said in a news release.
“Unfortunately, a National Infrastructure Bank run by
Washington bureaucrats requiring Washington approval and Washington red tape is moving in the
wrong direction. A better plan to improve infrastructure is to empower our states, 33 of which already
have state infrastructure banks.” Obama called Thursday for Congress to approve a proposal for a federal infrastructure bank that
has been pushed for by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas). “We’ll set up an independent fund to attract private
dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the economy,”
Obama said. “This idea came from a bill written by a Texas Republican and a Massachusetts Democrat. The idea for a big boost in construction
is supported by America’s largest business organization and America’s largest labor organization. It’s the kind of proposal that’s been supported
in the past by Democrats and Republicans alike. You should pass it right away.” Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), ranking member on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, called for Republicans on the panel to be receptive to Obama’s proposals. “The Nation’s roads
and bridges and water systems are needs that even Americans of vastly different political leanings agree deserve greater Federal investment —
not less,” Rahall said in a news release. “After all, the jobs created by such investment are not Republican jobs or Democratic jobs — they are
American jobs.” The infrastructure bank proposal was part of a $447 billion package Obama introduced Thursday — the American Jobs Act. In
his speech, Obama pledged to campaign across the country for Congress to approve his proposals.
NIB Bad – Federal Funding Fails
NIB doesn’t solve, federal funding unpopular with states because of increased cost
because of the add-ons like union wage that federal funding comes with
EMILY GOFF, Research Associate Economic Policy Studies, May 23, 2012, State can't afford ‘free' rail money, Heritage foundation,
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/states-355591-transportation-rail.html [ 6/28/12]
What do $16 billion and $68.4 billion have in common, other than the fact that each of these figures dwarfs JPMorgan
Chase's recent loss? The former is how deep in the red the California state budget sits currently. The latter is
the latest in a series of roller-coasting cost estimates for the state's controversial high-speed rail (HSR)
project, which is funded in part by the federal government. Gov. Jerry Brown has been hard-pressed to
come up with a prescription to close California's sizeable budget deficit. While pension reform and old-fashioned
frugality may be what the doctor ordered, Gov. Brown also wants to persuade Californians to stomach "temporary" tax increases to narrow the
budget gap. If these tax hikes go into effect, California taxpayers at all income levels will see their pocketbooks shrink. Unfortunately, if the HSR
project pans out, painful tax increases to pay for it could become the norm. The
federal-state transit courtship ritual is by
now a well-rehearsed dance. Washington's alluring checkbook tempts states enough that they
commit matching funds to projects they otherwise would not even dream of pursuing. Take highspeed rail and other passenger rail projects – they are expensive to build and maintain, and states are
faced with many other pressing infrastructure needs but limited resources to pay for them. So, "free"
money from Washington seems too good to be true. Then come project delays and construction cost
overruns. Federal grants also have strings attached, such as union wage requirements, which send
costs skyward. Soon, the price tag of an HSR project is substantially more than what states signed up
for. Once the HSR line is built, another pesky fact materializes: Actual rail ridership rates do not necessarily equal capacity estimates. Poor
ridership translates into large funding gaps, and befuddled states then have trouble covering operating expenses, let alone capital costs.
Taxpayers are on the hook subsidizing the rail line long after the federal money train has left the station. For example, passenger rail lines in
Japan and the United Kingdom required significant government subsidies, which prompted these countries to begin privatizing the rail systems.
In the United States, new governors of Wisconsin and Ohio rejected federal funds for HSR projects once it became clear that HSR's upfront
costs and long-term financial liabilities far outweighed any potential benefits. A glaring flaw in the prevailing approach to transportation is that
it is increasingly Washington-centered; bureaucrats make decisions about projects hundreds of miles away, in which they have little or no
vested interest. This trend is based on the belief that Washington knows best, and, therefore, every cent of every transportation dollar must
flow through Washington. By this logic, President Obama's so-called livability proposals, such as building street cars and forcing high-density
living arrangements, can be cast as a wise use of transportation dollars. In reality, such transportation technology is 19th century nostalgia
wrapped in 21st century packaging. This approach also generates misleading incentives for states to commit limited resources to costly projects
like HSR, which do not deliver on promises to mitigate road congestion and improve air quality. Instead, they threaten to stain state budget
ledgers with unsightly amounts of red ink. Rather than hoarding transportation funds and keeping decision-making in Washington, Congress
should give states more control over how to spend the transportation dollars their motorists pay in federal gas taxes. Doing so will pave the
way for turning over responsibility for transportation to the states, who know their transportation priorities much better than Washington.
With full devolution, states would no longer see funds diverted to transit and enhancement projects they may not find useful. Instead, they
would be able to identify and meet their unique infrastructure needs efficiently and cost-effectively. When in a hole, sometimes it is hard to put
the shovel down and quit digging. Gov. Brown's recent statement, "I am a buoyant optimist. ... We're going to build high-speed rail," is a case in
point. If the governor's words ring true, the unfortunate
California taxpayers will have to pay for a transit
boondoggle they can ill- afford. The only consolation will be that California serves as a lesson for other
states – in what not to do in budgeting and transportation.
Road Infrastructure
States Solve – Studies
Studies prove state controlled highways are best – prefer our evidence it cites 11
different indicators
David T. Hartgen et al. 8/31/2010, (Hartgen is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation, emeritus professor of Transportation Studies at
the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and former policy analyst at the Federal Highway Administration. Ravi K. Karanam is a System-OnChip Verification Engineer at Qualcomm Incorporated. M. Gregory Fields is a retired military officer with degrees from West Point, Webster
University in St. Louis and UNC Charlotte. Travis A. Kerscher is a graduate student in the MBA program at UNC Charlotte, where he is majoring
in business finance. He has participated in several studies of transportation systems with The Hartgen Group.), The Reason Foundation, “19th
Annual Report on the Performance of State Highway Systems (1984-2008),” <http://reason.org/files/19th_annual_highway_report.pdf>,
Accessed: 6/26/2012, wh
Reason Foundation’s 19th Annual Highway Report tracks the performance and cost-effectiveness of state-owned highway systems of the
United States from 1984 to 2008. We have also included the more recent information (fatalities, bridges, travel, economic trends and stimulus
projects) that is available for 2009. Eleven
indicators make up each state’s overall rating, and cover highway
expenditures, pavement and bridge condition, urban interstate congestion, fatality rates and narrow
rural lanes. The study is based on spending and performance data submitted to the federal
government by the state highway agencies. This year, for the first time, partial performance data for the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico are also discussed. (See the Appendix for more discussion on the data sources). Individual system elements (roads,
bridges, pavements) deteriorate over time, but the overall condition of the state-owned highway system
has never been in better shape. The overall condition of state-owned highways continued to improve
from 2007 to 2008. All seven key indicators of system condition showed improvement, including large
gains in urban interstate condition, rural arterial condition, deficient bridges and fatality rates. Even
urban interstate congestion, which had been slowly improving, registered a substantial improvement.
Table 1 summarizes the statistics for key indicators.
States Solve – Price Flexibility
State control more efficient- intervention increases prices and does not suit individual
state needs
Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven, 6/17/2010, Cato’s top expert on federal and state tax and budget issues and director of tax
policy studies; budget analyst on federal and state budget issues for the Cato Institute, The Washington Times, “”Privatize Transportation
Spending,” < http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/17/privatize-transportation-spending/> Date Accessed: 6/26/12 wh
Rising federal control over transportation has resulted in the political misallocation of funds,
bureaucratic mismanagement and costly one-size-fits-all regulations of the states. The solution is to
devolve most of DOT’s activities back to state governments and the private sector. We should follow the lead
of other nations that have turned to the private sector to fund their highways, airports, air traffic control and other infrastructure. The first
reform is to abolish federal highway aid to the states and related gasoline taxes. Highway
aid is tilted toward states with
powerful politicians, not necessarily to the states that are most in need. It also often goes to boondoggle projects
like Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere.” Furthermore, federal highway aid comes with costly regulations like the DavisBacon labor rules, which raise state highway costs. For their part, the states should seek out private
funding for their highways. Virginia is adding toll lanes on the Capitol Beltway that are partly privately
financed, and Virginia is also home to the Dulles Greenway, a 14-mile private highway in operation since 1995. Ending federal
subsidies would accelerate the trend toward such innovative projects.
States Solve – Empirics
State control is best for roads – empirics are on our side
USA Today, 9/1/2010, “New report shows state highways in good shape,” <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-02roads02_ST_N.htm>, Accessed: 6/27/12, wh
A new report on the condition of the USA's state highways finds that they are in the best shape they
have been in nearly 20 years. The annual study by the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based, libertarian, non-profit think tank,
credits road improvement progress man by states and decreased wear and tear as commuters and commercial truckers drove less during the
recession. "Lo
and behold, we've actually been making slow but steady progress on most performance
measures," says report author David Hartgen, professor emeritus of transportation studies at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte.
The study says states did a better job of maintaining and repairing roads and bridges in 2008, the most
recent year for which complete data are available. "Human nature focuses on the pothole rather than the couple of miles
of smooth pavement in front of and after the pothole," Hartgen says. TRANSPORTATION: Cities tackle traffic with commuter options Hartgen
measured the condition and cost-effectiveness of state roads in 11 categories, including deficient
bridges, urban traffic congestion, fatality rates and pavement condition. National performance in all
of those areas improved in 2008, he says. For instance, pavement on urban interstates and rural
primary roads is the smoothest since 1993. Greg Cohen, president of the American Highway Users Alliance, a non-profit
coalition of auto clubs, truckers, farmers, businesses and others, says the report does not lessen the need for national
highway investment. "Over the last 25 years, we've added just 4% new capacity, but over 100% more
traffic," Cohen says.
States Good – Congestion Turn
State control allows toll roads and HOT lanes- key to decreasing congestion
Gabriel Roth, 3/17/05, civil engineer and transportation economist, worked with the World Bank with transportation for 20 years, Policy
Analysis, “Liberating the Roads Reforming U.S. Highway Policy,” <http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/6727.pdf> Accessed
6/27/12, wh
By providing “free” roads, federal financing discourages toll roads and privately financed roads, although
users of those facilities pay into the FHTF all the mandated charges such as fuel taxes. For example, the Dulles Greenway, the privately
financed road in Northern Virginia, has to compete against “free” state roads. Typical users of the Greenway pay about
28 cents in gasoline tax for their 14-mile trip, in addition to the $1.90 toll. 43 The private investors in the Greenway have yet to receive any
profit on their investment and are, of course, not entitled to any state or federal funding. If
the Greenway were credited the
amounts paid into state and federal highway funds, its toll could be lowered and more traffic would
be attracted to it, thus making better use of its capacity and relieving congestion on other roads.
Innovation and Flexibility in Road Financing Are Discouraged It is difficult—often impossible—to place tolls on roads
constructed with federal funds. This prevents the introduction of one of the most innovative and
promising concepts for urban congestion relief: HOT (High-Occupancy or Toll) networks. These are
networks of interconnected limited access lanes to be used by buses and vanpools at no charge and
by other vehicles on payment of a variable toll, the toll being collected electronically and set at levels
high enough to ensure free-flow conditions at all times. The first such lanes in the United States were introduced in 1995
on California’s State Route 91, as described below. Following the success of the HOT lanes in Southern California, about a dozen similar projects
are being planned. 44 They
are particularly attractive to local authorities because they make use of existing
capacity and because the tolls can pay for all or most of the costs. 45 Such networks offer the prospect
of congestion-free expressways (at a premium price) for fast bus service, and for other vehicles.
However, because of the prohibition of tolling on federally financed roads, such networks cannot be
introduced where they are most needed, e.g., on congested Interstate Route 270, which leads to the Washington Beltway
(Interstate Route 495), a federally financed road and a strong candidate for improvement by tolling.
States Exts – Congestion I/Ls
Tolls key - they provide funding to maintain and improve roads and solve congestion
Randal O’Toole, 5/15/12, Senior Fellow w/ the Cato Institute, Policy Analysis, “Ending Congestion by Refinancing Highways,” <
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf> Accessed: 6/27/12 wh
Economists have long proposed to use pricing to relieve congestion because congestion pricing would avoid the shift-back problem. If
tolls
increase as the usage rate increases, and the maximum tolls are high enough that actual flows never
exceed the maximum capacities, then road capacities are nearly doubled for those hours that flows
would otherwise break down into stop-andgo traffic. An additional benefit is that the revenue generated from
the tolls would be used to operate, maintain, and expand the roadway where the toll was collected.
This policy is usually presented as a choice: people can sit in traffic, which is a deadweight-loss to society, or they
can pay a toll and avoid congestion and know that their toll fee is doing some good, such as improving
roads to relieve congestion. Yes, tolls would lead some people to change their departure times to
avoid the tolls, but people are already changing their departure times to avoid the congestion.
Congestion-pricing advocates rarely mention the subtle effect of congestion: the hours of delay after traffic flows fall below the maximum flow
capacities. By
using tolls to prevent congestion, highway capacities can be nearly doubled for several
hours of the day, thus making it possible for many people to shift their departure times back to times
they would have considered preferable were it not for the congestion. In other words, paradoxically,
tolls actually increase highway capacities and allow more people to travel when they want to travel.
Tolls solve congestion comparatively better than other forms of transportation
Randal O’Toole, 5/15/12, Senior Fellow w/ the Cato Institute, Policy Analysis, “Ending Congestion by Refinancing Highways,” <
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf> Accessed: 6/27/12 wh
In most cities, there
is good reason to think that actual traffic flows exceed the maximum flow capacities
for only a few minutes each day. Once flows exceed capacities, traffic flows shrink due to congestion
and people alter their travel habits to avoid that congestion. They may shift the time they travel, their travel
route or destination (for example, by changing job locations), or, in a small share of cases, their mode of travel. For this
reason, efforts to relieve congestion by improving alternate modes of travel, such as rail transit, will
deliver little relief: any congestion relief initially provided by transit will simply result in some people
shifting back to driving during the peak periods.
Gov’t Fails – Earmarking
Federal finance bad- Earmarking prevents high-priority projects from being properly
funded
Gabriel Roth, June 2010, civil engineer and transportation economist, worked with the World Bank with transportation for 20 years,
Downsizing Government, “Federal Highway Funding,” <http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding/#4> Date
Accessed 6/26/12 wh
Federal aid typically covers between 75 and 90 percent of the costs of federally supported highway
projects. Because states spend only a small fraction of their own resources on these projects, state officials have less incentive
to use funds efficiently and to fund only high-priority investments. Boston's Central Artery and Tunnel project (the
"Big Dig"), for example, suffered from poor management and huge cost overruns.21 Federal taxpayers paid for more than half of the project's
total costs, which soared from about $3 billion to about $15 billion.22 Federal
politicians often direct funds to projects in
their states that are low priorities for the nation as a whole. The Speaker of the House of Representatives in the 1980s,
"Tip" O'Neill, represented a Boston district and led the push for federal funding of the Big Dig. More recently, Representative Don
Young of Alaska led the drive to finance that state's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," discussed below. The
inefficient political allocation of federal dollars can be seen in the rise of "earmarking" in
transportation bills. This practice involves members of Congress slipping in funding for particular projects
requested by special interest groups in their districts. In 1982, the prohibition on earmarks in highway bills in effect since
1914 was broken by the funding of 10 earmarks costing $362 million. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan vetoed a highway bill partly because it
contained 121 earmarks, and Congress overrode his veto.23 Since then, transportation earmarking has grown by leaps and bounds. The 1991
transportation authorization bill (ISTEA) had
538 highway earmarks, the 1998 bill (TEA-21) had 1,850 highway
earmarks, and the 2005 bill (SAFETEA-LU) had 5,634 highway earmarks.24 The earmarked projects in the 2005 bill cost
$22 billion, thus indicating that earmarks are consuming a substantial portion of federal highway funding. The
problem with earmarks was driven home by an Alaska bridge project in 2005. Rep. Don Young of Alaska slipped a $223 million earmark into a
spending bill for a bridge from Ketchikan—with a population of 8,900—to the Island of Gravina—with a population of 50. The project was
dubbed the "Bridge to Nowhere" and created an uproar because it was clearly a low priority project that made no economic sense.
Gov’t Fails – Highways
Federal Funding reroutes funding to non-highway systems – Prevents adequate
funding for highways
Gabriel Roth, June 2010, civil engineer and transportation economist, worked with the World Bank with transportation for 20 years,
Downsizing Government, “Federal Highway Funding,” <http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding/#4> Date
Accessed 6/26/12 wh
Since 1982, increasing amounts of revenues from the FHTF have been diverted to non-highway uses. The
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 raised the federal gas tax by five cents, with one-fifth of the increase dedicated to urban transit.
The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act substituted "flexibility" and
"intermodalism" for the "dedication" of fuel taxes to highways. That wording change meant that any
transportation-related activity could lay claim to highway money. Under the most recent highway authorization—
SAFETEA-LU of 2005—transportation scholar Randal O'Toole figures that only about 59 percent of highway trust fund
dollars will be spent on highways.25 Funds from the FHTF will go to mass transit (21 percent), earmarks (8 percent), and a hodgepodge of other activities such as bicycle paths (12 percent). Note, however, that some of the earmark funds will also go to highways. The
main diversion is to rail transit, which can be a very inefficient mode of transportation, as discussed in a
related essay. Most Americans do not use rail transit and should not have to subsidize expensive subways
and rail systems in a small number of major cities that prohibit the use of more modern and effective
transit methods, such as shared taxis.
Gov’t Fails – Price Spikes
Federal intervention in highway systems cause price spikes – prevents efficient
highway design
Gabriel Roth, June 2010, civil engineer and transportation economist, worked with the World Bank with transportation for 20 years,
Downsizing Government, “Federal Highway Funding,” <http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding/#4> Date
Accessed 6/26/12 wh
3. Federal
Intervention Increases Highway Costs The flow of federal funding to the states for highways comes part-in-parcel
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.27 Ralph Stanley, the entrepreneur who created the private Dulles Greenway toll highway
with top-down regulations. The growing
in Virginia, estimated that federal regulations increase highway construction costs by about 20 percent.28 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.29 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.30 The rise in federal intervention appears to have pushed up these expenditures substantially.
Gov’t Fails – Investment
Federal intervention discourages private investment with higher taxes, borrowing
costs, and subsidizing public projects
Gabriel Roth, June 2010, civil engineer and transportation economist, worked with the World Bank with transportation for 20 years,
Downsizing Government, “Federal Highway Funding,” <http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding/#4> Date
Accessed 6/26/12 wh
By subsidizing the states to provide seemingly "free" highways, federal financing discourages the
construction and operation of privately financed highways. A key problem is that users of private highways
are forced to pay both the tolls for those private facilities and the fuel taxes that support the
government highways. Another problem is that private highway companies have to pay taxes, including property
taxes and income taxes, while government agencies do not. Furthermore, private highways face higher
borrowing costs because they must issue taxable bonds, whereas public agencies can issue tax-exempt bonds. The Dulles
Greenway is a privately financed and operated highway in Northern Virginia, which cost investors about $350 million to build.37 The Greenway
must compete against nearby "free" state highways. It has been tough going, but the Greenway has survived for 15 years. Typical users of the
Greenway pay 36 cents in federal and state gasoline taxes per gallon to support the government highways, plus they pay Greenway tolls, which
range from $2.25 to $4.15 per trip for automobiles using electronic tolling.38 If the Greenway and other private
highways were
credited the amounts paid into state and federal highway funds, their tolls could be lowered and
more traffic would be attracted to them. That would make better use of private capacity as it could develop
in coming years and relieve congestion on other roads. Unfortunately, the proposed version of new highway
legislation by the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would add new federal regulatory barriers to toll
roads in the states.39Section 1204 of the bill would create a federal "Office of Public Benefit" to ensure "protection
of the public interest in relation to highway toll projects and public-private partnership agreements on
federal-aid highways." This new office would be tasked with reviewing and approving or disapproving proposed toll rate increases on
these projects, among other interventionist activities. This would completely flip around the idea of road tolling as a
decentralized market-based mechanism and turn it into a central planning mechanism.
Gov’t Fails – Innovation
Government discourages the development of innovative ways to increase efficiency,
states better at creating effective systems
Gabriel Roth, June 2010, civil engineer and transportation economist, worked with the World Bank with transportation for 20 years,
Downsizing Government, “Federal Highway Funding,” <http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding/#4> Date
Accessed 6/26/12 wh
6. Innovation Is
Discouraged One of the promising advances to relieving urban congestion is HighOccupancy 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.41 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.
Gov’t Fails – Economy
Newer government bills damage the economy, mandating goals to decrease travel
Gabriel Roth, June 2010, civil engineer and transportation economist, worked with the World Bank with transportation for 20 years,
Downsizing Government, “Federal Highway Funding,” <http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding/#4> Date
Accessed 6/26/12 wh
Some of these goals might be harmless, although they bring to mind the arbitrary planning objectives of centrally planned economies. But other
goals are not harmless. The
goal "to reduce national per capita motor vehicle miles traveled" is not only of dubious
also damaging to economic development. Because car travel is generally faster (door-todoor) than transit (which is not even available to most American travelers), it is not possible to reduce car travel without
reducing total travel. The amount of time available for travel is limited, so the use of slower door-todoor travel modes is invariably associated with loss of trips. While requiring road users to cover the costs arising from
their trips is a legitimate government objective, a blanket requirement to reduce "per capita" travel constitutes an
unacceptable attack on freedom. Travel is generally not carried out for its own sake, but enables participation in
activities such as employment, commerce, and social intercourse. Travel by motor vehicles increases
the number of activities that can be reached, and hence the choices available to all. The demand for additional activities tends
to increase as societies get richer, and it is difficult to see how such activities can be reduced without reducing
living standards, which is not what the Obama administration claims to be doing.
constitutionality, it is
Gov’t Fails – Accidents
Government intervention leads to increased accident fatalities- small, low MPG cars
provide little protection
Gabriel Roth, June 2010, civil engineer and transportation economist, worked with the World Bank with transportation for 20 years,
Downsizing Government, “Federal Highway Funding,” <http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding/#4> Date
Accessed 6/26/12 wh
A goal of the Senate highway bill mentioned above is "to
reduce national motor vehicle-related fatalities by 50 percent by
in direct conflict with the goal of federal policymakers to downsize automobiles to
reduce fuel consumption. The federal government continues to tighten Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which
effectively pushes Americans into smaller and thus less-safe cars. 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.
2030." But that goal is
Railroad Infrastructure
States Solve – Adaptation
CP Solves best – state leadership allows for economic flexibility
Callen ’12 – (Zachary, Degree in Government Administration at the University of Chicago, writer for American Politics Research, March,
"Congress And The Railroads: Federalism, American Political Development, And The Migration Of Policy Responsibility." American Politics
Research 40.2 (2012): 293-326. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 June 2012.)
Whether merely approving
railroad routes or actively promoting local railroads through government intervention,
state legislatures used rail development as an engine for local economic growth. Economic
development is especially salient for local policy makers. At the state and local level, governments
possess little control over their borders, allowing for the free flow of capital and population across
state lines. This free movement of people and capital leads states to constantly pursue economic growth as a
means to generate revenue, serve citizens’ demands, and guarantee incumbents’ reelection (Hwang & Gray, 1991; Peterson, 1981;
Pisani, 1987). By the mid19th century, the economic necessity of railroads was becoming clear: railroads connected markets as well as
producers and were a vital part of economic development.6 Intense local competition among states resulted in legislatures rushing into rail
promotion programs and routing local railroads to frustrate regional rivals (Rubin, 1961; Scheiber, 1975). Citizens looking to travel, conduct
business, be connected to political events in Washington or feel assured about the availability of security all placed demands on state
governments for improved railroads.
Gov’t Fails – Inflexible
Plan fails – Federal policies prevent local flexibility necessary to solve – Amtrak proves
DeHaven ’10 - (Tad, budget analyst on federal and state budget issues, previous deputy director of the Indiana Office of Management
and Budget, previously served on the Economic Advisory Council, June, “Privatizing Amtrak”
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/amtrak/subsidies)
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak, is the federal organization that operates passenger rail service in the United States. It
was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970. Amtrak
is structured as a corporation, but its board members
are appointed by the president of the United States and virtually all its stock is owned by the federal
government.1 Amtrak has about 19,000 employees, and its annual revenues were $2.4 billion in 2009.2 Amtrak has been
providing second-rate train service for almost four decades, while consuming almost $40 billion in
federal subsidies. The system has never earned a profit and most of its routes lose money. Amtrak's
on-time record is very poor, and the system as a whole only accounts for 0.1 percent of America's
passenger travel.3 Another problem is that Amtrak's infrastructure is in bad shape. Most of the blame for Amtrak's woes
should be pinned on Congress, which insists on supporting an extensive, nationwide system of
passenger rail that doesn't make economic sense.
Federal intervention fails – prevents local flexibility and prevents railroad efficiency
O’Toole ’10 – (Randal, American public policy analyst, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, June, “Urban Transit”,
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/urban-transit)
Federal intervention
creates all kinds of perverse incentives for state and local governments. These include the following: Cities are
encouraged to build very inefficient rail lines because more than half of all federal funds are dedicated
to rail transit. Transit agencies are encouraged to find the most expensive transit solutions because
rail construction funds are an open bucket—first-come, first-served. Innovative transit solutions are bypassed
and high costs are guaranteed because of the requirement that transit agencies obtain the approval of their unions to be eligible
for federal grants. Local transit agencies have strong incentives to claim success with their projects no
matter how badly they fail because of the requirement that agencies must refund federal grants if
projects are cancelled. Federal rules impose a transit planning process that is biased in favor of highercost transit projects, and the process allows agencies to systematically low-ball cost estimates and
overstate potential ridership. Federal subsidies have been mainly directed to capital costs of local transit,
not operating costs. That has led to a host of distortions, such as agencies favoring rail over buses and
favoring larger buses when smaller ones would do the job. Many federal regulations distort the flow
of funding to the most efficient solutions, such as rules that tie the distribution of transportation funds to air quality planning.
These factors and others have promoted less efficient transportation solutions than would have likely been
employed without federal intervention. I have discussed these problems elsewhere at length.61
The first step toward reform is to remove federal subsidies and related regulations from the transit equation.
Gov’t Fails – Spending
Plan Fails – congressional mandates waste money and prevent railroad efficiency
DeHaven ’10 - (Tad, budget analyst on federal and state budget issues, previous deputy director of the Indiana Office of Management
and Budget, previously served on the Economic Advisory Council, June, “Privatizing Amtrak”
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/amtrak/subsidies)
All that said, the
ultimate blame for Amtrak's long record of red ink and poor performance lies with
Congress. As a consequence of congressional mandates, Amtrak spends a huge amount of money maintaining
money-losing routes at the expense of routes with heavier traffic like the Northeast Corridor. Corridors
that do need more investment are starved because Amtrak is wasting money elsewhere.
Gov’t Fails – HSR Specific
Federal HSR not economically feasible- France and Japan prove. Costs $1 trillion and
local solutions solve best
Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven, 6/17/2010, Cato’s top expert on federal and state tax and budget issues and director of tax
policy studies; budget analyst on federal and state budget issues for the Cato Institute, The Washington Times, “”Privatize Transportation
Spending,” < http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/17/privatize-transportation-spending/> Date Accessed: 6/26/12 wh
To government planners, intercity high-speed rail is even sexier than urban rail systems. The
DOT is currently dishing out $8
billion for high-speed rail projects across the country, as authorized in the 2009 stimulus bill. Most people think that
the French and Japanese fast trains are cool, but they don’t realize that the price tag is enormous. For us to build a
nationwide system of bullet-style trains would cost up to $1 trillion. The truth about high-speed trains is that even
in densely-populated Japan and Europe, they are money losers, while carrying few passengers compared to
cars, airlines and buses. The fantasy of high-speed rail in America should be killed before it becomes a
huge financial drain on our already broke government. Through its ownership of Amtrak, the federal
government also subsidizes slow trains. The government has dumped almost $40 billion into the company since it was created
in 1971. Amtrak has a poor on-time record, its infrastructure is in bad shape, and it carries only a tiny
fraction of intercity passengers. Politicians prevent Amtrak from making cost-effective decisions regarding its routes, workforce
polices, capital investment and other aspects of business. Amtrak should be privatized to save taxpayer money and
give the firm the flexibility it needs to operate efficiently.
Airport Infrastructure
States Solve – Flexibility
CP solves best – state funding for airports allows flexibility for improvements
ASCE, 2012 (American Society of Civil Engineers, “Illinois – Aviation”, Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, June 2,
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/node/174)
According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), nationwide airline passenger travel increased by 3.3 percent to
764.7 million passengers in 2007. Commercial air carrier domestic enplanements had a modest increase of 0.6 percent compared to 2006.
However activity levels for 2008 declined at the rate of 3.1 percent compared to 2007 Evidenced by the statistics recorded and published
through November of 2009, it is also expected that 2009 will continue the downtrend for passenger demand for domestic and most
international markets. Aviation
activity closely correlates with economic activity. Consequently, it is likely
that current financial conditions will have a negative impact on the industry with reduced demand in
the years to come. This is not the first time the industry has faced these types of challenges and over time, history shows that
both the aviation industry and the economy will rebound. However in the interim, predicting growth
in air travel demand is challenging. The Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which is a federal grant
program use to fund airport improvements, is not increasing at the pace necessary to keep up with
the aging airport infrastructure. FAA's Fiscal Year 2009 budget request reduced the allocations to the AIP in favor of other
improvements to air traffic systems. At the state level, funding for aviation infrastructure has been in flux. The
approval of the Capital Bill has provided the state with more than $23 million in funds for airport
improvements. These funds will be applied to projects that increase safety, as well as rehabilitate and
build airfield pavements. The comprehensive airport improvements included in the bill are targeted to promote economic growth to
increase Illinois’s ability to attract businesses.
States Solve – Comparative
States Solve specific airport issues better than Federal Government
Wilbur Smith Associates, 5/20/10, professional consulting firm engaged in the planning and designing of public infrastructure
and transportation facilities, Wisconsin State Airport System Plan, http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/docs/air-classificationupdate.pdf [6/26/12]
These six system plans were included due to their recent completion dates, proximity to Wisconsin, and/or the use of factors applied to the
systems. As mentioned above, all
airport systems share commonalities between them while at the same time
being able to fine-tune various factors that are important to the specific needs and goals of the state.
As discussed previously, the FAA role classification of general aviation airports is relatively generic.
When systems are further defined by states, the roles are more clearly defined with nomenclature
that is specific to each state and easy to comprehend by both the aviation and non-aviation public.
Privatizing airports increases efficiency - empirics
Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven, 6/17/2010, Cato’s top expert on federal and state tax and budget issues and director of tax
policy studies; budget analyst on federal and state budget issues for the Cato Institute, The Washington Times, “”Privatize Transportation
Spending,” < http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/17/privatize-transportation-spending/> Date Accessed: 6/26/12 wh
A final area in DOT to make budget savings is aviation. Federal aid to airports should be ended and
local governments encouraged to privatize their airports and operate without subsidies. In recent decades,
dozens of airports have been privatized in major cities such as Amsterdam , Auckland, Frankfurt, London, Melbourne,
Sydney and Vienna. Air traffic control (ATC) can also be privatized. The DOT’s Federal Aviation
Administration has a terrible record in implementing new technologies in a timely and cost-effective
manner. Many nations have moved toward a commercialized ATC structure, and the results have
been very positive. Canada privatized its ATC system in 1996 in the form of a nonprofit corporation.
The company, NavCanada, has a very good record on both safety and innovation. Moving to a
Canadian-style ATC system would help solve the FAA’s chronic management and funding problems,
and allow our aviation infrastructure to meet rising aviation demand.
Gov’t Bad – Inflexible
CP solves best – FAA inflexibility prevents regulation of airports
Dave Demerjian, January 5, 2009, wired contributor, Air Traffic Control Towers Go From Bad to Worse, The Wired,
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/01/new-report-says/, [6/26/12]
Nearly 60 percent of the air traffic control towers and other key aviation facilities run by the Federal
Aviation Administration are more than 30 years old and plagued by leaks, mold and foggy windows
that can make it difficult to see the aircraft, an audit has found. The audit of 16 FAA facilities selected at
random by the Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General found "obvious
structural deficiencies and maintenance-related issues" that would keep the guys from This Old House busy for years.
Beyond leaky ceilings and faulty climate-control systems, the most severe problem was condensationclouded windows that made it difficult to see the airfield. The air traffic control tower at Andrews Air
Force Base — the airport used by the president — was among those with foggy windows. "It is important to
note that the maintenance issues we observed did not impact the safe operations at the facilities we visited," the report said. Still, some control
towers were too short because the airports they serve have expanded since the towers were built. Age is to blame for most of the problems,
the audit states. The FAA has 420 staffed air traffic control centers, each with a useful life of 25 to 30 years. But 59 percent of the buildings are
more than 30 years old, and the average age of the system’s control towers is 29. The
audit also attributes the repair backlog
— which Aero-News estimates at more than $240 million and the Associated Press says could grow to
$380 million by 2020 — to the FAA’s previous policy of allowing local officials to determine
maintenance-spending priorities. The FAA centralized its maintenance program four years ago, but the audit says the agency still
does not make maintenance a high enough priority. But the National Air Traffic Controllers Association says there’s
more to it than that. The group, which is locked in a nasty contract dispute with the FAA, claims the
FAA has deferred maintenance in favor of a shopping spree worthy of MTV Cribs. It points to things
like a 58-inch flat-screen TV for the control-tower conference room at Charlotte-Douglas International
and $5,000 spent on furniture for the tower at Ashville Regional Airport. Up to now, the FAA has said only that it
will take action to address the issues and recommendations raised by the audit. They include coming up with a method for consistently funding
ongoing maintenance operations, determining which FAA facilities will be needed once a new GPS-based air traffic control system is put in
place and ensuring that those facilities are equipped to handle the new system when it finally becomes a reality.
Port Infrastructure
States Solve – Jurisdiction
States are the main port regulators – USFG only has jurisdiction over harbors
Jay Etta Hecker, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, August 5th 2002 “Nation Faces Formidable Challenges in Making New
Initiatives Successful”, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02993t.pdf; wh
The federal government has jurisdiction over harbors and interstate and foreign commerce, but state
and local governments are the main port regulators. The entities that coordinate port operations, generally called port
authorities, differ considerably from each other in their structure. Some are integral administrative
arms of state or local governments; others are autonomous or semi-autonomous self-sustaining
public corporations. At least two—The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Delaware River Port Authority—involve two
states each. Port authorities also have varying funding mechanisms. Some have the ability to levy taxes,
with voter approval required. At other port authorities, voter approval is not required. Some have the ability to issue general
obligation bonds, and some can issue revenue bonds. Some ports receive funding directly from the
general funds of the governments they are a part of, and some receive state funding support through
trust funds or loan guarantees.
States Solve – Private Investment
Private ports are empirically proven to be better than ports financed by federal, state,
and local government.
Chris Edwards,. "Federal Infrastructure Investment." The Cato Institute. Cato Institute, 16 Nov. 2011. Web. 26 June 2012.
<http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/federal-infrastructure-investment>.
In its report on the state of U.S. infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers gives America a
grade of "D." 37 However, the ASCE report mainly focuses on infrastructure provided by governments, so if you believe that this low
grade is correct, then it is mainly due to government failures. The ASCE lobbies for more federal spending, but OECD data
shows that public-sector spending on infrastructure is about the same in this country as in other high-income nations. Some of the
infrastructure shortcomings in the United States stem from mismanagement and misallocation by the
federal government, rather than a lack of taxpayer support. So part of the solution is to decentralize
infrastructure financing, management, and ownership as much as possible. State and local governments and the
private sector are more likely to make sound investment decisions without the federal subsidies and
regulations that distort their decision mak0069ng. This committee's description of today's hearing noted: "Transportation
infrastructure is especially important to the manufacturing sector, which relies on various modes of transportation to obtain raw materials and
to transport end products to the marketplace." That is certainly true, and I think transportation privatization is part of the answer to improve
America's competitiveness in global markets. For example, nearly
all airports and seaports in this country are owned by
governments, but many airports and seaports abroad have been partly or fully privatized. The World
Economic Forum rates America's seaports only 23rd in the world, but the first- and third-best seaports
in the world, according to the WEF, are private — Singapore and Hong Kong.38 The federal government cannot
afford to expand its infrastructure spending because of today's massive deficits. Many states are also in a
budget squeeze. Fortunately, the global trend is toward partly or fully privatizing the financing and ownership of infrastructure. U.S.
policymakers should study the recent innovations in infrastructure investment, and then start
unloading the financing and ownership of our infrastructure to the private sector.
Gov’t Fails – Generic
Federal Government can’t maintain its seaports, harms U.S. business, workers, and
economy
Bridges, Jerry. "Investments in Seaports Essential." Al.com. Al, 4 Apr. 2012. Web. 27 June 2012. <http://blog.al.com/press-registerbusiness/2012/04/investments_in_seaports_essent.html>.
Since the birth of our nation, United States seaports
and the waterways that connect them have served as a vital
economic lifeline by bringing goods and services to people around the world and by delivering prosperity to
our nation. Seaports facilitate trade and commerce, create jobs, help secure our borders, support our
military and serve as stewards of valuable coastal environmental resources. They are responsible for
moving more than 99 percent of our country's overseas cargo, while international trade accounts for
more than a quarter of America's G ross D omestic P roduct. America's seaports support 13.3 million U.S.
jobs, which account for $649 billion in annual personal income. According to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, for every $1 billion in manufactured goods exported through America's seaports, 15,000
U.S. jobs are created. Although our nation's ports are dynamic, vibrant centers of trade and commerce, they rely on partnerships. U.S.
seaports and their marine terminal partners anticipate investing about $8 billion annually over the next five years to maintain and improve their
infrastructure. Unfortunately,
the federal government isn't adequately matching this commitment with
investments in connecting land- and waterside infrastructure to effectively handle increased cargo
volumes. This lack of federal foresight could create inefficiencies in moving cargo to and from ports, causing
time delays, cost increases, reduced international competitiveness for U.S. exports and product
shortages for consumers. Despite there being a federal Harbor Maintenance Tax on seaport cargo that raises 100 percent of the cost
for periodically dredging America's harbors and channels to their authorized dimensions, only about half of that money is being appropriated
for its intended purpose, resulting in serious dredging needs being neglected. With regard to constructing deeper channels, federal funding for
new projects has all but disappeared, although project sponsors -- usually ports -- pay between 35 percent and 60 percent of the cost,
depending on project depth. Landside connections with ports have also been a low federal priority, with little of the highway funds going to
freight transportation projects. The only bright light has been the recent federal transportation infrastructure (TIGER) grants, although not
enough has benefited port-related infrastructure. As we recover from the economic downturn, we must make investments today to address
the trade realities of the future. Ship sizes continue to get larger, requiring ongoing modernization of ports and federal navigation channels,
even for ports that don't require 50 feet of depth. Panama has recognized the need to modernize and has under way a major expansion of the
Panama Canal slated for completion in 2014. Canada and Mexico are also making significant investments which could result in losses of U.S.
maritime jobs as cargo enters the U.S. through these countries. We've already seen this job loss on the West Coast. Furthermore, the U.S. seeks
to double exports. However, countries like Brazil and Chile, which compete against the U.S. in terms of agricultural exports, are making
investments that could make their exports more competitive. In addition to these near-term challenges, we know that the U.S. population is
forecast to grow by 100 million a 30 percent increase before the middle of the century, and many of the goods used by this population will flow
through seaports. While
ports are planning for the future, the federal government hasn't kept pace with
the industry or our international competitors. The federal government has a unique Constitutional
responsibility to maintain and improve the infrastructure that enables the flow of commerce, and
much of that infrastructure in and around seaports has been neglected for too long. Many of our land
and water connections are insufficient and outdated, affecting the ports' ability to move cargo
efficiently. This hurts U.S. business, U.S. workers and our national economy.
Permutation Answers
Perm Fails – Cooperative Federalism
Perm fails – relies on a cooperative federal framework that crushes solvency and gets
modeled globally
Greve, 2000 (Michael, John G. Searle Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Ph.D. (Government) Cornell University, “Against
Cooperative Federalism”, Mississippi Law Journal, Winter, Lexis)
The United States Constitution envisions political conflict and functional separation among
independently constituted states and national institutions. Historically, this arrangement has been called "dual
federalism," n2 a term that emphasizes the co-existence of state governments with the federal government, with each level of government
possessing its own sphere of [*558] autonomy and direct coercive authority over citizens. The "dual" adjective stresses federalism's vertical,
state-to-federal dimension. In its horizontal, state-to-state perspective, the arrangement may also be called a "competitive federalism." Since
dual federalism confines the national government to a limited sphere of autonomy, it compels the states, in the vast realm that lies beyond the
national government's reach, to compete for citizens' assets, talents, and affections. Diversity among states, the citizens' ability to vote with
their feet, and the disciplining force of state competition are federalism's chief attractions. n3 In
practice, however, American
federalism has become an administrative, "cooperative federalism": state and local governments
administer and implement federal programs. n4 Many state-administered programs are funded by the
federal government, in whole or, more often, in part. Others take the form of conditional preemption, meaning
that the states may choose to administer the federal program or else, cede the regulatory field to the
federal government . Cooperative federalism covers an enormous array of regulatory fields, from the environment to education to
welfare and, lately, crime control. In its horizontal dimension, cooperative federalism replaces dual federalism's competition with state policy
cartels and uniform regulatory baselines. n5 [*559] This article argues that cooperative federalism is a rotten idea, its political popularity
notwithstanding. Cooperative
federalism undermines political transparency and accountability, thereby
heightening civic disaffection and cynicism; diminishes policy competition among the states; and
erodes self-government and liberty. The sooner we can think of viable means to curtail cooperative programs and to disentangle
government functions, the better off we shall be. We may not be able to think of such means, much less to put them to work, any time soon.
Dual, competitive (or, in modern public choice parlance, "market-preserving") federalism n6 is unstable, principally because it frustrates
political and interest group demands. Under realistic conditions, dual federalism's legal-institutional structures will crumble and accommodate
anticompetitive, cooperative entanglements. n7 The
corollary proposition is that cooperative federalism, unlike
[*560] its virtuous but frail competitive cousin, is stable. It accommodates the political and interest group demands that
dual federalism frustrates, thus giving organized groups a stake in the system. "Stable" does not mean static: cooperative federalism
periodically accommodates new demands, at a higher level of aggregate government spending. The moving political equilibrium point is the
next circle of hellish entanglement. n8 "Stable"
simply means that fundamental institutional challenges, and
especially attempts to re-introduce competitive structures, will usually founder on cooperative
federalism's political economy. We have nothing resembling a political theory that would explain how dual, market-preserving
federalism might preserve itself, n9 or how it might re-emerge from a cesspool of cooperation. The difficulty of the task may help explain why
thoughtful scholars have acknowledged and conceded potent arguments against cooperative arrangements, and then dismissed those
arguments on the grounds that cooperative federalism is real and therefore rational, or at any rate inevitable. n10 Before we succumb to
Hegelian insouciance, though, cooperative federalism's manifest failures and dysfunctionalities compel another look at the problem of moving
from cooperation to competition. In an earlier attempt to tackle the problem, I identified a scenario that might, under present political
conditions, allow a [*561] piecemeal restoration of a dual, competitive, "real" federalism. n11 That scenario revolved around the interplay
between a gradual judicial return to a robust enumerated-powers doctrine and the mobilization of anti-distributional "Leave-Us-Alone"
constituencies with a stake in more competitive politics. A scenario, of course, is neither a certainty nor a theory. As this article will make clear,
I am inclined to think that the odds are actually against an escape from cooperation, and I am no closer now than two years ago to a theory of
restoring competitive federalism. On the other hand, a plausible scenario that responds to the right theoretical question may warrant
additional, marginal efforts-at least until more promising, rigorous theories emerge or else, the project is shown to be futile. In that spirit, this
article provides a footnoted harangue, known among lawyers as a "brief," against cooperative federalism. If competitive federalism can be
restored, a critique of the cooperative status quo will prove helpful. If it can not, we shall never know what we are missing. n12 But we should
still lament, rather than celebrate, our cooperative fate. Cooperative
federalism in America is not an extension of the
constitutional scheme and its institutional logic. It is rather a set of infra-constitutional institutional
arrangements and policy regimes that are constrained, albeit weakly, by constitutional norms, such as the
implied Tenth Amendment prohibition against the federal "commandeering" of state and local officials.
however, have adopted cooperative
[*562]
n13 Many other countries,
federalism as a constitutional arrangement.
Among those
countries is Germany, and it is there that I will begin my brief against cooperative federalism (Section II). I take this excursion at the invitation of
Justice Breyer, whose dissenting opinion in Printz v. United States commends European federalism practices as a plausible model for the United
States. n14 While "the fact is that our federalism is not Europe's," n15 a visit abroad serves to show that cooperative federalism's pathologies
are endemic, rather than an accidental byproduct of American institutional practices. In Germany, those pathologies have become so severe
that the country, though traditionally proud of its cooperative federalism, is now conducting a vigorous debate about its defects. Not much will
come of that debate, since cooperative federalism's entanglements suffocate desperately needed reforms. Both the debate and its
disheartening prospects, though, contain sobering lessons for America and its experiment with cooperative federalism. Returning to the more
familiar American ground, Section III provides a brief history of cooperative federalism. Section IV shows that cooperative federalism cannot be
justified as an effective or public-interested regime. Rather, it can only be understood as an accommodation to interest group demands and to
the interests of imperfectly monitored political actors, state and federal (Section V). Irremediable agency problems produce intragovernmental
collusion against citizens. Political
remedies for cooperative federalism and its pathologies are possible only
under exceptional circumstances. Barring such circumstances, cooperative pathologies can only be curbed by means of
constitutional, judicially enforced constraints. Section [*563] VI explores the political and the constitutional reform options and-fully showing a
hopelessly tipped hand-makes a tentative normative case for judicial constraints on cooperative federalism.
States Counterplan Answers
Generic No Solvency
States Fail – Waste
State investments fail because money is wasted and poorly allocated
Puentes, Robert. Director of Metropolitan "State Transportation Reform." Brookings.edu. Brookings-Rockefeller, Feb. 2011. Web.
<http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/2/22%20infrastructure%20puentes/0222_infrastructure_puentes.pdf>.
Second, state
investments are not made in a sufficiently strategic, economy-enhancing way. States also
face challenges because they spend their (now-declining) transportation dollars poorly. For example, many
states have tended to allocate investments via logrolling rather than evidence. As a result, projects are spread around the state like peanut
butter. 10 The metropolitan areas that will deliver the next economy—since they already concentrate the assets that matter to smart economic
growth like transportation—are often undermined by spending and policy decisions that fail to recognize the economic engines they are and
focus investments accordingly. Nor
have states been deliberate about recognizing and supporting the
particular needs and challenges of both metro and non-metro areas.
Gov’t Good – Federal Planning
Current federal funding model solves: it accounts for spillover benefits and reduces
horizontal inequities
Duncombe and Hou ’11 – (William D. and Yilin come from the Center for Policy Research, the Maxwell School and the
Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Public and International Affairs, University of Georgia, respectively; “Substantiation
of Transportation Infrastructure – Patterns of Governance and Public Finance in Development: An Analytical Comparison of the United States
and China,” Prepared for the 1st China-India-US Symposium on Development and Governance:―Frameworks for the Analysis and Exploration
of Patterns of Development and Governance‖Indian Institute of Management-Bangalore (IIMB), January 21-23, 2011)
This paper has used the substantiation of transportation infrastructure to explore patterns of governance and public finance in development.
We have developed an analytical framework for this purpose. The modern human society since the Industrial Revolution has created increasing
demands for government involvement to solve issues that the market mechanisms alone cannot. As a trend, the government role in promoting
socio-economic progress has expanded, which is true regardless of the political or state system of a sovereign nation. Infrastructure as the basis
for economic development and productivity growth in particular requires an active role of government at all levels for coordination, policy
orientation or simply put, planning. A key challenge in large countries is finding mechanisms for solving information asymmetry problems
between the central government and subnational governments. Solving
the information problem requires balancing
central planning with decentralized implementation, thus incentivizing central, sub-central and local
governments. Given the public goods element of most transportation infrastructure, financing of
transportation facilities is best to be mainly from central government grants to subnational
governments. A strong central government role in financing infrastructure assures that the spillover
benefits (and costs) across subnational boundaries can be taken into account. In additional central
government grants can be distributed in a way to reduce horizontal inequities in fiscal capacity and
expenditure needs across regions of the country. However, central government grants should supplemented with subcentral and local revenues derived from benefit taxes and fees to provide incentives for subnational governments to efficiently construct and
maintain the transportation infrastructure.
Federal involvement is key to avoid haphazard planning, which negatively affects
economic growth
Duncombe and Hou ’11 – (William D. and Yilin come from the Center for Policy Research, the Maxwell School and the
Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Public and International Affairs, University of Georgia, respectively; “Substantiation
of Transportation Infrastructure – Patterns of Governance and Public Finance in Development: An Analytical Comparison of the United States
and China,” Prepared for the 1st China-India-US Symposium on Development and Governance:―Frameworks for the Analysis and Exploration
of Patterns of Development and Governance‖Indian Institute of Management-Bangalore (IIMB), January 21-23, 2011)
There is little doubt that growth in transportation infrastructure and economic growth were strongly
linked in the U.S. over the last two centuries. All three levels of government have played an important
role in shaping the expansion of transportation systems. Three key elements characterize the transportation
infrastructure investment process in the U.S. First, there has been a lack of federal and state government
infrastructure planning linked to economic development planning. The planning that has occurred, such as the
emergence of highway planning in the last century, tends to be focused more narrowly on one transportation mode. Second, the
federal government has had to take a more limited role in the expansion of infrastructure because of
concerns about unconstitutional expansion of federal power. Instead, the federal government has
tended to influence infrastructure decisions through the use of federal grants and regulations of
specific transportation modes. Third, the financing of infrastructure has often evolved in a haphazard
fashion which resulted in significant inefficiencies and waste. Differences in financing mechanisms by
mode of transportation has created price distortions which has lead to inefficient allocation of
government resources. In particular, several recent reports have highlighted the underinvestment in railroads relative to highways
because of the differences in financing mechanisms (Transportation Research Board 2009; National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
Study Commission 2007).
Public-Private Partnerships
P3s Fail – No Investment
Private partnerships fail – lack of investment and protectionist fears
Plumer 12 Plumer, Brad. "More States Privatizing Their Infrastructure. Are They Making a Mistake?" Washington Post. The Washington
Post, 02 Apr. 2012. Web. 28 June 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/more-states-privatizing-their-infrastructureare they-making-a-mistake/2012/03/31/gIQARtAhnS_blog.html>.
But before getting too excited about the magical powers of private firms, experts warn that there are
potential pitfalls to these arrangements. For one, as Robert Puentes of Brookings noted in a recent paper(pdf), these are
complicated multi-decade financial arrangements. And “many states,” he notes, “lack the technical
capacity and expertise to consider such deals and fully protect the public interest.” For another, the deals need
to be structured wisely — in Maryland, for instance, Republicans have warned that certain provisions in the pending Senate bill could allow the
government to circumvent the competitive bidding process. (The bill itself does, however, create several layers of review.) Moreover, a
road
that’s privately owned for 75 years has the potential to conflict with other public-policy goals. For
instance, as a recent GAO report (pdf) found, four of the five privately-funded toll road projects in the
last 15 years included non-compete clauses that prevented the government from building nearby
roads. As Tim Lee notes, “real-world privatization schemes are often explicitly protectionist.” So what if a state, say,
later decides that it wants to build a rail network that competes with the private road? All sorts of
complications could arise. Plus, privatization can’t work everywhere. “It’s not a universal tool,” says
Jonathan Peters, a professor of finance at the College of State Island who has studied these partnerships. There are plenty of roads
in states like Montana, for starters, that don’t pay for themselves and would be unappealing to private
investors. There are ways around this — Madrid, for one, built its subway system by offering formula-based subsidies to private firms,
which still bore the risk of a shortfall in rider demand — but it’s trickier. Few transportation experts think we can fill our
multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure shortfall with private money alone.
P3s Fail – Cost
Public Private partnerships fail – cost overruns, delays and procurement concerns kill
quality of infrastructure
DOT DEC 04 United States Department of Transportation. By DOT. Federal Highway Administration, Dec. 2004. Web. 26
June.<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pppdec2004/#3b>.
Public-private partnerships do not always result in cost savings. As demonstrated in Figure 3.1, Florida’s use of
innovative contracting resulted in cost overruns more often than they resulted in cost savings. Another
example of cost overruns is Washington State’s first design-build project, the SR 500 Thurston Way Interchange, in
Vancouver, Washington. The actual design-build project costs were approximately 23% more than the
estimated costs for the project under the traditional design-bid-build methods ($25,610,004 vs. $20,878,121).
This comparison is based primarily upon a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) engineer’s estimate used to construct an
equivalent design-bid-build cost model.[116] Dr. Keith Molenaar with the University of Colorado at Boulder, Department of Civil,
Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, evaluated the use of design-build on the SR 500 Thurston Way Interchange on behalf of WSDOT.
In his report, in his view, the risk of cost increases in this case outweighed the potential benefits.[117] Public-private
partnerships
do not always create time savings. Again, Figure 3.1 shows that innovative procurement methods, including
those directly providing incentives for on-time delivery, often failed to be completed when required.
And when public-private partnerships do create time savings on a project basis, it can be at the
expense of other projects. A+B contracting is designed to focus contractors on the importance of completing projects in a timely
manner. Even when effective, however, this type of procurement can produce an increased burden on the resources of State agencies.[118]
Extended work hours may be required to provide appropriate inspection of the project and training of personnel.[119] Concerns
have
also been expressed about the impact procurement methods like design-build might have on the
quality of a project. The shortened schedule and the increased control of the contractor could lead to
lower quality because the public sector partner typically has less of an opportunity to design and
inspect the project.[120]
P3s Fail – Backlash
P3s fail – public backlash prevents investment success
Department of Transportation, "REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS." FHWA. United States
Department of Transportation, Dec. 2004. Web. 26 June 2012. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pppdec2004/#3>.
A common type of alternative financing is tolls.[181] Generally, the public resists toll projects and
opposes the tolling of pre-existing tax-supported roads. The public views the roads as "free" and believes that the
construction and maintenance of these roads has already been paid for through Federal and State gas taxes, as well as other fees. Tolls are
often viewed as an additional charge for a road for which the public believes it has already paid
through taxes and other fees. However, when roads must be expanded to handle peak travel demands, existing taxes paid by
motorists are inadequate to cover the costs, as discussed below. State and Federal officials have a long history of commitment to "free" roads
and have
had difficulty generating enthusiasm for toll facilities, particularly in the face of public
resistance.[182] Political and cultural resistance to tolling is reflected in the Federal-aid highway program, which as early as 1916
prohibited the use of tolls on federally funded roadways. Even today, tolling on the Interstate Highway System is prohibited except for two pilot
programs that allow tolling of Interstates in limited situations—the value pricing pilot program established in 1991 and reauthorized in 1998,
and the Interstate System reconstruction and rehabilitation pilot program authorized in 1998.[183] The
public view towards tolls
must change before the private sector will feel confident enough to pursue public-private
partnerships and be able to gain financing and community support.[184]
State Infrastructure Banks
SIB Fails – No Money
CP Fails – Not enough money to fund projects – California proves
Robert Behre, assistant city editor, March 18, 2012, date provided updated version original found in November 18, 2011, State
Infrastructure Bank can't fund each road project, Post and Courier, http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20111118/PC1602/311189954,
[6/27/12]
Berkeley County officials told key members of the State Infrastructure Bank on Thursday that the
county needs $30 million to widen Interstate 26 and improve other roads for a world-class
distribution center near Summerville. Then Charleston Mayor Joe Riley told the same group that the city
really needs $88 million to create a drainage system for the Crosstown Expressway, which was built over an old creek bed
with no workable drainage system. And then Dorchester County officials told the bank members it needed $19
million to improve roads to Ashley Ridge High School and buy right of way for widening U.S. Highway 78 west of Summerville. State
Infrastructure Bank President Don Leonard called all three presentations "excellent." The only
problem? The bank doesn't have nearly enough money. The three Lowcountry projects are competing with others in
Beaufort, York and Jasper counties. These six requests add up to $462 million, while the bank has about $80
million to grant. Three members of the bank met at Charleston City Hall to begin hearing details on the projects. Within a few months,
they will advise the full seven-member bank board, which will make the final decisions. Several state lawmakers joined in
Thursday's presentations, but none were optimistic about increasing the bank's bank account in the
short term. State Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, said the Legislature is unlikely to channel new
revenue to the bank next year, and he said it's "very unlikely" the S.C. Department of Transportation
can help. "DOT is still sorting through their cash-flow catastrophe," he said. Gov. Nikki Haley wasn't at the bank
meeting, but she made a similar point in Summerville on Thursday. Asked if she would support raising the state's gas tax so tourists passing
through could contribute toward repairing the state's roads, Haley said she wouldn't favor that until the DOT is reformed. Kate Parks of the
Coastal Conservation League attended the presentations and later noted the bank's cash crunch would be eased if it dropped the alreadyfunded but controversial $420 million Interstate 526 project between West Ashley and James Island. "What is clear to me is 526 just doesn't
compete with these projects," she said. And these six projects don't include a $358 million plan application that Lowcountry officials are
preparing to improve roads in and around Boeing's new North Charleston plant.
Road Infrastructure
A2 Congestion – No Impact
No impact- adaptation solves – only a risk it is good for the economy
Conrad deFiebre, 6/6/12, transportation fellow for Hindsight2020 in Minnesota, Hindsight 2020, “”The Good Side of Traffic Congestion,
<http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/view/the-good-side-of-traffic-congestion> Accessed: 6/28/12
A new comparative study of congestion levels and economic performance from Florida Atlantic University found that every
10 percent increase in traffic delays in U.S. urban areas was accompanied by a 3.4 percent increase in
output of goods and services. As lead researcher Eric Dumbaugh noted, this is highly counterintuitive. "How could being stuck in
traffic lead people to be more productive?" he wrote in an Atlantic Cities article. "The relationship is almost certainly not causal. Instead,
regional GDP and traffic
congestion are tied to a common moderating variable—the presence of a vibrant,
economically productive city. People travel for work and meetings, for shopping and recreation. They produce and demand goods
and services, which further increases travel demand." Over time, he noted, "People adapt to congested environments" in
many ways: moving to more accessible areas, traveling shorter distances, shifting to transit or footpowered mobility. Furthermore, he said, trip scheduling and routing technologies that speed people
and shipments of goods around pockets of congestion are on pace to become a $9 billion-plus
industry by 2015.
A2 Congestion – Adaptation Solves
Congestion inevitably encourages other forms of transportation
WSJ, 8/9/09, Wall Street Journal, “How Traffic Jams Help the Environment,”
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461572304842840.html> Accessed 6/28/12, wh
Traffic jams can actually be environmentally beneficial if they turn subways, buses, car pools, bicycles
and walking into more-attractive options. Residents of the New York metropolitan area are extraordinarily
committed transit users—they account for almost a third of all the public-transit passenger miles traveled in the
United States. Making a cab ride seem more efficient than the subway, by reducing the congestion on
the streets, would be a loss for the environment.