<File Name> DDI 2012

<File Name> DDI 2012

Mass Transit Neg

Strat Sheet?

**the plan texts don’t really explain the solvency of the aff very well…. I guess I don’t think that the way the plan text is worded doesn’t explain why the aff building public transit is inherently different from the squo building public transit….?

CO Lab Version

-Capitalism K + case (2NR – gentrification)

-Privates/states (privates solvency is better, but makes running the neoliberal/cap k less credible AND states is cool, but the perm might be the best option to solving low-income/minority discriminatory policies)

-Elections/spending (but probably shouldn’t read elections AND spending because the warrants to the Romney kills jobs impact card is that Romney would cut back government spending)

-There is impact framing in the file

KM Lab Version (has more emphasis on automobility)

-Same as above

SS – environmental justice version (has more emphasis on automobility)

-Same as above

SS – neoliberalism (idk about this neg strat…. )

-Capitalism K --- they don’t solve neoliberalism, and I’m pretty sure we can win that they probably reinforce neoliberalism/capitalism

-Elections/Spending (but probably shouldn’t read elections AND spending because the warrants to the Romney kills jobs impact card is that Romney would cut back government spending)

-Privates/states (privates solvency is better, but they’ll probably run some kritiky stuff on you/states is cool, but the perm might be the best option to solving low-income/minority discriminatory policies

-There is impact framing in the file

(CO Lab) The Case o.O

1NC

Inherency

1.TIGER grants fund urban improvements and mass transit

Augurson et. al., ‘10

[Shirley Augurson: Associate director for Environmental Justice, Gye Aung: Planning Team Leaders of Federal Lands Highway, Dorothy Crawford: Community Liason, Monica Espinosa: US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Justice Program, 12/15/2010, US EPA Document by Office of Environmental Justice and the Office of Sustainable Communities, <

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants¶ In February 2010, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, DOT announced $1.5 billion ¶ in TIGER grants for more than 50 innovative transportation projects across the country. Twenty-two of ¶ these projects were selected because they would promote livability by increasing transportation choice, ¶ providing better access to job opportunities, strengthening economic resiliency, and protecting air and ¶ water quality. As part of the continuing coordination under the Partnership, DOT used EPA and HUD’s ¶ expertise in its application review to select projects that would achieve multiple benefits. ¶ Now urban, suburban, and rural communities across the nation are getting ready for the exciting ¶ improvements TIGER grant money will bring. For example, TIGER will fund a new streetcar loop linking ¶ downtown New Orleans with other transit services and an Amtrak hub. In Revere, Massachusetts, TIGER ¶ funding will be used to turn acres of dilapidated parking lots into a bus and rail station with pedestrian ¶ access to the adjacent Wonderland neighborhood, site of America’s first public beach. Grant money will ¶ also support Whitefish, Montana’s plan to improve vitality on its main street and maintain a pedestrianfriendly streetscape, balanced with the need to move significant volumes of traffic.

2.US DOT Order 5610 requires federally permitted projects to address inequitable effects of transportation projects

PB, ‘12

[Parsons and Brinckenhoff in cooperation with EPA, NEJAC, FHWA, 2012, <

Rooted primarily in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 federal agencies have answered the directives included in Executive Order 12898 and have issued subsequent guidances that specifically address environmental justice. The U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610and Federal Highway Administration Order 6640.23 provide additional guidance, and require that federally funded or permitted transportation projects address disproportionately high and adverse effects by employing three fundamental principles of environmental justice:¶ Avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating disproportionatelyhigh and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations.¶ Ensuring the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process.¶ Preventing the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.

3.SQUO solves – NEPA policies provide education opportunities and require public participation in urban areas of new construction

Johnson, ‘12

[Martha Johnson, Administrator, 2/2012, General Services Administration Environmental Justice Strategy <

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation¶ GSA leases, acquires, develops, manages, and disposes of real property for the ¶ Federal Government. In so doing, GSA has significant responsibilities for ¶ implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and its associated ¶ regulations. Broadly speaking, NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate ¶ environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the ¶ environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to ¶ those actions. More specifically, NEPA articulates the Federal policy that:¶ Favors protecting the quality of the human environment¶ 4¶ Requires Federal agencies to consider the impacts of their proposed ¶ activities, programs, and projects on the quality of the human ¶ environment¶ Affords opportunities for the public to learn about and influence an ¶ agency’s decision making¶ Requires analysis and documentation on the potential environmental ¶ impact of a proposed action, as well as methods of mitigating such ¶ impacts.¶ In support of all of the above, these NEPA studies are conducted by ¶ way of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Environmental ¶ Assessment (EA), or a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). GSA, through its NEPA Desk Guide, has outlined guidance for the agency to ¶ carry out the requirements of NEPA in accordance with federal regulations. ¶ Included within the NEPA Desk Guide is a section dedicated to Environmental ¶ Justice. Because GSA’s actions take place in urban as well as rural areas, ¶ there is potential for effects (beneficial or adverse) on minority and lowincome populations. An agency must consider the impacts on the natural, ¶ social, and cultural environments, including environmental justice, through ¶ the NEPA process for all proposed GSA actions. Some proposed actions may ¶ occur in situations where an EIS, EA or a CATEX might be the operative ¶ level of NEPA analysis. Thus consideration must be given to conducting ¶ some level of environmental justice review as part of each GSA NEPA ¶ review. ¶ The NEPA process also requires the inclusion of public participation. ¶ Agencies shall make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and ¶ implementing their NEPA procedures and provide public notice of NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and the availability of environmental ¶ documents so as to inform those persons and agencies who may be interested ¶ or affected.

Solvency

4.Inequitable transportation policy decisions are the result of minorities with little voice or lack of information – the plan can’t solve

Sanchez et. al., ‘03

[Thomas Sanchez: Guggenheim Award-winning historical novelist, Rich Stolz: CHC Alumni Leadership Award, Campaign Manager of Reform Immigration For America, Center for Community of Change fellow, founder of Fair Immigration Reform Movement, National Hunger Fellow, Jacinta S. Ma: legal fellow and deputy director at the Asian America Justice Center, senior advisor to Commissioner Stuart J. Ishimaru at US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, senior policy advisor of First Lady Obama, civil rights attorney through Harvard’s Civil Rights Project, J.D. from NYU and B.A from Berkeley, 2003, Center for Community Change & the Harvard Civil Rights Project Joint Report <

Language and Information Barriers ¶ Inequitable transportation policy decisions are often made because minority and low-income ¶ individuals and communities are unable to learn about transit options or have little voice in ¶ transportation planning because of language barriers or lack of information. Like other obstacles to ¶ transportation accessibility, language barriers diminish social and economic opportunities by ¶ limiting a person’s ability to travel (such as by preventing a person from obtaining a drivers’ ¶ license), which is exacerbated by their inability to communicate to policymakers and planners about ¶ transportation needs.

5.Ease of access and increasing transportation facility causes displacement of original residents as house and property costs rise

Rose, ‘02

[Kalima Rose, Senior Director of PolicyLink Center for infrastructure equity, Urban Habitat’s Race Poverty Environment Project <

Indicators ofGentrification¶ Specific community attributes that create the greatest vulnerabilities to displacement include:¶ a high proportion of renters¶ ease of access to jobs centers (freeways, public transit, reverse commutes, new subway stations or ferry routes)¶ location in a regionwith increasing levels of metropolitan congestion and¶ comparatively low housing values, particularly for housing stock with architectural merit.¶ While the story of gentrification within each community is unique, the process tends to unfold in a series of recognizable stages. The first stage involves some significant public or nonprofit redevelopment investment and/or private newcomers buying and rehabbing vacant units.¶ In the next stage, the neighborhood's low housing costs and other amenities become known and housing costs rise. Displacement begins as landlords take advantage of rising market values and evict long-time residents in order to rent or sell to the more affluent. Increasingly, newcomers are more likely to be homeowners, andthe rising property values cause down payment requirements to increase. With new residents come commercial amenities that serve higher income levels.¶ As rehabilitation becomes more apparent, prices escalate and displacement occurs in force. New residents have lower tolerance for existing social service facilities that serve homeless populations or other low-income needs; as well as industrial and other uses they view as undesirable. Original residents are displaced along with their industries, commercial enterprises, faith institutions and cultural traditions. In San Francisco's Mission District, rents escalated so rapidly in the past few years that nonprofit health clinics, Latino cultural arts organizations and the ubiquitous auto repair shops have been forced to close. In their place, dot.coms and other office uses neither serve nor employ the historic residents of the community.

6.Transportation infrastructure construction would effect in negative consequences – disrupted travel, slow traffic, congestion, more noise and pollutants

Stephani et. al., ‘09

[Carl Stephani: Executive Director, Ken Shooshan-Stoller: Deputy Directory, Margus Laan: Senior Planner of CCRPA (in cooperation US DOT), 6/2009, Social Impact Report – American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Highway Infrastructure Investment share CT <

Implementation impacts are the physical consequences arising from a ¶ project’s construction. (Projects that solely involve expansions or changes in ¶ service do not generally incur negative implementation impacts.) Construction ¶ often has immediate, negative consequences for the neighborhood where a ¶ project is located: travel paths are disrupted, traffic flow slows, surrounding ¶ streets may become more congested, there is a great deal of noise, there may ¶ be dust or other pollutants in the air. These effects are typically temporary, and ¶ may be counterbalanced by improvements to mobility and accessibility in the ¶ neighborhood once the project is complete.

7.Mass transit fails – people won’t use it

Wall Street Journal, 12 – editorial (“Why Your Highway Has Potholes,” 4/15,

Since 1982 government mass-transit subsidies have totaled $750 billion (in today's dollars), yet the share of travelers using transit has fallen by nearly one-third, according to Heritage Foundation transportation expert Wendell Cox. Federal data indicate that in 2010 in most major cities more people walked to work or telecommuted than used public transit.

Brookings Institution economist Cliff Winston finds that "the cost of building rail systems is notorious for exceeding expectations, while ridership levels tend to be much lower than anticipated." He calculates that the only major U.S. rail system in which the benefits outweigh the government subsidies is San Francisco's BART, and no others are close to break-even.

2NC Extensions

1NC 1: TIGER solves

1NC #1: TIGER grants solve – 2010 ARRA allocated $1.5 billion to transportation projects that promoted mass transit systems for urban communities – that’s Augurson. Even though $1.5 billion isn’t much money in terms of federal spending, the fact that funding allocation occurs in the status quo means that the world without the affirmative still considers the safety and livability of minority and low-income residents

SQUO solves - Social Impact Reports ensure equitably distributed benefits and target projects toward low-income and minority residents

Stephani et. al., ‘09

[Carl Stephani: Executive Director, Ken Shooshan-Stoller: Deputy Directory, Margus Laan: Senior Planner of CCRPA (in cooperation US DOT), 6/2009, Social Impact Report – American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Highway Infrastructure Investment share CT <

The primary purpose of the SIR is to ensure that benefits from ¶ transportation projects are equitably distributed across population clusters in ¶ the region, and that no segment of the population is unduly burdened with ¶ negative impacts. Target areas are areas with relatively high proportions of lowincome or minority residents, and are defined in two ways: ¶ Primary Target Areas are Census Block Groups having at least 50% ¶ population that identifies as non-white (minority) or Hispanic (of any race). ¶ Secondary Target Areas are Census Block Groups wherein at least ¶ 20% of the population has household income less than 150% of the Census ¶ poverty threshold. ¶ Based on population counts from the 2000 decennial Census, 26% of ¶ the region’s population lives within the block groups classified as target areas. If ¶ ARRA funds are being invested equitably across all population clusters in the ¶ region, 26% of the funding should be allocated to projects having beneficial ¶ impacts in the target areas.

1NC 2: DOT Order 5610 solves

1NC #2: the Department of Transportation requires all transportation projects to address environmental justice problems and avoid adverse effects on minority and low income populations – that’s PB. Starting with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the USFG has been implementing anti-discrimination regulations that have specifically addressed environmental racism

Title VI, Restoration Act, and EO 12898 established precedents that extend environmental justice to low-income populations now

TTI, ‘06

[Texas Transportation Institute, Washington State Comprehensive Tolling Study Final Report – Volume 2, 9/20/2006, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., <

The Policy Foundation ¶ The analytical basis of equity and fairness in transportation infrastructure and services is ¶ found in several policies and directives, in chronological order: ¶ • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states, “No person in theUnited States ¶ shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, ¶ be denied the benefitsof, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or ¶ activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”¶ 3¶¶ • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which decided in favor of communityoriented analysis of policy-making.¶ 4¶For proposed major transportation facilities, an ¶ analysis of environmental impacts was now required that went beyond the ¶ infrastructure itself to include a broader geographic area. ¶ • Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, which assured that transportation facilities be ¶ approved “in the best overall public interest” with efforts to eliminate or minimize ¶ effects on community cohesion, employment effects, and displacement of people.¶ Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which identified the extent to which Title VI ¶ applied, to include all Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients, and contractors regardless ¶ of whether specific activities in question are Federally funded or not.¶ 6¶ • Executive Order 12898 of 1994, which established the precedent that environmental ¶ justice consideration be extended to low-income populations and to avoid ¶ “disproportionately high and adverse” effects.¶ 7¶ • U.S. Department of Transportation implementation actions, which provided ¶ requirements upon and guidance for transportation agencies and professionals in ¶ incorporating environmental justice principles in all transportation activities.¶ 8¶ ,¶ 9¶ These actions combine to provide the fundamental concerns of Environmental Justice:¶ 10¶ 1. To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionatelyhigh and adverse human health or ¶ environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations ¶ and low-income populations; ¶ 2. To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the ¶ transportation decision-making process; and ¶ 3. To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by ¶ minority populations and low-income populations.

1NC 3: NEPA solves

1NC #3: NEPA policies provide transportation-related education opportunities that encourage public participation in urban construction which means in the status quo, the government actively consults urban minority and low-income populations about potential construction projects to give them knowledge and a voice in actions that directly impact their residential areas – that’s Johnson.

That solves - Environmental equity results from opportunities for public involvement in the planning process

Brenman, ‘10

[Marc Brenman, Washington State Human Rights Commission member, Environmental Justice and Transportation Practitioner 4/21/2010, Environmental Justice Assesment of Transportation Projects <

An equitable transportation system would: ¶ Ensure opportunities for meaningful public involvement in the ¶ transportation planning process, particularly for those communities ¶ that most directly feel the impact of projects or funding choices ¶ Be held to a high standard of public accountability and financial ¶ transparency ¶ Distribute the benefits and burdens from transportation projects ¶ equally across all income levels and communities ¶ Provide high quality services—emphasizing access to economic ¶ opportunity and basic mobility—to all communities, but with an ¶ emphasis on transit-dependent populations ¶ Equally prioritize efforts both to revitalize poor and minority ¶ communities and to expand transportation infrastructure

1NC 4: Environmental racism  no information and voice

1NC #4: transportation inequities result from minority and low-income residents lack of education and voice in construction projects – means the plan can’t solve because it fundamentally disregards and ignores the minorities in the process – that’s Sanchez and Brenman