Baylor Briefs 2012
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BAYLOR BRIEFS 2012 SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT by RICH EDWARDS RYAN GALLOWAY SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT EDITORS Rich Edwards, Ph.D. Professor of Communication Studies, Baylor University Ryan Galloway, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Samford University BAYLOR BRIEFS P.O. BOX 20243 WACO, TEXAS 76702 Phone: (254) 848-5959 Fax: (254) 848-4473 On the Web: www.baylorbriefs.com Email: [email protected] © 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS …………………………....….…..... 1 AFFIRMATIVE CASES AND BRIEFS National Infrastructure Bank: Financing America’s Future ………….………………………. 5 Road Ecology: Transportation Infrastructure Should Respect Wildlife .................................... 10 High-Speed Rail: Getting Back on Track ................................................................................... 13 NextGen: Bringing Air Traffic Control Into the 21st Century .................................................... 16 Transit: Equity in Transportation Infrastructure Investment ...................................................... 19 Fix-It-First: Getting Serious About Highway Maintenance ....................................................... 22 Inland Waterways: Investing to Protect America’s Farmers ...................................................... 25 Port Security: Confronting the Threat from Nuclear Terrorism ................................................. 27 Safe Routes to School: Facilitating a Walking Lifestyle ............................................................ 30 Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure: Moving Beyond the Oil Era .............................................. 33 Other Thoughts: Transportation Infrastructure in Indian Country ............................................. 36 FIRST NEGATIVE BRIEFS Transportation Infrastructure Is Adequate Supported at Present ............................................... 37 Transportation Infrastructure Issues Should Be Left to State Governments ............................. 38 Private Investment Is Preferable for Transportation Infrastructure ........................................... 40 Road Ecology ............................................................................................................................. 41 Oil Resources Are Plentiful …...…………................................................................................. 42 The Advantages of High-Speed Rail Investment Are Exaggerated ........................................... 43 Problems With the U.S. System of Air Traffic Control Are Exaggerated ................................. 44 Problems With NextGen Justify Caution in Adopting the System ............................................ 45 Public Transportation Already Receives Its Fair Share of Funding .......................................... 46 Highway Maintenance Is Primarily a State Government Responsibility .................................. 48 Federal Programs Adequately Provide for Highway Maintenance ........................................... 49 Additional Federal Investment in Inland Waterways Is Unnecessary ....................................... 50 Building Bigger Locks and Dams Is Inadvisable ...................................................................... 51 Port Security .............................................................................................................................. 52 Safe Routes to School ................................................................................................................ 54 Hydrogen Economy ................................................................................................................... 55 SECOND NEGATIVE BRIEFS Privatization Disadvantage ………………...………....……..................................................... 57 Federalism Militarization .......................................................................................................... 60 Foreign Aid Trade-Off Disadvantage ........................................................................................ 63 Russian Oil Disadvantage ……….………………...…............................................................... 66 Deficit Disadvantage …...……….……...................................................................................... 69 Politics Disadvantage ………...……………….......................................................................... 71 INDEX TO EVIDENCE …………………………………………..………………………. 73 EVIDENCE ……………………………………………………….……………………...... 79 BAYLOR BRIEFS 1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. This resolution will stimulate discussion about the role of the federal government in providing funding for the nation’s highways, railroads, airports, seaports, and urban transit systems. The Obama administration has, since 2009, been pushing infrastructure investment as a means of creating jobs and bringing the U.S. economy back from recession. President Obama’s vision for transportation includes a shift in emphasis to provide more funding for high-speed rail, public transportation, and transportation enhancements such as pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths. Congress, especially the Republican-controlled House of Representative, wants transportation funding to focus more narrowly on traditional areas such as bridge and highway repair. These political differences have, so far, made it impossible for the federal government to pass a permanent extension to the nation’s transportation bill. Federal transportation spending has, since the early 1990s, been authorized through a series of 6-year transportation bills. The first of these, covering the period from 1992 to 1998, was the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The transportation bill for the years 1998 to 2004 was called the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The last six-year authorization for transportation infrastructure spending, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), covered the period from 2005 to 2011. Though this transportation authorization expired in September of 2011, Congress and the President have so far been unable to agree upon a permanent replacement. Instead, transportation funding has been authorized by a series of short-term extensions to SAFETEA-LU. By the time the 2012-2013 debate season starts, Congress probably will have passed the next 6-year transportation bill. As of May, 2012, however, the two houses of Congress have been unable to agree on a permanent extension. Since the 2012-2013 debate topic calls for increased federal “investment,” it will be important to understand the various controversies related to current sources of federal transportation infrastructure investment. The following paragraphs are designed to provide some information concerning possible sources of funding for an affirmative plan. Federal funding for transportation infrastructure draws upon user fees in each of the transportation sectors. The federal gas tax is the primary source of funding for highway and public transportation funding. The current federal tax rate is 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline, a rate that has remained unchanged since 1993. Each state government also funds its infrastructure spending from a tax on gasoline, ranging from a low of 8 cents per gallon in Alaska to 49 cents per gallon in New York. Similar tax rates also apply to diesel fuel. The federal government places most of the money from the gas tax into the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF). But 15.5% of the federal gas tax goes into the Mass Transit Account (MTA), designed to fund public transportation in urban areas. Until recently, all federal highway spending was allocated from user fees deposited in the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Starting in 2008, the Highway Trust Fund began to have insufficient funds to cover the amount of federal highway spending; the shortages had to be funded from general federal revenues. In 2009, for example, federal spending on ground transportation was $53.6 billion, only $34.96 billion of which could be withdrawn from the Highway Trust Fund. Though a string of federal commissions have recommended that the federal gas tax be increased, the “no new taxes” mood of Congress has made any increase politically impossible. Federal aviation programs are funded primarily from a 7.5% federal airline tax on domestic airline tickets, taxes on jet fuel, charges for international departures and arrivals, and about a dozen other miscellaneous airport-related taxes. These user fees are deposited in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The federal government uses this trust fund to support the air traffic control and other regulatory functions of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) also receives about 80% of its funding from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, with the remainder coming from general federal revenues. Federal programs for seaports and inland waterways are also funded through user fees. Commercial operators on inland waterways pay a fuel tax of 20 cents per gallon that goes into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Proceeds from this trust fund partially pay for the work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as they maintain the locks and dams on the rivers that support barge traffic. The federal government