active transportation neg

8/14/2019 Active Transportation NEG

1/60

Negative Evidence Packet

Transportation Infrastructure

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its

transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.


2/60

ContentsCase Negative ........................................................................................................................................... 4

1NC Inherency ...................................................................................................................................... 51NC Inherency ...................................................................................................................................... 61NC Social Justice Answers ................................................................................................................. 71NC Social Justice Answers ................................................................................................................. 81NC No Health Harms .......................................................................................................................... 91NC No Health Harms ........................................................................................................................ 10AT: Military Readiness ...................................................................................................................... 11AT: Global Warming .......................................................................................................................... 12AT: Global Warming .......................................................................................................................... 13AT: Global Warming .......................................................................................................................... 141NC Solvency Social Justice .............................................................................................................. 151NC Solvency Social Justice .............................................................................................................. 16

Solvency Extensions Social Justice .................................................................................................... 171NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 181NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 191NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 201NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 211NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 221NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 231NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 24Extensions for Active Transportation Solvency ................................................................................. 251NC No Planning Solvency ................................................................................................................ 281NC No Planning Solvency ................................................................................................................ 29

Highway Trade-off Disadvantage ........................................................................................................... 30

1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 1/3 ................................................................... 311NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 2/3 ................................................................... 321NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 3/3 ................................................................... 33Uniqueness ExtensionsFunding to Highways Now ........................................................................ 34Uniqueness ExtensionsUS Infrastructure Good Now ..................................................................... 35Link ExtensionsLess Money for Highways .................................................................................... 36Link ExtensionsHighways Key to Growth ..................................................................................... 38AT: China will decline ....................................................................................................................... 40China Impact Extensions .................................................................................................................... 41Impact Extension: US Economic Hegemony ..................................................................................... 42Impact Extension: US Hegemony prevents war ................................................................................. 43Impact Extension: US Hegemony prevents war ................................................................................. 44

Budget Disadvantage .............................................................................................................................. 45

1NC Budget Disadvantage 1/3 ............................................................................................................ 46Uniqueness Fiscal Discipline Now: 2NC ............................................................................................ 49Uniqueness AT: Debt Limit after Election: 2NC ................................................................................ 50Uniqueness AT: Defense Authorization: 2NC .................................................................................... 51A2 Business Investment Turn: 2NC ................................................................................................... 52

2NC ......................................................................................................................................................... 55

Impact Calculus 2NC ....................................................................................................................... 56


3/60

Impact Extensions 2NC ...................................................................................................................... 57Budget Disadvantage--Food Prices Link ............................................................................................ 58Food Prices Impact ............................................................................................................................. 59Food Prices Impact extensions ............................................................................................................ 60


4/60

Case Negative

There are several arguments that are included here as direct attacks on the case.

Inherency. Several existing federal statutes provide federal assistance to solve social equity, fundbike and walking paths, solve inequity in environmental implications of highways.

Harm Answers. There are several arguments for why social justice and health care are notsubstantial problems.

Solvency Answers. There are specific arguments for each solvency area. There are argumentsthat there is no solvency for social equity, that a number of factors will decrease the effectiveness of theplan on public health and generally that it is hard to develop clear and usable plans for solving socialinequities.


5/60

1NC Inherency

Federal and local programs are being adopted now

Lindholm, 2011, (Raymond Lindholm, Georgia State University College of Law, Center for Health, Law, & Society) Combatingchildhood obesity: A survey of laws affecting the built environments of low-income and minority children, Review of Environment and Health2011

From the federal government and major corporations down to grass-roots organizations many are workingto implement policies that will influence the communities we live in for the better. The First Lady isdrawing a lot of public attention to the issue with her Lets Move campaign, and the President iscommitted to funding programs, such as Complete Streets, Safe Routes to School, and Fresh FoodFinancing Initiatives, which have been proven to be successful at the local and state levels. In addition,childhood obesity is a major news issue, with new stories tracking both the epidemic and new initiativesto fight it appearing in major news sources almost on a daily basis. Finally, as scientific studies establishstronger links between individual built-environment factors and childhood obesity policy makers willhave better information to shape potent interventions.

Many cycling programs exist now

Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department ofEnvironmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. Explainingchanges in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research,Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740

As issues of traffic congestion, obesity, and climate change garner increased attention both globally andin the US, focus turns to the role of walking and cycling in mitigating such concerns. One is hard pressedto find any community not looking to spur walking and cycling activity through planning activities. Thisenthusiasm has created a need for evidence on the degree to which different policies have succeeded inincreasing walking and cycling travel and producing other benefits for the community. Did the sidewalkencourage more people to become physically active? Did showers and locker rooms at the worksite spur cycling to work? Did the improved

intersection increase rates of walking? How much fuel was saved by constructing the bicycle trail?Answers to such questions couldinfluence future policy decisions.Evidence so far is sparse but may soon be growing. In the US the 2005 federal transportationauthorization bill, SAFETEA-LU (safe, accountable, flexible, efficient transportation equity act: a legacy for users),provides morethan $500 million to communities to construct nonmotorized transportation facilities and promote use ofthese facilities. The Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program(NTPP) specifically included $100 million for pilotprograms in four communities to increase levels of walking and cycling. Such `interventions' provide aliving laboratory often called for but rarely exploited in the transportation planning field. Thus, the NTPPalso required an evaluation of the efficacy of these programs under the logic that documenting benefits inone community provides a basis for judging the potential benefits of proposed policies in othercommunities.


6/60

1NC Inherency

Civil Rights legislation requires social justice in transportation planning

Martens et al, 2012, [Karel Martens, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlans; Aaron Golub,

School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and School of Sustainability, Arizona State U; Glenn Robinson, School of Engineering andInstitute for Urban Research, Morgan State University, A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implicationsfor transportation planning practice in the United States, Transportation Research A 46 (2012), 684-695

Following the adoption of a series of directives relating to environmental quality andenvironmental justice (EJ) based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the distribution of access has receivedmore explicit attention in (metropolitan) transportation planning practice. In line with the underlyingenvironmental justice considerations laid down in the various documents, transportation planning mostoften invokes either: fostering participation of groups traditionally marginalized in the transportationplanning process, preventing undue burdens from exposure to the externalities of transportation systems,or insuring the distribution of benefits among various communities. For a more complete discussion, see Cairns et al.(2003), Cambridge Systematics (2002), Forkenbrock and Sheeley (2004), and American Association of State Highway and TransportationOfficials (AASHTO, 2009). Given our focus on access, we limit the discussion below to ways in which the distribution of transport benefits isaddressed in practice.

Civil rights and EJ legislation related to transportation require transport authorities to relate tojustice from the standpoint of protected classes those populations, low-income or minority, who arelegally protected under the several overarching legislations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act states that:No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded fromparticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activityreceiving Federal financial assistance. The National Environmental Protection Act codified proceduresfor the exploration of impacts from transportation projects and public involvement in project planning.Executive Order 12898 (1994), entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in MinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populations, effectively expanded the definition of protected classes toinclude low-income populations, which would be significant for transportation equity issues (42 U.S.C.4321). Following this order, both the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) adopted Environmental Justice directives to clarify the importance of addressing

disproportionate impacts at the federal agency level (Department of Transportation, 1997; FHWA, 1998)and the Metropolitan Planning level (FHWA and FTA, 1999).


7/60

1NC Social Justice Answers

Social inequity studies are old and out-dated

Chi and Parisi, 2011. (Guanqging Chi and Domenico ParisiDepartment of Sociology and Social Science Research Center,Mississippi State University). Highway Expansion Effects on Urban Racial Redistribution in the Post-Civil Rights Period, Public WorksManagement Policy, 2011. 16:40. http://pwm.sagepub.com/content/16/1/40

Highway effects on racial redistribution in the United States have been documented in a limited numberof historical case studies. However, these studies only describe the effects qualitatively and only focus onthe early and mid-20th century, a period before the legal bases for social and environmental justice inhighway construction were established. Little is known about the effects that highways have onpopulation redistribution of racial and ethnic groups after these legal justice bases. This study fills the gapin the literature by contributing to the understanding of these effects in urban areas after the establishmentof the legal bases. Specifically, this study focuses on the MWWA metropolitan area of Wisconsin toexamine the impact of highway expansions completed between 1965 and 1970 on the populationredistribution of Blacks and Hispanics from 1970 to 2000.

Highway expansion improves living conditions for black neighborhoods and provides access to

more affordable housing for Hispanics

Chi and Parisi, 2011. (Guanqging Chi and Domenico ParisiDepartment of Sociology and Social Science Research Center,Mississippi State University). Highway Expansion Effects on Urban Racial Redistribution in the Post-Civil Rights Period, Public WorksManagement Policy, 2011. 16:40. http://pwm.sagepub.com/content/16/1/40

The findings indicate clearly an impact of highway expansion on urban racial redistribution in censustracts within 3 miles of expansion segments from 1970 to 2000. Highway expansion was found topromote Black growth in neighborhoods 1 to 3 miles from the expansions, where residents can get awayfrom the disamenity aspects of highway expansion such as noise and lowered housing prices but can takeadvantage of easy access to highways. Highway expansion was also found to promote Hispanic growth inneighborhoods within 1 mile of the expansion segments, where housing prices were lower.

Highways do not cause social inequity. They also increase social equity.

Chi and Parisi, 2011. (Guanqging Chi and Domenico ParisiDepartment of Sociology and Social Science Research Center, MississippiState University). Highway Expansion Effects on Urban Racial Redistribution in the Post-Civil Rights Period, Public Works ManagementPolicy, 2011. 16:40. http://pwm.sagepub.com/content/16/1/40

Clearly, the two roles that highways play in affecting urban racial redistribution seem contradictory.Although highways are unfavorable infrastructure for some, they facilitate commuting for others. It maybe simply that highways affect urban racial redistribution both as a disamenity and an amenity. Forresidents living in the immediate neighborhoods of highway construction, highways act as a disamenity

by producing environmental pollution and decreasing housing prices. For residents living in a few blocksaway from highway construction, highways act as an amenity by providing easier access to transportation.The objective of this study, thus, is to examine the dual role that highway expansion plays in affectingurban racial redistribution after the legal bases for social and environmental justice in highwayconstruction were established.


8/60

1NC Social Justice Answers

Highway expansion helped black Americans in the post-civil rights era

Chi and Parisi, 2011. (Guanqging Chi and Domenico ParisiDepartment of Sociology and Social Science Research Center, MississippiState University). Highway Expansion Effects on Urban Racial Redistribution in the Post-Civil Rights Period, Public Works ManagementPolicy, 2011. 16:40. http://pwm.sagepub.com/content/16/1/40

To examine highway expansion effects on the redistribution of Blacks, the response variable is thedifference of percentages of non-Hispanic Blacks between 2000 and 1970 (Table 3). Highway expansionwas found to have a significant positive effect on Blacks in census tracts within 1 to 3 miles of highwayexpansion segments. That is, highway expansion promoted the concentration of non-Hispanic Blacks incensus tracts at a distance of 1 to 3 miles from that expansion. Over the 30 years studied, the census tractsat a distance of 1 to 2 miles from highway expansion gained 13.4% more Blacks than others; the tracts ata distance of 2 to 3 miles from highway expansion gained 8.7% more Blacks than others. However,census tracts with 1 mile of highway expansion did not affect changes in the Black population. The resultssuggest that in the postcivil rights period, highway expansion affected Black redistribution as an amenity

rather than a disamenity in the MWWA metropolitan area. Blacks took advantage of easier access toexpanded highways and lived in neighborhoods 1 to 3 miles away from highways.


9/60

1NC No Health Harms

Deaths from weight are overstated. Improved health care and public health are lowering mortalityrates for those who are overweight

Flegal, 2010. (Katherine M. Flegal, PhD--National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Mdand Center for Weight and Health, University of California at Berkeley) The Obesity Epidemic The Observer January 2010http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2599

In our work, we have also addressed issues of the number of deaths in the United States that areassociated with different BMI levels. When we look at the most recent mortality data from following the1988-94 survey through 2000, it suggests that the association of overweight a BMI from 25-29.9 and even of mild obesity BMI 30-34.9 with mortality is weak and not statistically significant.Although other measurements such as waist circumference are often thought to be better than BMI asindicators of risk, we found no significant differences between BMI and a number of other measures, withBMI actually associated more strongly with mortality than the other measures. One of our findings wasthat the association of weight and mortality seems to be much weaker in the more recent data, leading us

to the suggestion that perhaps the association is diminishing over time, perhaps because of improvementsin public health and in medical care, a suggestion that has proved to be somewhat surprisinglycontroversial.

Number of premature deaths are from those with extreme measures of obesity. For marginally

obese, the figure is closer to 25,000 rather than 112,000

Flegal, et al. 2005. (Katherine M. Flegal, PhD--National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Hyattsville, Md and Center for Weight and Health, University of California at Berkeley; Barry I. Graubard, PhD-- Division of CancerEpidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute David F. Williamson, PhD PhD--Division of Diabetes Translation, Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga; Mitchell H. Gail, MD, PhD-- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute,Bethesda, M.) Excess Deaths Associated With Underweight, Overweight, and Obesity Journal of the American Medical Association, April 20,2005, Vol 293: No. 15 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200731

Using relative risks from the combined survey data, we estimated that 111 909 excess deaths in 2000(95% CI, 53 754 to 170 064) were associated with obesity (BMI 30) (Figure 2). Of the excess deathsassociated with obesity, the majority (82 066 deaths; 95% CI, 44 843 to 119 289) occurred in individualswith BMI 35 or greater. Overweight was associated with a slight reduction in mortality (86 094 deaths;95% CI, 161 223 to 10 966) relative to the normal weight category. Thus, for overweight and obesitycombined (BMI 25), our estimate was 25 814 excess deaths (95% CI, 86 284 to 137 913) in 2000,arrived at by adding the estimate for obesity to the estimate for overweight. Underweight was associatedwith 33 746 excess deaths (95% CI, 15 726-51 766).

Of the 111 909 estimated excess deaths associated with obesity (BMI 30), the majority, 84 145 excessdeaths, occurred in individuals younger than 70 years. In contrast, of the 33 746 estimated excess deathsassociated with underweight, the majority, 26 666 excess deaths, occurred in individuals aged 70 years

and older.


10/60

1NC No Health Harms

CDC overestimates obesity statistics four-fold

Associated Press, 4-20-05, Obesity Death Rate Lower than Thought, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153944,00.html

Last year, a CDC study listed the leading causes of preventable death in order as tobacco; poor diet andinactivity, leading to excess weight; alcohol; germs; toxins and pollutants; car crashes; guns; risky sexualbehavior; and illicit drugs.Using the new estimate, excess weight would drop behind car crashes and guns to seventh place aranking the CDC is unwilling to make official, underscoring the controversy inside the agency over howto calculate the health effects of obesity.Last year, the CDC issued a study that attributed 400,000 deaths a year to mostly weight-related causesand said excess weight would soon overtake tobacco as the top U.S. killer. After scientists inside andoutside the agency questioned the figure, the CDC admitted making a calculation error and lowered itsestimate three months ago to 365,000.The new study attributes 111,909 deaths to obesity, but then subtracts the benefits of being modestly

overweight, and arrives at the 25,814 figure.CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said because of the uncertainty in calculating the health effects ofbeing overweight, the CDC is not going to use the new figure of 25,814 in its public awarenesscampaigns. And it is not going to scale back its fight against obesity.

Minority children are more likely to actively transit to school

Martin, et al. 2009. (Sarah Levin Martin, PhDCDC, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, Refilwe Moeti, MA Nancy Pullen-Seufert, MPH) Implementing Safe Routes to School: Application for the Socioecological Model and Issues to Consider, Health PromotionPractice October 2009 Vol. 10, No. 4, 606-614, http://hpp.sagepub.com/content/10/4/606

A recent study examining income at the neighborhood level found that schools and public physicalactivity facilities (e.g., tennis courts, recreation centers) were significantly more likely to be in higher-

SES and low-minority neighborhoods (Gordon-Larsen, Nelson, Page, & Popkin, 2006). This hasimplications for an SRTS program insofar as some students from these poor communities may not be ableto walk or bicycle directly from their home to their school because it is too far away. It is interesting tonote that, at the individual level, having a single parent (Fulton, Shisler, Yore, & Caspersen, 2005),having indicators of lower SES (Carlin et al., 1997), and being non- White (Evenson, Huston, McMillen,Bors, & Ward, 2003) are positively associated with active transportation to school. It is plausible thatstudents with these characteristics who live within a mile or two of school walk to school out of necessity(e.g., lack of access to buses or cars) even though the environment is not conducive to physical activity.


11/60

AT: Military Readiness

Obesity one of many factors including graduation, criminal records, and other physical efforts

Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids, 2010, Too Fat to Fight: Retired Military Leaders Want Junk FoodOut of Americas Schools,

As retired Generals, Admirals, and other senior leaders of the United States Armed Forces, we knowfirsthand that national security must be Americas top priority.Our organization recently released a report citing Department of Defense data indicating that an alarming75 percent of all young Americans 17 to 24 years of age are unable to join the military because they failedto graduate from high school, have criminal records, or are physically unfit.

Government Nutrition programs are best solutionnot transportation. This is the solution

the affirmative authors recommend. Not bike paths.

Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids, 2010, Too Fat to Fight:Retired Military Leaders Want Junk FoodOut of Americas Schools, p. 4

Recent research by Rachel Tolbert Kimbro of Rice University and Elizabeth Rigby of the University of Texas atHouston, published in Health Affairs, provided strong evidence that Receiving [government subsidized] meals atschool or child care helps children, particularly low-income children, maintain a healthy weight. ... Expandingaccess to subsidized meals may be the most effective tool to use in combating obesity in poor children.42The article showed that, at least for 3- to 5-year-old poor children, access to government-funded school luncheshelped those children avoid excessive weight gain over the subsequent two years. The authors suggest thatexpanding access to these meals to more child care centers, to summer programs, and to all children in high-povertyTitle I schools (not just those whose parents make it through the bureaucratic hurdles to qualify) would be one of themost promising ways to decrease childhood obesity.


12/60

AT: Global Warming

No solvency: Transportation spending will have little impact on greenhouse gases

Craig Raborn, June 2011, (Transportation Policy Analyst, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions,Duke University), Transportation and Climate Policy Summary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting fromDifferent Infrastructure Spending LevelsThe debate over how much to spend on transportation infrastructure should not focus on how GHG

emissions will be affected by overall spending levels or patterns. Significantly different levels oftransportation infrastructure investment result in only small overall changes in GHG emissions andtravel behavior. Varying national transportation infrastructure spending by up to $53 billion per yearchanges cumulative emissions over 10 years by less than 0.3%.

Emissions from construction and maintenance activities can be significantly affected by spending levels,ranging from a 10% decrease to a 73% increase. These emissions, however, make up only 0.7% ofsurface transportation emissions, so despite the large range of potential construction and maintenance

emissions, there is little impact to overall transportation emissions. The mix of spendinghow the funds are spent between roads and transit and between new capacityconstruction or maintenance of existing infrastructurealso makes little difference on emissions fromtransportation activity. The cumulative difference in GHG emissions from spending $15 billion for threewidely different infrastructure activities (all on new roads; focusing on maintenance; or 75% for transitimprovements) is just 0.23% of total emissions. (a 34.7-million-ton2 variation from total emissions of15,050 milliontons).

Impact is overstated. Data being used to measure climate are biased toward warming and away

from cooler sites

Jasper 11[William F. Jasper, 1-18-11, 2010: "Hottest Year on Record"?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5933-2010-qhottest-year-on-recordq]In a policy paper entitled Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?, published in August2010 by the Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI), D'Aleo and Watts write: Around 1990,NOAA/NCDC's GHCN dataset lost more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around theworld. It can be shown that country by country, they lost stations with a bias towards higher-latitude, higher-altitude andrural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The remaining climate monitoring stations wereincreasingly near the sea, at lower elevations, and at airports near larger cities. This data were then used to determine theglobal average temperature and to initialize climate models. Interestingly, the very same often colder stationsthat have beendeleted from the world climate network were retained for computing the average-temperature in the baseperiods, further increasing the potential bias towards overstatement of the warming. To make sure the reader didnot miss this astounding point, we reiterate and emphasize: More than 75 percent of the weather stations around the globehave been inexplicably "lost."


13/60

AT: Global Warming

Evidence is selectively used to support global warming

Jasper 11[William F. Jasper, 1-18-11, 2010: "Hottest Year on Record"?http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5933-2010-qhottest-year-on-recordq]

This is pure politics, not science. The "hottest year" claims confirm the case for political science overtaking climate science. The "hottestyear" claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. EvenNASA's James Hansen,the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded the "hottest year" rankings are essentiallymeaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that's 0.018F). "It's not particularlyimportant whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record," Hansen admitted on January 13. According to NASA, none of agenciestasked with keeping the global temperature data agree with each other. "Rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watchedtemperature analyses - from GISS, NCDC, and the UK Met Office - a situation that can generate confusion." If there is confusion in the matter, itis Hansen and his colleagues at NASA's GISS and NOAA who are great ly responsible. In a January 14 commentary at WattsUpWithThat.com,meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University ridiculed the "hottest year" rankings and Hansen's admission that it "was notparticularly important" which year was declared the "hottest." Dr. Maue examines the NASA press release and then taunts Hansen: "Well, thenstop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto." Indeed, the AGW alarmists are not content to pullthis PR stunt only once per year, they issue releases and hold press conferences on this manufactured "news" multiple times per year.Meteorologist Art Horn take the NOAA "hottest year" claims to task at the climate web site ICECAP, commenting: If NOAA was truly objective

in their analysis of this 130 year period of temperature they would acknowledge that 130 years of record in the long history ofclimate is insignificant to the extreme. The reason they do not give thisrecord its true historical context is because theirstatement is really political. Their true message is that global warming is causing the warm weather and that we need to abandon fossilfuels and somehow change to "renewable" energy sources.... "If one takes a serious, adult look at the variability of weather and climate over time

you find amazing events," Horn continued. "Inthe winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not needwinter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in Englandthe entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? But it did happen, 762 years ago and burning fossilfuels had nothing to do with it. In the winter of 1717 there was so much snow in Massachusetts in late February and early March,single story houses were buried." Richard S. Lindzen, theAlfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science atthe MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT), is anotherof the many eminent climate scientists that challenge theNASA/NOAA's alarmist "hottestyear" propaganda stunts, based as they are on "tenths of a degree" from questionable records. "Global warming enthusiastshave responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been thewarmest on record," Dr Lindzen noted, in an op-ed for The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Va. "We

are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are,according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was thewarmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade."


14/60


15/60

1NC Solvency Social Justice

Transport policy alone is not enough to solve social injustice. Need social inclusion policies in all

areas.

Karen Lucas, 2012, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy 20(2012) 105113

Furthermore, transport and social exclusion can never survive as a solely transport-focused agenda. Theaccessibility planning (in its broadest sense) of public transport which is necessary to meet the travelneeds of socially excluded people must be highly integrated with socially responsible land use, housing,health, education and welfare policies and programmes. Similarly, large transport infrastructure projectsneed to be more transparent in their ex ante analyses to consider their long-term social equity effects onlocal populations and communities.

Social exclusions cannot be solved by national policy makers in a globalized world

Karen Lucas, 2012, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy20 (2012) 105113

Urry (2000) builds on this theme of dynamic exclusion from the transport system within his new mobilities paradigm. His theories are concernedwith macro (global), meso (national) and micro (local) changes in the physical and virtual movement of people, goods, services, images andinformation over time (Kaufmann, et al., 2004; Sheller and Urry, 2006; Urry, 2007). As Cass et al., 2005 identify, the new mobilities perspectiveis particularly important because it explores how different forms of mobility help to shape wider societal values and norms and to reinforceexisting social stratification. Theorists from this perspective identify motility (the potential and ability to move) consists of three main layers: (i)accessthe range of all available mobilities according to time, place and other contextual constraints; (ii) competencethe skills and abilitiesthat directly or indirectly relate to the appropriation of access; (iii) appropriationhow individuals, groups, networks or institutions act upon or

interpret perceived or real access and competences (Kaufmann et al., 2004). Unequal mobilities are seen as arising fromdifferences in the status, wealth, prestige, power and geographical distribution of people and activities(Urry, 2007).Urry argues that unequal network capital is distributed across traditional social stratifications leading todifferential opportunities to access goods, services, social networks and life chances, which results in thesocial exclusion of both individuals and whole communities. One of the key issues that Urry and hiscolleagues bring to light within their thesis is the extent to which transport-related social exclusion canever be properly addressed within a global system that prioritises hypermobility. Dennis and Urry (2009)predict it is not until After the Car that we will be able to establish the more equitable distribution oftransport services. This implies that the problem of transport-related exclusion largely lies outside theinfluence of national or local policy makers.


16/60

1NC Solvency Social Justice

Equality in transportation justice is impossible

Martens et al, 2012, [Karel Martens, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlans; Aaron Golub,School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and School of Sustainability, Arizona State U; Glenn Robinson, School of Engineering andInstitute for Urban Research, Morgan State University, A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implicationsfor transportation planning practice in the United States, Transportation Research A 46 (2012), 684-695

Let us first consider equal distribution of access in relation to space. While philosophicalarguments may suggest that equality is called for, insights from research into the dynamics ofspace suggest that equal distribution in this respect is impossible to achieve. Theoreticalmodeling studies have shown that, even if starting from an even distribution of opportunitiesover space, and hence equality of access, centers will rapidly develop over time as a consequenceof the advantages of spatial proximity (e.g., Puu, 2005). In other words, space by its very natureis divided into center and periphery and not every point on a plane can be equidistant from theimportant centers of opportunities. As a result, inequality in access to life opportunities isinevitable. Transport policies cannot correct the differences between center and periphery; theywould at best redefine or reinforce the relationship between them. While this is not a normative argumentagainst distribution according to equality, it does underscore thatthe principle of equality is hardly suited to guide thedistribution of access in practice.More precisely, this observation suggests that equality of access cannot be achieved across-the-board and that a non-equal distribution must be proposed explicitly.


17/60

Solvency Extensions Social Justice

More important social factors contribute to social exclusion. Transport policy cannot solve.

John Preston 2009 Transportation Research Group, School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton,Epilogue: Transport policy and social exclusionSome reflections Transport Policy 16 (2009) 140142

Alternative approaches to quantification might involve developing measures of social inclusion as part ofongoing attempts to quantify Quality of Life such as work that has been undertaken for the World HealthOrganisation (Skevington et al., 2004), for the Economic and Social Research Council (Gilhooly et al.,2003) and for the Audit Commission (2005). In essence, this is the approach advocated by Stanley andVella-Brodrick in this Special Issue. It is an approach that is particularly relevant to the transport needs ofthe elderly, which is pertinent given demographic ageing in many countries (Metz, 2000; Spinney et al.,2009). However, there are others who argue that Quality of Life is an individualistic concept that fails tocapture all aspects of social exclusion. For example, the Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM)identifies access to resources and participation as being distinct from Quality of Life measures (Levitas etal., 2007). B-SEM identifies ten domains of potential importance in social exclusion of which transport

features explicitly in only one (access to public and private services). This is reflective of a wider issuethat transport policy may only be a secondary tool to reducing social exclusion, with policies concerningemployment, income, housing, social care, health and education of greater primary importance, althoughthe intermediate goods status of transport means that it has impacts on many of these primary factors.

Social exclusion includes barriers other than poverty and transportation

Stanley et al, 2008, Social exclusion: What can public transport offer? Janet Stanley a, *, Karen Lucas ba Brotherhood of St Laurence and Monash University, Victoria, Australia b University of Westminster, London, UK Research in TransportationEconomics 22 (2008) 3640

The workshop recognised that social exclusion is a relatively new social policy concept, having arisenfrom earlier work which sought to define, measure and understand poverty. Stanley and Vella-Brodricks

(2007) paper pointed out that, while poverty is viewed as the difference between the amount of incomeneeded to sustain an individual or household within their living environment, social exclusion is seen as amore comprehensive concept. The term social exclusion, while still heavily reliant on income measures,also acknowledges that there may be other barriers which make it difficult for people to participate fullyin society. These barriers may include lack of employment, suitable housing, education, health care andtransport.


18/60

1NC No Active Transit Solvency

No evidence supports the claim that infrastructure improvements increase physical activity

Ogilvie, et al. 2010. (David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research(CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Simon Griffin--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet andActivity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Andy Jones--School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Angliaand UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Norwich, Roger Mackett--3Centre for Transport Studies, University CollegeLondon, Cornelia Guell-- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Instituteof Public Health, Cambridge,, Jenna Panter-- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research(CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Natalia Jones--School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia and UKCRCCentre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Norwich, UK, Simon Cohn--General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Institute ofPublic Health, Cambridge, Lin Yang--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research(CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Cheryl Chapman--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Dietand Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge) Commuting and health in Cambridge: a study of a natural experimentin the provision of new transport infrastructure Biomed Central Public Health, 10:703, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/703

Modifying transport infrastructure to support active travel (walking and cycling), for example by constructing cycle routes or redesigning roads todiscourage car use, is one way of modifying the physical environment that was identified in the recent Foresight report as one of the top fiverecommendations for tackling obesity in the UK [21]. The considerable potential for people to incorporate walking or cycling into their daily

routines makes this an attractive strategy for increasing population levels of physical activity

. However, several reviews havehighlighted the limited quantity and quality of existing studies of the effects of this type of intervention,the very limited evidence that such interventions have been effective in promoting physical activity, andthe missed opportunities for rigorous health-oriented studies of the effects of recent major innovationssuch as the impact of congestion charging in London on physical activity [13,22-26]. It cannot beassumed that people who take up more active travel will become more physically active overall, becausethe increase in energy expenditure while travelling may be counterbalanced - or even outweighed - by acompensatory decrease in leisure time physical activity [14]. There is a particular lack of evidence on therelationships between public transport and active travel and on the effects of interventions to improvepublic transport infrastructure, which may be especially important in a country such as the UK wheremany people live too far from their workplace to walk or cycle the entire journey. Several studies have shown thatusing public transport can involve a substantial daily quantity of walking and that commuters who use public transport tend to walk more thanthose who travel by car [27-30]. One study has also reported a correspondence between an increase in cycling and a positive shift in the

distribution of overall physical activity in the targeted local populations following a multifaceted intervention including some infrastructuralchanges [31].To the best of our knowledge, however, no study has yet convincingly demonstrated thatinvesting in new transport infrastructure has led to an increase in physical activity in the local populationdirectly attributable to the intervention[13,26].

Infrastructure investment alone is not sufficient to increase physical activity

Oglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical ResearchCouncil Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie--Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Pett icrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban populationInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43Despite the growing volume of published studies in this field, many authors remain circumspect in theirinterpretation of the available evidence. Giles-Corti and Donovan have described access to a supportivephysical environment as a necessary, but insufficient, condition for an increase in physical activity in thepopulation [11], while Handy found 'convincing' evidence of an association between physical activity andthe built environment in general but 'less convincing' evidence as to which specific environmentalcharacteristics were most strongly associated [7].


19/60


Studies show transportation access is not the problem

Lovas et al, 2009. (Gina S. Lovasi--Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health and Society Scholars Program, Columbia University, Malo A.

Hutson--Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley, Monica Guerra--Department of Urban Plan- ning,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Kathryn M. Neckerman, Center for Health and the Social Sciences, University of Chicago) BuiltEnvironments and Obesity in Disadvantaged Populations Epidemiologic Review, 2009. Vol. 31

Although the built environmental characteristics discussed above may vary in their consequences and meaning depending on regional

or local context,a few patterns appear to be consistent across the United States (Table 2). When consideringthe obesity-related effects of built environment characteristics, we found the strongest support for theimportance of food stores, exercise facilities, and safety as potentially influential for our target groups(low-SES, black, and Hispanic individuals). We also found evidence that the target groups were at adisadvantage with respect to food stores, fast food outlets, places to exercise, and problems related toaesthetic and safety perceptions. We can reject low walkability or sprawling urban form as a candidateexplanation of obesity-related health disparities; these measures seemed relatively less correlated withphysical activity and obesity for individuals within our target groups, while at the same time the target

groups were not at a disadvantage with regard to the walkability as commonly measured. The specificcharacteristics that seem most relevant to obesity-related health disparities in the United States aresupermarket access, exercise facilities, and safety; each of these has been reported to be correlated withbody mass index or related behaviors within our target groups, while at the same time being distributed totheir disadvantage.

Even if a bad environment discourages walking, that does not mean a better environment will

encourage walking.

Oglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical ResearchCouncil Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie--Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Pett icrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,

Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban populationInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43A more profound limitation of the available evidence is that identifying a relationship between, forexample, urban form and walking for transport is not the same thing as showing that changing the builtenvironment will lead to a change in behaviour [13]. Few researchers have taken up the opportunity (orchallenge) presented by 'natural experiments' to investigate the effects of environmental interventions onphysical activity.


20/60


No cycling solvency: Many barriers exist to cycles

The Community Cycling Center. 2009.Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Transportation Literature Reviewhttp://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/understanding-barriers-transportation-review-101909.pdf

We contacted several professionals with experience on what barriers low-income, women and minoritycommunities face regarding bicycle use. They shared some of their research findings, as well asimpressions accumulated during community involvement meetings and their own work.In conducting a literature review for the Bike Walk Ambassador Program, David Peterson with theCity of Minneapolis Department of Public Works encountered many of the same findings revealed in thispaper. He shared that neighborhood conditions, like having many unattended dogs, can contribute tonegative perceptions of safety that discourage people from biking and walking. He also said that someneighborhoods may lack nearby destinations, which is an obstacle because biking and walking aretargeted at replacing shorter trips. Some low-income people may simply lack the funds to own a bicycle.People who must work more than one job might be too tired to exercise or ride a bicycle, and those who

work at night may have concerns about riding in the dark or finding a secure parking location for theirbicycle.Eric Anderson, Bicycle Coordinator for Berkeley, California with 10 years of experience in the bicycle and pedestrianfield shared some of his conclusions on minority barriers to bicycling. Mr. Andersonpointed to language as a barrier tobicycling, as some informational resources commonly available in English often arent distributed inother languages. Translating materials on basic traffic laws applying to bicycles, helmet safety, simple maintenance tasks, and bicycle mapsmay help disseminate the baseline information people need before attempting to bicycle. He also mentioned financial obstacles,such as the cost of keeping a bicycle in repair, owning a good lock and the purchase of a helmet and lightsin order to ride safely.

Specific barriers deter women from cycling and walking

The Community Cycling Center 2009,Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Transportation Literature Reviewhttp://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/understanding-barriers-transportation-review-101909.pdf

Safety and security issues may be an obstacle to helping women make more trips by bicycle.Women may prefer to travel different routes than men when using a bicycle, so the availability ofdifferent types of bicycle facilities in their neighborhoods may determine their comfort when bicycling. Inaddition to overcoming possible concerns about the safety of bicycling in traffic, fear of crime and socialstigma may be an obstacle to bicycling for some women. Social perceptions of bicycling and walking aregenerally unstudied among other groups. For all groups, concerns about bicycle theft and the lack ofsecure parking facilities may create security concerns in addition to personal safety.


21/60


Research shows infrastructure investment has little impact on behavior

Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department ofEnvironmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. Explainingchanges in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009,volume 36, pages 725 - 740

However, evaluation research on programs like those funded by the NTPP is rare because it isfraught with practical challenges as well as political ones: expectations are high, interventions are modest,and effects may be unclear. Pedestrian and cycling advocates have struggled for decades to gainsignificant attention for their proposals based on the belief that infrastructure improvements can make adifference. But such improvements typically represent marginal changes within extensive and complextransportation systems in which travelers have multiple options with respect to mode and route choice. Inthese contexts any behavioral changes that such improvements effect are likely to be relatively small,making them difficult to establish statistically. In addition, disentangling the effects of pedestrian andcycling improvements from the effect of other factors is tricky. For advocates, studies that do not produce proof of theeffectiveness of such improvements can be hard to accept because they potentially jeopardize future investments.

Minor impact on health, environment and traffic

Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department ofEnvironmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. Explainingchanges in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research,Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740

These secondary effects, at both the individual and community level, each contribute to other desired policy outcomes, such asimproved air quality, reduced health-care costs, and increased livability (figure 1). The broad range of possible policy outcomes from walking

and cycling activity expands the justification for programs to promote such activity. At the same time, however,such oft-cited benefitsgenerate other expectations that are more challenging to support because the benefits are more tenuously

connected to levels of walking and cycling. Issues often mentioned at the forefront of walking and cyclingpolicy initiatives--traffic congestion, obesity, and environmental conservation--have many differentcauses, and levels of walking and cycling may have a minor effect on the overall extent of the problem.The challenge for researchers is to separate the effect of the intervention from the effects of these other forces.


22/60


Societal Impact of investment will be small

Krizek, et al 2009.

Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of

Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. Explainingchanges in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009,volume 36, pages 725 - 740

Several leading practitioners and academics suggest that many of the benefits often touted forwalking and cycling facilities--decreased congestion, decreased consumption of natural resources, lowerproduction of harmful pollutants, and even overall increases in physical activity--will not ultimately cometo fruition (eg Giuliano and Hanson, 2004; Lockwood, 2006). Research shows that people do very littlewalking overall (Oakes et al, 2007), meaning that secondary benefits are marginal. Rates of bicycling arecurrently so low that even a quadrupling of the number of people in the United States who bike to workwould lessen environmental and other harms from motorized vehicles by a miniscule degree--promptingsome to term it a fringe mode (Gordon and Richardson, 1998). Furthermore, making small interventions

in the existing built environment (eg improving intersections, installing sidewalks) or other walking orcycling policies or programs (eg installing showers) will likely have only a modest effect on one'spropensity to drive less [driving is relatively inelastic: even dramatic increases in gas prices have not hada significant impact on levels of driving (Hughes et al, 2008)]. This is not to say that the individualbenefits are insignificant; rather, that their cumulative effect is limited.

Solvency Studies are biased and inconclusive

Oglilve et al, 2011,(David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and the UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research(CEDAR); Fiona Bull--School of Sport, Exercise and Health Science, Loughborough University, UK, and the School of Population Health,University of Western Australia. Jane Powell--University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. Ashley R. Cooper--Department of Exercise,Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Christian Brand--Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford,Oxford, UK. Nanette Mutrie---Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. John Preston--School of CivilEngineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, UK. Harry Rutter--National Obesity Observatory, Oxford, UK. An Applied

Ecological Framework for Evaluating Infrastructure to Promote Walking and Cycling: The iConnect Study American Journal of Public HealthMarch 2011, Vol 101, No. 3

This lack of evidence reflects several unresolved challenges in this area of research, includingproblems of measurement and evaluation. The difficulty of measuring changes in walking, cycling, andphysical activity in general is recognized in both the transportation and the physical activity fields1619and is compounded by the difficulty of applying robust study designs to the evaluation of complexinfrastructural interventions.20 Existing research in this field has an evaluative bias in favor ofinterventions targeted at individuals, which may be easier to evaluate,13,14 and is often characterized bymethodological limitations such as the lack of representative population samples, prospectively collecteddata, control groups or areas, or sufficient duration of follow-up.15 Meanwhile, only limited inferencesabout the population effects of new infrastructure can be drawn from routinely collected user monitoring

data.21 As a result, we lack the means to assess the potential travel, physical activity, and carbonemission effects of different approaches to promoting walking and cycling, to set appropriate targets, or toallocate resources for new capital projects efficiently.


23/60


No solvency: Minority communities lack other infrastructure amenities that encourage activetransportation

Sallis, et al. 2012. (James F. Sallis, PhD-- From the Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Myron F. Floyd, PhD--Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Daniel A. Rodrguez, PhD-- Department of Cityand Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Brian E. Saelens, PhD-- Seattle Children's Research Institute, University ofWashington) Recent Advances in Preventive Cardiology and Lifestyle Medicine Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Obesity, andCardiovascular Disease, American Heart Association Journal, June 19, 2012, http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/5/729.full

It appears that disparities in access to activity-supportive community environments vary across attributes.There is little evidence that Hispanics and blacks, or low-income populations, are disadvantaged withrespect to the density of areas in which they live.70,71Racial and ethnic minority and low socioeconomicstatus groups may be particularly sensitive to the built environment. In a review, light traffic, safety fromcrime, and sidewalks were most consistently associated with physical activity among black Americans.71However, low socioeconomic status or high-minority neighborhoods appear to have less supportiveenvironmental conditions for active transportation. A review concluded that disadvantaged neighborhoodshad poorer aesthetics and worse conditions related to traffic safety and crime safety.71For example, astudy of 2 US regions found that lower- and higher-income neighborhoods did not differ substantiallywith regard to commonly assessed walkability variables, but lower-income neighborhoods had lessfavorable values on pedestrian/cycling facilities, aesthetics, access to recreation facilities, traffic safety,and crime safety.72These poor conditions could potentially overcome the beneficial effects of living in awalkable low-income neighborhood.

Portland is unique and not representative--Cannot generalize Portland experience to rest of nation

Dill, 2009. (Jennifer Dill, Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University). Bicycling for Transportationand Health: The Role of Infrastructure, Journal of Public Health Policy (2009) 30, S95S110. doi:10.1057/jphp.2008.56

As with any research conducted in one location, care must be taken when applying the results to otherlocations. There is no comprehensive data set that includes the miles of bicycle infrastructure for othercities or metropolitan areas, so it is difficult to know exactly how Portland compares. In addition, thePortland region includes other bicycling supportive factors that were not examined as part of this study,yet likely influence behavior. The many types of innovative infrastructure to support bicycling installedby the City of Portland include special traffic signals, way finding signage (to help bicyclists orientthemselves and find an appropriate route), on-street bike parking areas, and traffic signal detectors. Non-infrastructure programs and policies (e.g., marketing programs) and several independent bicycleorganizations and events may also help create a bicycle culture that likely influences bicyclingbehavior


24/60


Physical activity and health are not constant across socioeconomic divide. The fundamentalassumption that you can generalize across race is flawed.

Sallis, 2009. (James F. Sallis--Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Brian E. Saelens--University of Washington andChildrens Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Lawrence D. Frank-- School of Community and Regional Planning, University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA c,d, Terry L. Conway--Graduate School of PublicHealth, San Diego State University, Donald J. Slymen-- Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Kelli L. Cain --Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, James E. Chapman-- Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA, Jacqueline Kerr--San Diego State University, University of California San Diego, CA, USA) Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiplehealth outcomes, Social Science & Medicine 68 (2009) 12851293

Because disparities in health outcomes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004) and physicalactivity are well documented across socioeconomic groups (Crespo, Smit, Andersen, Carter-Pokras, &Ainsworth, 2000), an important question is whether favorable built environments could reduce healthdisparities. Findings that walkability was related to physical activity and obesity among whites but notblacks (Frank, Andresen, & Schmid, 2004; Frank, Sallis, Chapman, & Saelens, 2005) raise the possibility

that not all groups benefit from walkable built environments. Because a primary health objective of theUnited States is to eliminate health disparities (United States Department of Health and Human Services,2000), it is important to determine whether walkability has similar associations with health outcomes inlower and higher-income groups.


25/60

Extensions for Active Transportation Solvency

Women are not comfortable with active transportation for many reasons

The Community Cycling Center, 2009. Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Transportation Literature Review

http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/understanding-barriers-transportation-review-101909.pdf

This is a collection of studies from a conference held by the Transportation Research Board, many ofwhich may be helpful in understanding barriers to women bicycling. One paper documents the differencebetween men and women in trip-chaining behavior, which may reveal how bicycling could be adapted tobetter serve the needs of women who need to transport children or make multiple stops on a trip. Anotherdiscusses the difference in preference for different types of bicycle facilities for men and women. Anotheranalyzes the fear of crime as an obstacle to women walking, which may also be a barrier to bicycling.Other studies document the difference in travel needs depending on whether men or women work, andwhat role they serve in their household. This represents the largest single body of information on factorsthat may influence womens ability or inclination to bicycle.

Changing transportation alone is not enough. Crime and other factors will discourage activetransportation

Sallis, 2009. (James F. Sallis--Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Brian E. Saelens--University of Washington andChildrens Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Lawrence D. Frank-- School of Community and Regional Planning, University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA c,d, Terry L. Conway--Graduate School of PublicHealth, San Diego State University, Donald J. Slymen-- Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Kelli L. Cain --Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, James E. Chapman-- Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA, Jacqueline Kerr--San Diego State University, University of California San Diego, CA, USA) Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiplehealth outcomes, Social Science & Medicine 68 (2009) 12851293

There were no significant income differences on walking for transport or leisure, but there was aninteraction between walkability and income on walking for transportation. The walkability walking fortransport association was weaker for adults living in lower-income than in higher-income neighborhoods.

This is an important finding because it suggests lower-income residents may not experience all of thebenefits from living in a walkable neighborhood unless other needs are met. Perceived danger from crime,which is higher among lower-income adults (Loukaitou-Sideris & Eckc, 2007), could reduce theirwillingness to walk for transport even in high-walkability neighborhoods (Doyle, Kelly-Schwartz,Schlossberg, & Stockard, 2006). After adjusting for self-selection, the walkability by income interactionbecame non-significant. Self-selection may not apply equally to lower- and higher-income groups, sincehigher-income groups may be able to satisfy more personal criteria when selecting neighborhoods(Levine & Frank, 2007).


26/60


Judges have a responsibility to evaluate the evidence carefully and not misuse

Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department ofEnvironmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. Explaining

changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research,Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740

Adhering to all of these recommendations takes skill, time, resources, and patience, andmany not be possible in every study. Researchers have a responsibility to employ soundmethodologies and represent their results accurately. But consumers of research also have aresponsibility to understand the limitations of the available evidence and not misuse thatevidence in making the case for bicycle and pedestrian interventions. We hope that we have helped bothresearchers and research consumers understand better the challenges inherent in efforts to document the effects of bicycle and pedestrianinterventions.

No evidence that infrastructure will lead to active transit behavior

Oglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical ResearchCouncil Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie--Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Pett icrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban populationInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43On the other hand, we may have demonstrated a real absence of any major association. Although at firstsight this appears at odds with the growing body of review-level evidence for environmental correlates ofphysical activity, Wendel-Vos and colleagues noted that of all the environmental factors examined in allthe studies included in their review, analysis showed a 'null association' in 76% of cases [9], and ourfinding that personal factors account for a much larger proportion of the variance in active travel orphysical activity than is accounted for by environmental factors is consistent with those of some other

European studies [32,33]. In the particular context of this study, residents may simply have adapted toadverse conditions in their local environment in the ways identified by Hedges in a qualitative study ofpeople living close to new roads built in the UK in the 1970s [34] particularly by attitudinal adaptation,which Hedges characterises as developing an attitude that it is futile to resist. One can imagine that in themost deprived areas of Glasgow, people may have become resigned to the nature of their surroundings,seeing them as inevitable and not amenable to change either through environmental improvement orthrough their moving to another area.


27/60


No evidence that infrastructure investment will lead to active transit behavior

Oglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical ResearchCouncil Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie--

Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Pett icrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban populationInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43After demographic and socioeconomic characteristics were taken into account, neither perceptions of thelocal environment nor objective proximity to major road infrastructure appeared to explain much of thevariance in active travel or overall physical activity in this study. Our study population may be bothobjectively constrained by their socioeconomic circumstances (including comparatively limited access toprivate cars) and adapted to living in conditions which others would consider to pose a barrier to activetravel. Under these circumstances, environmental characteristics which have been found to influencediscretionary active travel in studies in other, more affluent populations may simply be irrelevant in apopulation which is more captive in its travel choices. Environmental correlates of active travel should

not be assumed to be generalisable between populations; researchers should continue to test hypothesesabout putative environmental correlates in different settings, and policymakers should recognise that theeffects of interventions to change the environment are likely to vary between populations and betweensocioeconomic groups within populations.

Transportation alone is not sufficient--Too many other resources necessary to solve inactive

lifestyle disparities.

Garcia et al, 2009. (Robert Garcia--The City Project, Los Angeles, CA, America Bracho and Patricia Cantero--Latino Health Access, Santa Ana, CA, and Beth GlennSchool of Public Health and Johnsson ComprehensiveCancer Center, UCLA), Pushing Physical Activity, and Justice, Preventive Medicine, 49 (2009) 33033

Realization of the severity of the obesity and chronic disease epidemics and failure of individuallyfocused interventions has led to heightened interest in implementing environmental interventions toincrease physical activity. Although promising, the impact of these strategies in ultimately reducing theobesity epidemic will be limited by the presence of continued inequities in the distribution of physicalactivity-related resources in the community. Advocacy efforts are critically needed to ensure that allcommunities benefit equally from infrastructure projects designed to build healthy communities, effectivepublic schools and safe and reliable transportation. Without continued advocacy efforts, theenvironmental strategies being implemented to increase physical activity levels in the population will leadto a widening versus narrowing of the gap between the health status of the wealthy and poor in thiscountry.


28/60

1NC No Planning Solvency

Models are difficult to develop

Martens, Karel, 2006. Radboud University Nijemegan, Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Justice,Berkeley Planning Journal, 19 (1), 1-15, 2006 http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0tg6v7tn

The challenge will be to develop a practically feasible method to ascribe monetary values to accessibilitygains. Of all the accessibility measures developed since the early article of Hansen (1959), the measuresthat are based on economic theory and apply the concept of user benefits to assess accessibility offer themost potential (e.g., Ben-Akiva and Lerman 1985). But even these methods still fall short of translatingaccessibility and accessibility gains to monetary values (Miller 1999b). The development of a practicallyfeasible method is further complicated by the conditions set by cost-benefit analysis. These conditionsinclude an often limited data set with regard to travel and accessibility, which does not incorporateinformation on spatial or temporal constraints necessary for accessibility measures developed along thelines of time-space geography. This suggests the application of a relatively simple accessibility measure,which uses only data that are commonly generated within the framework of transport (demand) modeling

and cost-benefit analysis. At the same time, the measure will have to be sophisticated enough to assessdifferences in accessibility between population groups, as defined, for example, by income or carownership level. Classic accessibility measures that generate aggregate accessibility indices at the level ofland uses or transport activity zones are thus not enough, as they do not provide the information necessaryfrom the perspective of social justice.

Need more comprehensive community planning

Garcia et al, 2009. (Robert Garcia--The City Project, Los Angeles, CA, America Bracho and Patricia Cantero--Latino Health Access, Santa Ana, CA, and Beth GlennSchool of Public Health and Johnsson ComprehensiveCancer Center, UCLA), Pushing Physical Activity, and Justice, Preventive Medicine, 49 (2009) 33033

These case studies illustrate how advocacy efforts have resulted in increased access to public resourcesrelated to physical activity in several Southern California communities. Given the current inequities inaccess to public resources in poor and ethnic minority communities, continued advocacy efforts arevital.With regard to the development and use of public lands, we have proposed ten principles to guide policymakers, which we summarize here (See full text of principles in Garca and White, 2006). The process ofdecision-making regarding investment of public monies in the built environment need to be transparentand fair and guided by a comprehensive vision for promoting the health of the entire community. Policy-makers should prioritize projects that can meet multiple community needs as well as promote communityhealth such as establishing public parks within the campuses of new and remodeled schools that canprovide safe-space for physical activity and potentially remove pollutants from the water and mitigaterunoff. Resources should first be allocated to low-income and ethnic minority communities in order to

overcome the legacy of inequities in access to high quality public parks and schools. Standards formeasuring equity must be established for agencies in order to track progress in building healthy andlivable communities for all. Increased attention should be paid to ensuring that recipients of public fundscomply with federal and state laws designed to achieve equal access to all public resources including TitleVI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (i.e., prohibits discrimination on basis of race, color, or national originfor programs and activities conducted with federal funding) and parallel state laws. Finally, thecommunity needs to be engaged and empowered to take part in all aspects of infrastructure decision-making and prepared to engage in advocacy efforts if the outcome of the decision-making process is notsatisfactory.


29/60

1NC No Planning Solvency

Need Broad coalitions to solve social inequities

Garcia et al, 2009. (Robert Garcia--The City Project, Los Angeles, CA, America Bracho and Patricia Cantero--Latino Health Access, SantaAna, CA, and Beth GlennSchool of Public Health and Johnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA), Pushing Physical Activity, andJustice, Preventive Medicine, 49 (2009) 33033

First, there is a need to bring people together through coalition building and a shared vision based ondiverse values. Grassroots engagement is a necessity, and may require the development of coalitions withbroad agendas and working across multiple issues as has been noted by others (Tajik and Minkler, 2007).The composition and nature of the coalition that are likely to be successful will depend on the timeline forachieving the goal, characteristics of the affected community and the health topic of concern among otherfactors.

Solvency: Environmental Justice approach overlooks important constituencies

Litman and Brenman, 2011. (Todd Litman--Victoria Policy Institute and Marc BrenmanSocial Justice Constituency and SeniorPolicy Advisor to the City Project) New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation (Draft for Discussion), March 3, 2011, p.3-4.

This approach is understandable. It addresses what can be considered the worst categories of social inequities (measurable discrimination againstvulnerable minorities), and it helps define a reasonable scope of issues that planning organizations can address. For example, to satisfy socialequity requirements a planning agency should identify any vulnerable minorities and any impacts that a project will impose on them, and thenwork with that group to mitigate these impacts. Similarly, social equity advocacy organizations have a reasonably definable constituency withdefinable concerns and intervention methods, including legal action.

However, this approach also has significant limitations: It is not effective at representing the interests of less organized or geographically dispersedgroups. For example, it is more likely to represent the interests of minority or low-income people if theylive close together than if they are dispersed through a community. Transit riders and bicyclists tend to berepresented politically, but the much larger group of people who rely on walking are generally notorganized so their interests are poorly represented. Mobility for teenagers and young adults is generally

overlooked as a social equity issue. It relies on often ambiguous classifications, such as race and age, as surrogates for functional statussuch as poverty and physical disability. Although African Americans tend to have high poverty rates, it isinaccurate to assume that all African Americans are poor, and unfair to overlook white populationpoverty. Similarly, although seniors tend to have high disability rates, it is wrong to assume that allseniors are disabled, and unfair to overlook the needs of younger disabled people. This can alienatepeople who feel that their interests are undervalued, such as low-income people who lack minority status. It tends to consider social equity issues in isolation, and so favors special mitigation actions ratherthan more integrated solutions that may help achieve more total benefits. For example, it is more likely tosupport special subsidies or transit services intended to help specific groups than to support broaderpolicy and planning reforms that create more diverse transport systems and more accessible land use,which provide economic, environmental and social equity benefits.

It tends to overlook issues that are important to physically, economically and sociallydisadvantaged groups but not specifically defined as discrimination, such as the impacts of planningdecisions on health, general household affordability, and community livability (Bell and Cohen 2009;CNT 2008; Litman 2007)Environmental justice, as it is currently applied, can therefore be considered a subset of total social equityissues. Environmental justice might be considered to reflect the most extreme and therefore mostimportant issues, but this approach often excludes other impacts and groups.


30/60

Highway Trade-off Disadvantage

The Highways Disadvantage is a negative argument that says that investing in public transit leads to

fewer vehicle miles travelled. With fewer vehicle miles travelled, there will be less revenue available forinvesting in highway infrastructure and repair. Infrastructure and repair of highways, it is argued, iscritical for economic growth. Good and efficient roadways are necessary for the movement of goods andservices, for the efficient movement of people to and from places of employment, and access to materials.By hurting the US economy, the disadvantage says, it will hurt the trade competitiveness of the UnitedStates in the global market place.


31/60

1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 1/3

A. Uniqueness: States use federal funds for roads and highways now, not transit.Building Americas Future Education Fund, 2011. Building Americas Future: Falling Apart and Falling Behind, Transportation

Infrastructure Report,

p. 16 Meanwhile, underinvestment in airports, in commuter and freight rail, and in ports costs us jobs,economic growth, and access to overseas markets. Compared to the significant sums dedicated to roads,government spending on other modes of transportation is relatively meager. The U.S. Department ofTransportation (USDOT) spends about $10.2 billion a year on public transit, or less than a quarter of whatit spends on highways. The federal government contributes even less to Amtraks operation costs.

In contrast to its highway funding programs, USDOT encourages greater state contributions to transitprojects. Since the majority of states are constitutionally or statutorily prohibited from using state gastaxes for public transit projects, USDOTs funding requirements are a tough imposition on states.Unwilling or unable to match federal contributions with general revenue funds, states may be moreinclined to seek funding for more road projects than for new transit projects.

B. Link:1.More public transit means less driving on roads.

Federal Transit Administration, January 2010, Public Transportations Role in Responding to Climate ChangeUS Department of Transportation,http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange2010.pdf

Multiple studies have quantified this relationship between public transportation, land use, andreduction in travel. Studies show that for every additional passenger mile traveled on publictransportation, auto travel declines by 1.4 t

active transportation neg

Documents