Jump to content

Recommended Posts

T Question: Would affs have to invest in projects centered in the US? The word investment seems to modify in the US, which leads me to believe as long as you're investing in US Transportation you're golden...

 

 

not nessasarily, i couldn't see why it couldn't be in international territories

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expand NYC airports- they were not built for the traffic that goes through them now and it causes problem- reason for "New York Minute" is literally because almost all airports times work off of NYC because of the traffic and choke point problems they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harm: people who don't see the northern lights become depressed

: when people are depressed they kill themselves, others, or a combination of the two

Impact : extinction

 

plan: send people to Alaska to see the northern lights

 

adv. 1 people would be happier/ increase in production

 

adv2 tourism would increase the amount of tourist traps in alaska

 

adv3. oil companies would get proffit from fuel sold to transport people

 

solvency: people are happier when they see the northern lights

: happy people dont kill

 

 

what do you all think?

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harm: people who don't see the northern lights become depressed

: when people are depressed they kill themselves, others, or a combination of the two

Impact : extinction

 

plan: send people to Alaska to see the northern lights

 

adv. 1 people would be happier/ increase in production

 

adv2 tourism would increase the amount of tourist traps in alaska

 

adv3. oil companies would get proffit from fuel sold to transport people

 

solvency: people are happier when they see the northern lights

: happy people dont kill

 

 

what do you all think?

 

With a Hollow Earth addon, this could be a great idea.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A2: States CP

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/SurfTransFederalism.pdf

 

Good aff evidence; lots of cards to be made:

http://www.bafuture.org/sites/default/files/Report_0.pdf

http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=uhm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/transportation-infrastructure-cost_n_911207.html

 

 

 

Plan is extremely popular

Garrett 11

Garrett, Sierra, "Florida High-Speed Rail: An Economic Policy Analysis" (2011). Honors in the Major Program - Honors Theses. http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/uhm/13

 

Infrastructure projects are also important to politicians as political capital. As John Bartle writes about transportation infrastructure, a completed project is “a classic political photo opportunity and a tangible symbol politicians can point to of their work on behalf of their constituents.†If the project is presented by a local official, but paid for by the federal government instead of the state, the deal seems even sweeter. Plus, local industry, from engineers to bankers and construction workers are employed, lending even more support to the incumbent politician. The increase in these types of projects may even create the need for specialized attorneys and investment professionals to work specifically with the financial instruments and tax codes created for these projects. The resulting political capital from transportation projects can also be focused for specific areas or groups of constituents. The location of the project and its related economic stimulus can bring greater support to a politician even if the money used for the project may have been equally or more beneficial if spent somewhere else. Infrastructure projects are also used nominally to aid low-income areas or groups of people, under the premise that development and investment will spur economic growth. Economists such as Bartle, however, believe direct subsidy to these individuals (rather than in the form of capital investment) is more effective and efficient.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/house-gop-expected-to-ax-transportation-funds/2011/07/05/gHQAt9HkzH_story.html

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communications systems are probably an essential part of transportation, and there's probably some fantastic cases available in that area.

 

I suggest that you people should at least take a cursory glance at some Google results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this idea earlier and I think it's not only a possible K aff, but it is probably the K literature that is at the heart of the topic. I can see it being both a K and a critical advantages.

 

Everyone seems to be forgetting then entire theory of "White Flight". I has a very large literature base and could function not only as a K aff, but also a K. I know Kevin Kuswa (yes, the director of debate at, i think, Richmond) wrote an article about it that is perfect for debate.

Two articles by him that jump out to me by him. I'm not sure about the former, but I read an aff with the latter as the main author.

“A Brief Genealogy of Fordism in Two Parts --

Part Two: How the Flow and Constriction of Oil Stretches into Globalization.â€

“Suburbification, Segregation, and the Consolidation of the Highway Machine,â€

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic gives -too- much AFF ground as far as I am concerned.  On the Space topic, atleast we could have an obvious on-case file on how NASA, DoD, Satellites, Rockets, etc. But now, seeing as transportation can be legally ANYTHING from the following

 

Oil,

Water,

Sewage,

Things as simple as bloody STAIRS,

Space Travel,

Roads,

Highways,

Airplanes,

SPS (Then again, SPS is under almost every topic -.-)

Power Lines,

Trains,

Bullet Trains,

Time-Travel (Okay, that would be a push...)

And MUCH more.

Oh, and did I mention that the wording of the Res means that the investment has to be in the U.S, the actual project -doesen't-.

 

Don't even get me started on the effects-topciality from this topic that could be gained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic gives -too- much AFF ground as far as I am concerned. On the Space topic, atleast we could have an obvious on-case file on how NASA, DoD, Satellites, Rockets, etc. But now, seeing as transportation can be legally ANYTHING from the following

 

Oil,

Water,

Sewage,

Things as simple as bloody STAIRS,

Space Travel,

Roads,

Highways,

Airplanes,

SPS (Then again, SPS is under almost every topic -.-)

Power Lines,

Trains,

Bullet Trains,

Time-Travel (Okay, that would be a push...)

And MUCH more.

Oh, and did I mention that the wording of the Res means that the investment has to be in the U.S, the actual project -doesen't-.

 

Don't even get me started on the effects-topciality from this topic that could be gained.

 

It may be a push but I would be interested in seeing this including uniplanetary evolution theory. It would be really out there but would be a very interesting round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic gives -too- much AFF ground as far as I am concerned. On the Space topic, atleast we could have an obvious on-case file on how NASA, DoD, Satellites, Rockets, etc. But now, seeing as transportation can be legally ANYTHING from the following

 

Oil,

Water,

Sewage,

Things as simple as bloody STAIRS,

Space Travel,

Roads,

Highways,

Airplanes,

SPS (Then again, SPS is under almost every topic -.-)

Power Lines,

Trains,

Bullet Trains,

Time-Travel (Okay, that would be a push...)

And MUCH more.

Oh, and did I mention that the wording of the Res means that the investment has to be in the U.S, the actual project -doesen't-.

 

Don't even get me started on the effects-topciality from this topic that could be gained.

 

T-Substantial probably hedges against anything too small, lack of literature hedges against oddball affs like stairs, and politics disads hedge against vague/kind of squirrelly affs.

 

Good T debaters will press on these interpretations of "in" - SPS and Space Elevator are sort of taken for granted here which is probably not something that debaters in the regular season will do

 

Likewise, this topic was definitely one of the biggest in terms of aff ground. I doubt that transportation infrastructure will create the same ridiculous burden. There are a lot of people who complain about SPS - at even some of the smaller national tournaments there were a good 20+ affirmatives that needed to be prepared for

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic gives -too- much AFF ground as far as I am concerned. On the Space topic, atleast we could have an obvious on-case file on how NASA, DoD, Satellites, Rockets, etc. But now, seeing as transportation can be legally ANYTHING from the following

 

Oil,

Water,

Sewage,

Things as simple as bloody STAIRS,

Space Travel,

Roads,

Highways,

Airplanes,

SPS (Then again, SPS is under almost every topic -.-)

Power Lines,

Trains,

Bullet Trains,

Time-Travel (Okay, that would be a push...)

And MUCH more.

Oh, and did I mention that the wording of the Res means that the investment has to be in the U.S, the actual project -doesen't-.

 

Don't even get me started on the effects-topciality from this topic that could be gained.

 

None of these, except maybe space transportation, have a fed-key warrant. They'd lose to the states CP and politics every time.

 

How is SPS, water, or oil transportation infrastructure? A topicality argument that transportation infrastructure refers to installations directly utilized for transport (i.e. things people travel on or in) seems to limit out most affs- otherwise any aff making any sort of energy, cars, or anything else would be topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of these, except maybe space transportation, have a fed-key warrant. They'd lose to the states CP and politics every time.

 

This may be a slight hyperbole, I haven't gotten down to the brass tacks of the cards on both sides.

  • Its likely that some sort of security/hardening aff for transportation might be viable.
  • Also block grants to the states. Fix the DoT grant-making process.
  • Fix the DoT contracts process (speed it up, make it more accountable, make it more transparent, make it more efficient & on budget).
  • Nationalize a successful transportation solution (less likely to have fed key warrants than the above, but still viable)

These will likely have good fed key--because the states aren't going to be able to fix the fed problem.

 

The keyword in the literature may be "restructure"

 

Highway Trust Fund--fund it more or on a sustainable basis (pretty basic and kind of predictable)

Airports and FAA, improving, restructuring, etc..

 

It would be super-smart to look at what are the sub-agencies of the DoT:

  • Federal Highway Administration
  • Federal Aviation Administration
  • Federal Transit Administration
  • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
  • Federal Railroad Administration
  • Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
  • Maritime Administration
  • Research and Innovative Technology Administration
  • Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (don't ask me why this is included or linked to or affiliated with the DoT)
  • Surface Transportation Board (this is independent, but affiliated with the DoT--not sure entirely how it fits)

It seems the DoT has 8 to 9 subagencies....and 2 to 3 affiliated agencies. Also, it would seem that the agencies that the DoT coordinates with seem like potential aff ground--(ie restructuring the nature of that relationship). Digging into these sub-agencies for their problems--and possible solutions is a decent way to discover new potential ground.

 

3 cards which point in potential directions (mostly just 2 directions--because one is a harms card)

 

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) needs a working group via the FAA to consolidate the gains of the project.

(Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director Physical Infrastructure, IssuesChallenges Facing the Department of Transportation and Congress, March 10, 2009) Downloaded March 2012

"One step for moving forward with the NextGen transition was proposed in

the 2009 House reauthorization bill, which directed FAA to establish a

working group to develop criteria and make recommendations for the

realignment of services and facilities—considering safety, potential cost

savings, and other criteria, in concert with stakeholders, including

employee groups. Until FAA establishes this working group and the group

develops recommendations, the configurations needed for NextGen

cannot be implemented and potential savings that could help offset the

cost of NextGen will not be realized."

 

GAO Report on Transportation says we need to fix state & grant accountability for them to work effectively & efficiently:

(Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director Physical Infrastructure, IssuesChallenges Facing the Department of Transportation and Congress, March 10, 2009) Downloaded March 2012

"Despite NHTSA’s progress in administering and overseeing traffic safety

programs, several challenges may limit the effectiveness of the programs

and NHTSA’s ability to measure and oversee program effectiveness:

• The grant programs generally lack performance accountability

mechanisms to tie state performance to receipt of grants.

• Some states have faced challenges passing legislation required to qualify

for some traffic safety incentive grants.

• Each safety incentive grant has a separate application process, which has

proven challenging for some states to manage, especially those with small

safety offices.

• Some states also would have preferred more flexibility in using the safety

incentive grants to focus on key safety issues within the state.

Over the past several years, we have made recommendations to help

NHTSA further improve its ability to measure and oversee surface traffic

safety programs and to help FAA improve its oversight of aviation safety.

However, some challenges related to traffic safety—such as state

challenges in administering the programs and the lack of performance

accountability measures—result from the structure of the grant programs

established under SAFETEA-LU. These challenges and the persistence of

substantial numbers of traffic fatalities nationwide raise issues for

Congress to consider in restructuring surface traffic safety programs

during the upcoming reauthorization. Furthermore, to maintain the high

level of safety in the aviation industry, FAA needs to address challenges in

accessing complete and accurate aviation safety data, and improving

runway and ramp safety. For example, recent actions by some major

airlines to discontinue participation in an important data reporting

program limit data access. Moreover, a lack of national data on operations

involving air ambulances, air cargo, and general aviation hinders FAA’s

ability to evaluate accident trends and manage risks in these sectors.

Improving runway safety will require a sustained effort by FAA that

includes developing new technologies and revised procedures to address

human factors issues, such as fatigue and distraction, which experts have

identified as the primary cause of incursions.

 

Highway congestion alone costs $10 billion, along with spillover costs in other sectors

(Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director Physical Infrastructure, IssuesChallenges Facing the Department of Transportation and Congress, March 10, 2009) Downloaded March 2012

In addition, demand has outpaced the capacity of the system, and

projected population growth, technological changes, and increased

globalization are expected to further strain the system. Likewise,

increased demand and capacity constraints have threatened the mobility

of the nation’s freight transportation network. According to DOT, volumes

of goods shipped by trucks and railroads are projected to increase by 98

percent and 88 percent, respectively, by 2035 over 2002 levels, at the same

time that the ability to increase capacity will be constrained by geographic

barriers, population density, and urban land-use development patterns.

One study estimates that highway congestion alone costs shippers $10

billion annually. Constraints on freight mobility can also result in

undesirable environmental effects, such as air pollution, and contribute to

increased risks for illnesses, such as respiratory disease.

 

(Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director Physical Infrastructure, IssuesChallenges Facing the Department of Transportation and Congress, March 10, 2009) Downloaded March 2012

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic gives -too- much AFF ground as far as I am concerned. On the Space topic, atleast we could have an obvious on-case file on how NASA, DoD, Satellites, Rockets, etc. But now, seeing as transportation can be legally ANYTHING from the following

 

Oil,

Water,

Sewage,

Things as simple as bloody STAIRS,

Space Travel,

Roads,

Highways,

Airplanes,

SPS (Then again, SPS is under almost every topic -.-)

Power Lines,

Trains,

Bullet Trains,

Time-Travel (Okay, that would be a push...)

And MUCH more.

Oh, and did I mention that the wording of the Res means that the investment has to be in the U.S, the actual project -doesen't-.

 

Don't even get me started on the effects-topciality from this topic that could be gained.

 

How could anybody POSSIBLY use SPS? And... how about having a hybrid cars aff with that use thorium reactors?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could anybody POSSIBLY use SPS? And... how about having a hybrid cars aff with that use thorium reactors?

 

with sps your "transporting" energy , or with oil i could invest in keytstone, etc

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SPACE COLONIZATION IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hard SF 7 (articles focusing on delineating science from science fiction, 5-10-7, “Can Space Colonization Guarantee Human Survival?â€, http://www.hardsf.org/IssuSpac.htm)

 

A colony would need an industrial base capable of extracting and refining raw materials, and making useful things from them. Interstellar colonies and terraforming of planets in our solar system are longer range goals. Colonies in any place other than an Earth-like planet will require a substantial infrastructure to allow humans to exist in an otherwise deadly environment. The colony needs to be able to maintain and repair that infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SPACE COLONIZATION IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hard SF 7 (articles focusing on delineating science from science fiction, 5-10-7, “Can Space Colonization Guarantee Human Survival?â€, http://www.hardsf.org/IssuSpac.htm)

 

A colony would need an industrial base capable of extracting and refining raw materials, and making useful things from them. Interstellar colonies and terraforming of planets in our solar system are longer range goals. Colonies in any place other than an Earth-like planet will require a substantial infrastructure to allow humans to exist in an otherwise deadly environment. The colony needs to be able to maintain and repair that infrastructure.

 

 

That is not in the united states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SPACE COLONIZATION IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hard SF 7 (articles focusing on delineating science from science fiction, 5-10-7, “Can Space Colonization Guarantee Human Survival?â€, http://www.hardsf.org/IssuSpac.htm)

 

A colony would need an industrial base capable of extracting and refining raw materials, and making useful things from them. Interstellar colonies and terraforming of planets in our solar system are longer range goals. Colonies in any place other than an Earth-like planet will require a substantial infrastructure to allow humans to exist in an otherwise deadly environment. The colony needs to be able to maintain and repair that infrastructure.

 

 

 

Since when is "will require" the same as "is a substantial increase" ?

 

This card is solvency defense, not a T justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...