Great resource
Thanks to Michael Miller for posting this resource from the DOT to the comments section. I reviewed the executive summary and this would serve as an excellent source for the year. It would be especially great to read right before the topic comes out to give you some good ideas for cases.
With a section entitled “ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM AND WIDENING INVESTMENT
GAP—BACKGROUND” how can you not go mine that for inherency!
Here are some great quotes:
As a nation, we have reaped the benefits of previous
generations’ foresight and investment, generations that
developed and built a transportation system that became
the envy of the world. Over the last few decades we
have grown complacent, expecting to be served by highquality
infrastructure, even as we devoted less and less
money in real terms to the maintenance and expansion
of that infrastructure. Not only have we failed to make
the needed and substantial investment; we have failed to
pursue the kind of innovation necessary to ensure that our
infrastructure meets the demands of future generations.
Real highway spending per mile traveled
has fallen by nearly 50 percent since the
federal Highway Trust Fund was established
in the late 1950s. Total combined highway
and transit spending as a share of gross
domestic product (GDP) has fallen by about
25 percent in the same period to 1.5 percent
of GDP today.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
My main concern is that AFF cases have inherency that is more than a lack of funding. If lack of money is the only thing facilitating a harm, I don’t see that as an actual inherent barrier to harms being solved. Inherency should be structural, attitudinal, philosophical, or existential. If a structural barrier exists that goes beyond funding, good; but if the structure is already there and it just requires some money, and all AFF cases go in that direction, it won’t make for a very interesting debate on that level.