Great Resource
Found this article which basically has everything you could possibly need to write an affirmative. In my lecture on the first affirmative constructive I mention finding the solvency advocate to make writing your case easy… here is an example!
I think this study can also be helpful on the negative to counter any small cases that do not address the overarching issues identified in this case. I think a solvency press based on these inherency cards would be very persuasive – ie, their plan will not work because these systemic problems will still be present.
Inherency – FHWA has conflicting purposes
Another need is direction. An important step in advancing project delivery is clarifying the primary role to be played by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Under current law, the agency is serving dual purposes, which at times confl ict. FHWA should be the primary Federal proponent for improving the nation’s mobility, acting as a strong partner with state departments of transportation (DOTs) in delivering transportation projects as expeditiously as possible. But in its stewardship role, FHWA is also called upon to enforce the myriad environmental regulations that have grown up from the more than 40 different statutes enacted by Congress related to transportation. This enforcement responsibility comes at a time when state legislatures have enacted equally effective, or even more stringent, stewardship requirements at the state level.
Inherency 2 – Agencies unable to reconcile
At the heart of the problem are the differences among Federal transportation and environmental resource agencies in terms of their fundamental purposes and missions and, too frequently, an inability to reconcile those differences. This effort to bridge the gap between
transportation and resource agencies has been the subject of voluntary efforts, executive orders, and Federal legislation, most recently SAFETEA-LU. Vital to this effort is FHWA’s need to prioritize its mission of highway development while negotiating with environmental resource agencies.
Harms
Completion of transportation projects takes too long. Today, a typical highway or transit project can take from 10 to 15 years to complete––up to six years for the environmental process, and up to nine years or more for planning, design and construction. That is
unacceptable. The Federal government should set a goal of cutting the current project delivery time in half, achieving in fi ve to seven years what now takes 10 to 15.
Plan
It is time to end this divided mission and to make clear that the primary responsibility of the FHWA and the U.S. DOT is to improve mobility for the American people in the most expeditious way possible. They should also assure that this is accomplished
in ways that satisfy federal laws which protect the environment. Completing project reviews faster in no way precludes doing them well.
Solvency
By addressing ways to accelerate project review and delivery, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission has an opportunity to bring the Federal regulatory process into the 21st Century, enabling transportation agencies to put transportation
improvements into place in time to meet America’s growing needs.
You could then insert any number of solvency arguments about how changes would be better such as:
Corridor preservation would speed up projects
Advanced Acquisition for New Facilities: Perhaps the most significant potential to accelerate project schedules and reduce costs involves encouraging greater corridor preservation through advanced right-of-way acquisition without undermining planning and environmental processes. This is a major opportunity which the Commission may wish to emphasize. Advanced acquisition of future rights-of-way generally reduces time and costs, as well as
the disruption to property owners and communities where a corridor containing private land is designated in a long-range plan. Where properties are undeveloped but potential community-compatible uses exist, the land could be leased on an interim basis for uses such as
landscape nurseries, outdoor storage, parking, or recreation. In addition, there are alternatives to outright acquisition that may mitigate the impacts of taking property off the tax-rolls and
creating large tracts of under-utilized land. An example of this would involve purchasing “development rights” in a corridor years in advance of a project, which limits the land to its current use but precludes future development until the land is needed for the intended transportation use.
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.
Comments
1. I fear that most people will go for “big stinks” Affirmatives, but I’m just an old cynic.
2. After this – and so many other quality posts by Danny – NOBODY has any excuse for not being ready for RCC! (Are you feeling me, Glendale/Nick/Matt/other Bruins?)
3. Danny: this more than makes up for having the Demo debate on Cuba. Mucho many thanks, Compadre! 
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
question on affs, since they seem to be on everyone’s minds right now:
Do you think that a lot of people are going to be going for big stick affs like this or squirrels?
As the neg I am having a lot more issues then the aff. there are so many places to make a change I do not believe that we will run out of aff ground. Conversely, I believe that the problem for us debaters is the Neg. This perspective I believe is felt around the region by other coaches and competitors alike.
This is why I believe identifying intent of affirmatives is important, without knowing if they are going to go big or go small it makes it a mess for the neg… I only got to hear 1 aff at the camp and it was a camp case from Laf. so I am a little queasy on this subject. (That is right, I do not believe that I know everything – shocking, huh?)