Transportation infrastructure and industry are intrinsically capitalist in that they add value to commodities produced by laborers, giving no benefit to the worker
Worker’s Bush Telegraph, 11
(3/22/2011, “Railways and Capitalism,” http://workersbushtelegraph.com.au/2011/03/22/railways-and-capitalism/, accessed 7/7/2012, bs)
Just like workers in other industries, workers in the transport industry take part in the production of commodities. We produce what Marx calls a ‘useful effect’. The ‘useful effect’ of the transport industry is the actual moving of goods and people from one place to another. Raw materials move from the mines to the ports and factories, finished products are transported to and from the markets, workers are brought from their homes to the work-places. The movement of commodities (the result of the work of transport workers) adds value to the various commodities being moved – the greater the distance, the greater the value added: … the use-value of things has no existence except in consumption, and this may necessitate a change of place on the part of the product, in other words, it may require the additional process of production of the transportation industry. The productive capital invested in this industry adds value to the transported products, partly by transferring value to the transported products from the means of transportation [i.e., the using-up and 'wear and tear' of rails, roads, engines etc.], partly by adding value through labour-power used in transportation [i.e., the using-up and 'wear and tear' of shunters, drivers, signalmen, etc]. This last-named addition of value consists, as it does in all capitalist production, of a reproduction of wages and of surplus-value. Look at the production of a Ford motor car. It is the product of the collective labour of thousands of men and women. They work on the production lines and in the offices of factories at Broadmeadows and Geelong, in the rubber mills and glass-works, and also in the transport industry – carrying raw materials, components and finished parts from one plant to another. However, both the car and the profits from its future sales are owned by a small group of share-holders in the U.S.A. This is the contradiction of capitalism – production is carried out collectively by thousands of workers who do not own what they produce. They are paid a wage which represents the amount necessary to keep the worker and the family from week to week, but no more than that. The products, like the factories, are owned by a small handful of people. In Australia, these people are mainly U.S., British and Japanese monopoly capitalists.
Increasing transportation infrastructure causes the global spread of neoliberal ideologies-increased mobility of people and goods ensures efficiency of capital
Lakshmanan and Chatterjee, 5
(T.R., Boston University Center for Transportation Studies Director; and Lata R., Boston University Center for Transportation Studies Resaerch Professor of Geography and Environment, Spring 2005, Transportation Research at the University of California, “Economic Consequences of Transport Improvements,” http://www.uctc.net/access/access26.pdf, p. 33, accessed 7/7/2012, bs)
Contemporary globalization is driven by a combination of new transport and communication technologies, knowledge-intensive production technologies, new open-trade institutions, neo-liberal ideologies, and logistical innovations facilitating ﬂows of goods, services, capital, and knowledge. Global network corporations—the major agents of globalization—simultaneously exploit economies of scale in widening markets and economies of scope in information, ﬁnancial, and marketing networks, while maintaining production units in urban regions around the world to take advantage of lower costs. Global capital thus uses urban regions as organizational structures to enhance returns, while also seeking infrastructure investments that improve accessibility and knowledge sharing. This explains the rapid growth of multinational ﬁrms in large metropolitan corridors surrounding such global cities as London, New York, Tokyo, and Los Angeles. Smaller urban areas, less endowed with global accessibility and knowledge, fare differently in the competition for global production locations. The ability of a smaller urban region to participate in the global division of labor depends on what cost advantages it can offer or what growth strategies it can develop that allow it to export to global markets. The evolution of globally competitive urban centers shifts important aspects of economic policy to the urban level, with an increasing role for urban economic policy. CONCLUSIONS This essay advances two ideas. First, the economic effects of transport improvements are dependent on the context in which the improvements are made. Economic outcomes vary according to the state of the preexisting transportation network, the state of economic development, and the nature of competition in the regions. This suggests that economic assessments of transport improvements must incorporate a broader range of interrelationships and data than are typically reviewed in transportation analyses. Second, economic history teaches that sustained improvements in transportation, going hand in hand with parallel improvements in information and production technologies and institutional structures, cause structural and developmental transformations— suggesting that very long-term transport effects are joint consequences of the evolution of transport, information, production, and institutional structures.
Public infrastructure favors suburban communities over city residents- this creates closed opportunity, limited mobility, economic disinvestment, social isolation, and urban disparity.
Bullard 4 (Robert, Ware Professor of Sociology and Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, “Addressing Urban Transportation Equity in the United States,” Fordham Urban L.J. 31, 2003-2004, p. 1201-2 http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2193&context=ulj) ALG In Sprawl City: Race, Politics and Planning in Atlanta, the authors documented that government-subsidized sprawl has substantial social equity, civil rights, and health implications. 6 8 Suburban sprawl is fueled by the "iron triangle" of finance, land use planning, and transportation service delivery. 169 Sprawl-fueled growth is widening the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots.' 170 Suburban sprawl has clear social and environmental effects. 171 The social effects of suburban sprawl include concentration of urban core poverty, closed opportunity, limited mobility, economic disinvestment, social isolation, and urban/suburban disparities that closely mirror racial inequities. 172 The environmental effects of suburban sprawl include urban infrastructure decline, increased energy consumption, automobile dependency, threats to public health and the environment, including air pollution, flooding, and climate change, and threats to farm land and wildlife habitat. 173 Many jobs have shifted to the suburbs and communities where public transportation is inadequate or nonexistent. 174 The exodus of low-skilled jobs to the suburbs disproportionately affects central-city residents, particularly people of color, who often face more limited choice of housing location and transportation in growing areas.' 75 Between 1990 and 1997, jobs on the fringe of metropolitan areas grew by 19% versus 4% job growth in core areas. 176 While many new jobs are being created in the suburbs, the majority of job opportunities for low-income workers are still located in central cities.' 77 Suburbs are increasing their share of office space, while central cities see their share declining.' 78 The suburban share of the metropolitan office space is 69.5% in Detroit, 65.8% in Atlanta, 57.7% in Washington, D.C., 57.4% in Miami, and 55.2% in Philadelphia. 179 Getting to these suburban jobs without a car is next to impossible. It is no accident that Detroit leads in suburban "office sprawl." Detroit is also the most segregated big city in the United States 18° and the only major metropolitan area without a regional transit system."' 1 Detroit really is the Motor City-only about 2.4% of metropolitan Detroiters use transit to get to work. 182 Transportation-related sources account for over 30% of the primary smog-forming pollutants emitted nationwide and 28% of the fine particulates. 183 Vehicle emissions are the main reasons 121 Air Quality Districts in the United States are in noncompliance with the 1970 Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 184 Over 140 million Americans, of whom 25% are children, live, work, and play in areas where air quality does not meet national standards. 85 Emissions from cars, trucks, and buses cause 25-51% of the air pollution in the nation's non-attainment areas. 8 6 Transportation related emissions also generate more than a quarter of the greenhouse gases. 187