There are some ideas that make sense, but are a tough sell on Capitol Hill. The classic example of recent years: gas taxes for public transportation. For years (decades), there were proposals on the tables that would have added to the cost of gas, with the money dedicated to reducing future need for that same product. But every such proposal was met with screams of "a dime a gallon? Are you kidding? I can't possibly pay $1.80 for gas!" And now we get to pay $4 a gallon, and listen to commentators pontificate about how gas price increases are tougher on America because we don't have good public transportation. That's the price of ignoring the obvious.
On the other hand, there are bad ideas that make easy politics. Recent example: casinos. Terrified of uttering the T-word, politicians from coast to coast instead find it easier to put a slot machine in every kindergarten class. Somehow, it's immoral to ask that people pay for a society worth living in, but it's dandy to grab funds from those awful gamblers. Where this is heading is also a foregone conclusion.
In any case, here are some good ideas that would take guts to move through the legislature.
A five year moratorium on new highway construction
Politicians love highways. They love to fund them, love to tell you they've funded them, love to put their names and the names of their friends and colleagues on them. Complain to your local congressman that you need a new food pantry in your area, and you're likely to wait a long time for a reply. Casually mention that you've noticed a string of accidents along some winding country lane, and the next thing you'll see is the smiling face of Your Humble Servant as he announces the bill funding a new four lane past your door.
Highways are visible. They're big. And they're a manifestation of the budgetary power your particular fat cat swings on the Hill.
And most of them are really, really bad ideas.
The last highway bill topped 300 billion -- better than $50 billion a year, and yet the general state of highways is degrading and there are literally thousands of bridges just waiting to fail. Multiple studies have shown that cities don't benefit from having more highway lanes routed to failing downtowns, but instead end up bleeding more people and jobs to sprawling suburbs. Every study has shown that you can not build your way out of traffic jams.
And in most cases what your YHS is actually delivering to your door is one whopping great white elephant, a beast which not only comes with a shockingly high initial price tag, but which will deliver staggering vet bills in the form of maintenance costs that far exceed the value delivered. Forever.
So here's the deal. Five years, no new highways. No new bridges, bypasses, nothing. Instead, we allocate the same money for highways, but we spend half of it on fixing up the infrastructure we already have, and the other half building up public transportation so we don't need as many highways. Bonus funding for any city that gets rid of existing lanes.
End to single-purpose zoning
If you've ever lived in a county without zoning (as I do), you begin to see what caused people to embrace the idea in the first place. There's nothing quite like discovering that the people moving into that lovely old house next door are not a young family, but a company that makes giant signs for fast food restaurants. You know the ones that get put up on ten story steel posts so you can see them when you're screaming past on the new $50 billion a year interstate? The ones that, close up, have letters bigger than the Goodyear Blimp and throw enough light to require sunglasses? Yeah, those.
The trouble with most zoning plans is that in trying to keep people from living next door to a Hardee's sign the size of Yankee Stadium, they enforce rules so homogenized that they create neighborhoods as sterile as boiled custard. Cities and counties end up divided into land that fits into categories like "Single Family Residence, minimum 1/4 acre lot size" and "Commericial (office and retail)." The result is subdivisions devoid of anyplace to work or shop.
A few years ago, my county proposed a plan that would restrict new subdivision development to corridors along already existing highways, require light retail to mix with residential, and preserve blocks of the county for the existing agriculture and industry. Naturally, the plan was defeated -- after subdivision developers spent a small fortune campaigning against it. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
We took a bad turn toward Sprawlville somewhere around the 1940's, and we've been racing along that road ever since. It's time to apply the brakes, and some national standards on zoning is a good place to start. I believe that we can requires new developments (and old ones) to carry enough retail and office space to greatly reduce the highway miles people in that development would otherwise expend. And we can do so without someone discovering that Bob's Package Liquor is our new neighbor. So let's.
Bus Rapid Transit with Dedicated Lanes
There's a social pecking order when it comes to public transportation. Light rail is cool. Subways, even older ones, come with a kind of panache. Buses are... buses. There's little romance in riding the bus (unless there's a mad bomber involved, and Sandra Bullock happens to be at the wheel).
But there's a middle ground -- the bus rapid transit. Basically, the idea is to have large buses (many are articulated with multiple segments like train cars) with multiple doors so that people can get on and off quickly. These buses stop only at special stations where people enter from platforms that put them at the same level as the bus. So basically they're like trains... except they're buses.
There are a number of such systems operating in cities around the world. In the United States, such systems have their detractors, particularly since one of the biggest pushes for bus rapid transit was from a group whose real goal seems to be sabotaging efforts to expand light rail. But that doesn't make these systems the enemy of light-rail. In my own area, light rail is doing fantastic and expanding steadily. But even though I live along one of the area's principle corridors, they have no rail coming my way. Not now, not ten years from now, not even on the "to be considered for the future" drawings. There's simply no place to run the line.
But we do have a highway. Bus rapid-transit, by it's nature, requires dedicated lanes. So give them one. Take a lane away from regular traffic, make it clear that to enter the bus lane will result in fines your grandchildren will still be paying, put up a few raised platforms, and let the bus-trains roll. Good ideas don't have to be exclusive, and there's room for both light rail and bus rapid transit.
Relaxing automotive safety laws
45,000 Americans a year end up dying in traffic accidents. So naturally I'm proposing that we relax safety regulations.
Before you have an accident in your haste to type a reply, bear with me a second. I'm not advocating the end of seat belts, the death of the air bag, or even stopping motorcycle helmet laws (Geez man, get your helmet on. What are you, stupid?) What I'm advocating is an end to the "5 MPH bumper" and the way that cars are certified.
There are dozens of new start up companies trying to produce lightweight, fuel efficient vehicles in the United States to replace our bloated fleet of fuelosaurs. By a not too astounding coincidence, many of these companies are producing vehicles with three wheels. Why? Well, a tripod of tires does offer some advantages in a few of the designs, but the biggest reason is that for most states three wheels means motorcycle, even if those three wheels are topped by an enclosed cabin and a trunk. Put four wheels on something, and it becomes a car, and once it becomes a car, it has to pass so many hurdles that most small companies can't even contemplate the idea.
The last small company I know of that tackled getting a car certified was Zap!, who is best known for their extremely odd three-wheeled Zap! Xebra. Zap! (the exclamation point is part of the name, not my idea) decided some time back that it would a great idea to import and sell the Smart Car. Daimler-Chrysler had said they had no interest in bringing the car to the American market, Zap! thought the little things would sell, so they made a deal and started shipping them over.
But even starting with an existing design that was on the streets in dozens of countries, Zap! spent more than $20 million (and destroyed several cute little Smarts) before they got the certification to sell them in the US. By which time Daimler had decided that maybe there was a market for the cars, and that they might just do it themselves. So... ouch.
We need a simpler, cheaper system that will allow manufacturers to demonstrate that their cars are safe without making them spend a fortune. Believe it or not, we're on the brink of an automotive renaissance in the US, and while we certainly shouldn't "get regulation out of the way," we do need to realize that our current regulatory process is as outdated as the Hummer.
Fifty-five Mile an Hour Speed Limit
Ah, the return of the ol' double nickle. Think you'll see your congressman lining up behind that one any time soon?
Here's a funny thing. While the Republicans are arguing that drilling every square inch of America will cut fuel costs, study after study has shown that the effect will be both minimal and several years down the road. On the other hand, just dropping from 65 to 55 will net most cars a 10% savings in fuel costs. That's far more than we'll get by turning Florida into the Tar Sands State. And admit it, you're driving faster than 65, so your savings will be even greater.
There are other benefits to driving 55 that we can't even begin to quantify. There's improved safety. There's the huge boost in ticket revenue that might even slow down a few new casinos, and of course there's the inestimable boost to Sammy Haggar's career.
You can drive 55. It's an idea who time has come... again.
Okay, there are five ideas from me. What about you? What ideas are you aching to see read on the floor of the Senate... even if you know they'll die long before Tom Coburn puts a hold on them?