Here it is, here it comes... Here comes George's 19th nervous breakdown.
To some of you this will make sense, as some of you see the very things I talk about everyday. To others (namely the dilusional persons who live in Nebraska an really believe it is "the Good Life", and fear changing the status quo), you're in for some enlightenment. I have a 5-point plan that will hell bring gas prices down in American, and it goes far beyond my rant from earlier this week-- which none of you have bothered to read.
So without any further ado, I give you the solution to the largest domestic issue we face (because God knows the government doesn't give a fuck about us).
1. Expanded Rural InterstatesBy rural I mean, in between urban centers-- for example, Interstate 80 between Omaha and Des Moines, Des Moines and the Quad Cities, and the Quad Cities and Chicago. Within the urban centers, it is not uncommon to see 4, 5, or even 6 lanes of traffic in each direction. However, as you wind your way through the cornfields, you're limited to two lanes in each direction. Basically, you're forced to choose between morons (driving 50 MPH), and idiots (driving 60). Well, when the speed limit is 70 (and many including myself choose to drive closer to 80), 50-60 MPH is not an attractive option-- not to mention taking the car out of cruise ruins any decent gas milage you might be getting.
So, why not give us three options: morons, idiots, and maniacs. What I mean is, you get a car going 50 MPH, with a car going 60 MPH closing in-- to pass the slower car, he must move to the left lane, but both cars are below the posted speed limit, creating a dangerous situation, even is both vehicles are above the posted minimum speed (usually 45). A third lane of traffic eliminates the congestion and "conga-line" effect that "Sam Safety" (who happens to think he's is speed enforcement) has on traffic. 60 MPH can overtake 50 MPH, and not disrupt the flow of the traffic of those who choose to drive the speed limit, or faster.
2. Stricter Traffic EnforcementLike I said, I, like many of you, frequently violate traffic laws-- usually by speeding. There are two ways you can go about traffic enforcement: crack down on the speed limits, or enforce left-lane courtesy.
Let's start with the latter. It's simple, if you're not overtaking another vehicle-- GET THE HELL OUT OF THE LEFT LANE! You shouldn't need an invitation, or posted sign, to remind you that slower traffic keeps to the right. Passing on the right is reserved for racing (I know a lot of you yokels watch NASCAR). I think if a cop spots are car in the left lane who has plenty of room to move back into the right lane, he should write a ticket. It doesn't matter if he's tying up the left lane or not, if you don't have a reason to be in the left lane, you can't be there.
The other option is to change and enforce the speed limit. I find it to be dangerous to have a speed limit of 70 with a minimum speed of 45. Too big of a difference. You ready for this? Speed limit: 70, Minimum: 70. If you want to drive on the Interstates, drive the limit. Think about this, if everybody drives 70 MPH on the same road, there is no need to pass, as cars will not be driving up on other cars. A constant (and safe) distance is maintained between all vehicles, merging traffic would not force others to slow-- rather, simply to shift lanes-- and insurance costs would go down because unless a deer wanders on the road or some other phenomenon happens, there is not reason to use your brakes.
3. TollwaysOK, those of you in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and most points east know what I'm talking about. The rest of you (except for Kansas) think I'm nuts for suggesting this, but I have a basis for this.
Last month, the State of Confusion (known better to the locals as Nebraska) was forced to pass a gas tax increase, without a vote by the legislature. The reason? The gas tax supplies the budget for road construction, and with a shortfall of funds for expected construction costs, the gas tax is AUTOMATICALLY raised-- there is no debate, no option... it just happens. I say "bite my ass".
Here's what you do: you make I-80 a toll road. The money you raise through tolling can pay for the road construction (and maybe even some of it can be given to the state patrol to pay for more troopers), and you can reduce the cost of petro a couple cents per gallon.
It's certainly not unheard of-- and the idea is improving, where it's not even really a drag on the flow of traffic. Illinois is intergrating "Open Road Tolling" for those who are billed monthly for the use of the many tollways in the state, and Kansas and Massachusettes hand you a ticket as you enter the tollway, and you pay as you leave. Perhaps the states can get together in some for of reciprocity, where your I-PASS (Illinois' billing circuit) is accepted on the Indiana Toll Road. It's not like it's hard to track where you've been through this system... they already know.
Tolling creates revenue for a service rendered. You always have the option of not taking a tollway, by using side streets or state highways. And the politicians can avoid raising taxes on you, yet again.
4. Eliminate EthanolPeople in Nebraska and Iowa are going to hate me for this. You know the types-- Is that an ear of corn in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me? Seriously, you wouldn't drink gasoloine, would you? Then why would you put corn in your car?
Ehtanol is the Ambien or Viagra of the automotive world. It is an alleged "superdrug" that solves your problems-- except we forget to tell you the side effects.
Fact: Ethanol has a lower boiling point that gasoline, which makes your car more suceptable to vapour lock.
Fact: Ethanol, when burning off actually leaves an oily residue in your engine, making your car work harder, and actually creating more air polution as your car now burns through two different types of oils. (Basically you could fry a chicken inside your engine-- how clean is that?)
Fact: Ethanol can not be produced in the same refineries as gasoline. This means that refineries must be closed and converted to refining Ethanol, which slows production, and means less production of gasoline, which drives the price of fuel higher.But the government doen't want you to know that, because they want to give the impression that they are attempting to correct the problem, when the reality of the situation is that they're just fucking us over again.
5. Expand Railroad ServicesOK, so I've become the champion of all things railroad. I won't deny it, I'm a raidroad brat-- my dad has worked for the railroads for 33 years, and if you've been in his living room you know he owns just about everybook on railroading in the United States from
The Little Engine That Could to
When the Railroad Leaves Town. But if you want to talk seriously discuss alternative forms of transportation and their effect on the enviornment and infrastructure of the country, you have to involve the railroads. **Especially with the uncertainty that has become the airlines.**
There are two parts to this equation: passenger service, and freight service. Both of them would lessen the clutter that continues to grow on the Interstate System.
It is no accident that I referred to what happens when railroads leave town (aside for not being able to think of a second popular book). Small towns in the 1980s were decimated when the railroads left town-- most became ghost towns-- and it was no fault of the railroads. Who was to blame? The govenment-- specifically the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). It was the restrictions placed on the railroads by the ICC that has forced the railroads into cost-cutting measures, and out of these small towns (many of which were built on the strength of the railroads).
The ICC mandates that no train which intersects with a road can travel faster than 79 MPH. Well, shit... you can go that fast on pavement. Which means there is no benefit to use the railroads for freight, or passenger service. This plays to the hands of the oil companies and the airlines-- it takes more trucks (and more gasoline power) to move the load of a train, and if you want it there fast, you have it flown. And of course, the government would LOVE to drop the financial "burden" of the national passenger railroad service (Amtrak) for it's books (meaning more cars for the oil companies, and more passengers for the airlines). When, instead, they should be turning it into a revenue producer.
So here's what needs to happen. The ICC needs to go fuck themselves. Keep you hands off the railroads, and if they can safely operate at higher speeds, let them. Invest in Operation Lifesaver to keep morons from driving around crossing gates, and allow the trains to run to their full efficiency. If the goverment would give subsidies to the railroads like they do to the airlines, the railraods can expand services and continue to help the economy grow.
Rescind the "slow orders" placed on trains on lines with grade corssings, and let the railroads return to their days of glory-- which also happened to be the glory days of this nation.
Then, you come up with a creative solution for Amtrak. Right now, the government (through Amtrak) invests in the Northeast Cooridor, and neglects the rest of the nation-- no suprise, it's an east-coast bias thing. Instead, state governments are beginning to pick up the bill to keep Amtrak running. The State of Wisconsin actually pays to keep regular passenger service between Chicago and Milwaukee. So, the idea is growing, and it has taken another huge step. In doing so, the states are looking at the New York to Washington, D.C. "Northeast Cooridor", as well as Europe and Japan. The answer: high-speed rail.
Now, I understand, you have to eliminate grade crossings for high-speed service, which they have done in the Northeast Cooridor, but recently the State of Illinois recently agreed to invest in high-speed rail service between Chicago and St. Louis. It won't be easy, but I have a notion how it could work. Here's a hint: think Downtown Chicago.
If you drive on I-90 or I-290 or I-294, or any interstate within Chicago, you'll notice that the famed "Elevated Trains" (The L) run in the medians of the interstates , and then on elevated tracks within the city itself. So why not repeat this idea on rural parts of the interstates?
If you run the high-speed trains in the medians of the interstates, there will be no grade crossings, because there are no intersecting streets. Same concept as an interstate, just used for another purpose. Sure there will be a huge expense to build the right of way, and expand bridges... but if you can get trains to run 150-225 MPH inbetween cities, more people will be apt to use the railroad system in a way similar to the airlines.
There you have it. My energy-saving plan. I wanna know what you think, America. The phone lines are open.
