Transportation Committee Falls Short on Potential Goldmine

March 31st, 2010 - The expectations were high. The tone was set by the Committee on Natural Resources' endearing plan for decreasing the greenhouse gases in America. Even as the Transportation Committee began the presentation of their bill to a hard and heavily budget-minded group of Congressmen, the prospect of improving the nation's worst transportation problems in years seemed to be a stone's throw away.

The idea seemed simple enough. Urban highway congestion is the arguably the largest problem currently facing our somewhat somber nation. So to fix it, let's add new highways around major metropolitan areas (in addition to the current ones, of course) so that commuters have more options as to how they choose to get around. It really does sound simple. So simple in fact, why haven't lawmakers already inacted such ideas? The answer of course isn't hard to find, actually.

With Obama's newest transportation budget plan, money has been allocated to solving these problems. The problem occurs when you consider the amount of people who have switched from driving to work to public transportation or carpooling. The major reason for the change (although lawmaker's would love for you to believe otherwise) is the economy. Sure, I know, it sounds cliche. But it is true. In the current state of the union economically, people just don't have the money to fuel their cars anymore, and are thus finding other means of transportation. So you have to wonder, if all these new highways are built, and the economy picks up (because we all know it has to eventually, right?), then consider all the people who will switch back to driving themselves and away from public transit and carpooling. Oops, we're right back where we started, and furthermore, we just killed millions, maybe billions, of trees for practically no reason. This can't be good for the previously mentioned Committee on Natural Resources' plan for drastically reducing greenhouse gases.

The issue that perhaps stemmed the most lengthy part of the debate over the bill, however, was not the proposed congestion reduction plan. It was actually the idea of installing a sort of automated toll road system to help fund for new highways and research. (It sure is interesting to me that the most heated part of the Congressional debates has revolved around under-budgetting and the argument that the Committees have not been appropriating enough funds. Interesting, considering this session of Congress is majority Bald Eagle party. Hmm...) Perhaps it was the ambiguity surrounding the toll system, or maybe it was the misunderstanding of the audience it was being presented to, but either way, it turned out to be a highly debated point. Personally, I find the idea fairly decent, the Committee just didn't have the best plan for implementing it. The proposed amendment to have the toll road transmitter installed by auto dealers is a great idea. Sure, it doesn't allow for people driving unregistered vehicles, but do we really want them on the road anyway?

The Committee used Atlanta as an example of how the new highways could be implemented and used. Although they were headed in the right direction, I personally feel as if they should have analyzed a bit more where the new highways would be more beneficial. For instance, parts of southwest and southeast Atlanta would not need as much extra highway as many of the northern suburbs. Also, their claims that their plan would be more fuel efficient was a bit of the mark. Yes, it is true, a lot of fuel is wasted just sitting in traffic everyday. But to claim that making a wider and more lengthy perimeter highway would be more fuel efficient just doesn't quite add up.

This bill had potential, and I mean real potential. It had a great plan for decreasing urban congestion all while staying within a national budget. It even had ways to raise money to support the future budget of the plan. However, no actual numbers were written, and it is apparent that the Committee is a bit unsure of how much their plan will actually cost. The bill was good on paper, and perhaps would get more votes had it stayed that way. I guess this goes to show why setting a national standard for almost anything can be so expensive.


Christopher Tuten, Political Analyst, The Bellringer Daily

Congress Convenes: Focusing on the Issues

March 29th, 2010 - Congress met today and brought many bills and issues to the floor for presentation and debate. The Committee on the Environment brought up much heated debate when their discussion about ethanol frontiers and it's incorporation into petroleum and farming industries as well and severe criticism for their lack of budget planning. The Committee on Budget presented several ways to reduce government spending which according to the committee would have a significant impact on the current national budget deficit. One issue proposed by the Budget Committee was getting rid of Medicare and Social Security which would appropriate more money to be directed to alleviating the deficit. The Committee on Energy and Commerce brought their bill to the floor with a strong stance on pro-Nuclear power and Smart Grid technology incorporation in the United States Energy infrastructure in the very near future (~2012/2013) and full integration by 2030. Despite high costs, the long term savings in energy and environmental impacts would more than compensate for the costs of the energy project according to the Committee. These committees' proposals are quite radical and given the debate and voter tallying, quite polarizing. It seems that there is much revision and discussion to be had before any of these bills plan on making it into law. As for the rest of the bill propositions for this convening, they will have to wait until the next session which will hopefully be more productive.

- James Hendrix; Political Analyst