Infrastructure, roads, and cars

      The government-worshippers have won yet another round.  Arguing that the U.S. government is just too small and just doesn't spend enough money, the Senate has just passed a $Trillion-dollar infrastructure bill aiming to fix that problem.  (A Trillion, in case you're wondering, is a one followed by twelve zeros.)

endless road construction

      The part of the infrastructure bill I'd like to zoom in on is the $110 Billion for roads and bridges.  It seems that the government cannot rest until this entire, formerly beautiful continent is paved over with concrete.  The usual justification for the endless (as Dr. Seuss would say:) biggering and biggering of roads is to alleviate congestion.  But since when does biggering a road actually accomplish that goal?  It only encourages more cars and trucks to get on the road and drive further and longer.

Vehicle burning fossil fuel

      But the vehicles that travel on these roads are, among other flaws, dirty.  They burn fossil fuel and spew forth pollutants.  It seems that someone in government would be intelligent enough to understand this simple equation.  More roads = more cars & trucks = more pollution.  Oh no, that's much too simple. 

      So rather than STOP this endless paving of more roads, government's response is:  mandate tougher vehicle emission standards!  According to Wikipedia, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) for passenger cars manufactured in 2020 or later is 42 miles per gallon (mpg).  How did they come up with the number 42?  It appears to be just some random, arbitrary number that sounded real good.

      But it is noteworthy that 42 mpg is over double the CAFÉ standards back in the late 1970s.  Back then, there were probably only half as many vehicles on the road as now.  So let's summarize:  we've doubled per-vehicle fuel economy, but simultaneously doubled the number of vehicles.  This is progress?  Total vehicle pollution may be constant, but traffic, noise, congestion, time spent driving, and square footage of concrete has certainly shot up.

       To meet these tougher emission standards, there's a big push for electric vehicles.  The government LOVES electric cars, so it's offering monetary incentives to buy one, such as a $7,500 tax credit.  Let's forget for a moment that the damnable U.S. income tax code is already like a zillion pages long, yet some politicians feel that it's just not complex enough. 

Electric Vehicle Rescue Van

      Now you may love or you may hate electric cars, but that should be a CONSUMER choice, not a bureaucratic one.  Let the market figure out which fuel source is best.  Car shoppers may be rightly worried about running out of battery juice out in the middle of nowhere with nary a charging station for miles.  Then they'd have to call up one of those diesel-powered rescue vans, which will get there and charge them back up.  A few hours later, you're good to go.

      Meanwhile, there are some things about electric vehicles that everyone should consider.  Yes they have less TAILPIPE emissions than a fossil fuel burning car, but that power has to come from someplace, and that someplace is the electrical power station.  And many electrical power stations burn fossil fuel.  There are, of course, other energy sources for power plants, such as nuclear, hydro, wind, etc.  But every one of these options comes with potential environmental issues.  There is no "silver bullet" solution for green energy generation.

      Furthermore, there's what to do with that darn electric car battery.  All batteries eventually wear out, and they contain all sorts of toxic chemicals which must be properly removed.  Batteries cannot be economically recycled.  If the government succeeds in enticing large numbers of us to buy electric cars, the battery disposal problem will only get worse.

City-mandated parking space

      One final area where government intervention makes vehicle-related problems worse is:  parking space requirements for commercial buildings.  Here in my home state of Texas, most cities require something between 2.5 to 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space.  (Now these are CIVIC ordinances, not federal, not even state - but it's still GOVERNMENT, sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.)  Anyway, that is a LOT of formerly beautiful landscape converted into parking space.  Take a look at a city like Houston on Google Earth, and be SHOCKED at how much of the downtown area is consumed by parking lots, parking garages, roads, driveways, highways, and streets.

      Furthermore, just like the road and highway argument above, having all that available parking space only encourages more of us to drive our cars even more.  Once again, government meddling has made it that much more difficult for alternate, cleaner & greener, more efficient forms of transportation to see the light of day.

      So the next time you find yourself aggravated by all the vehicular traffic, noise, congestion, gridlock, and pollution in your town, you know who to thank:  those politicians you voted for.