It seems so obvious to me

OK, it seems so obvious to me; I hear every day about how local governments are cutting transportation projects because they don't have the funds to pay for them: property taxes are down, gas taxes are down, transfer taxes are down, title taxes are down -- everybody comes up with ways generate tax revenue when the economy is growing, and they seem so surprised when it turns around! Transportation means infrastructure. I for one do not want to be on a bridge when it suddenly decides it's time to succumb to the lure of gravity and pop a few rivets, and before you can say "Galloping Gertie", head for the water, taking a few dozen cars along for the ride. I thought -- naively enough -- that the Minnesota interstate bridge collapse would be a wake-up call. I was sadly mistaken.

So keeping with the naivete theme, and seeing the unemployment rate jump, why does it seem so obvious that the government should stimulate the economy with a jobs-for-infrastructure bill? This has a two-pronged benefit; one, it provides jobs, and two, it fixes the infrastructure that is vital to the economy. Much as I wish we didn't need them as much as we do, we need trucks. We need trains. We need bridges for the trucks and trains and commuters to travel on.

And I know how to pay for it. Taxes: well yes, maybe some. But I would impose a speed-based user fee. Right now, speed cameras and red light cameras impose a fine, but it doesn't take points off your license. So this amounts to simply a tax on breaking the law. So let's take it one step further, Feds: put speed cameras on the interstates!!! We all know that danger increases as speeds go up, so have an exponential fine (er, tax) structure. First 5 miles over the speed limit: $0. 6-10 over: $25. Next 10: $100. Next 10: $250. So on a standard 65 mph limit interstate, the $250 fine, er, fee, doesn't kick in until the death-wish driver exceeds 85 mph. On 55 mph city routes, the $250 fee doesn't kick in until it's over 75.

In order to cash in on this bonanza, the speed cameras would have to be mobile, digital (because a lot of license plate pictures are gonna get taken), and well-disguised. But there's an immediate objection: if people actually slow down, you lose the revenue stream. WRONG. If people slow down, there's less accidents, less gas gets burned, less people get KILLED or end up in the trauma ward or end up on long-term disability or end up in puff-powered wheelchairs (and also there's less use of those expensive trauma transport helicopters, too). Furthermore, if a dumb-a** gets hit with a couple $250 letters in the mail, he's going to slow down eventually, and maybe not end up killing an innocent father driving his minivan home to his family.

I've already blogged about using GPS to track road-use, and how this eventually could get factored into a time-of-road-use structure. Hmm, did I say "could"? Rather, it will. So the government will get the money either way, but to be fair, the speed demons should get socked a lot harder.

Roads cost money, people. It's a privilege to use them. Why not pay for them and use what we pay for them to fix them, and in so doing, put people to work that are going to need to be working? It sure seems obvious to me.