> You're more generous than I am. I see Gore sensing a problem, or something
> that the polls identify as a perceived problem, and offering a typically
> New Democrat microresponse. Turning the White House into Chopper
> 1600 ain't
> gonna solve the traffic problem. But it will give the impression of trying
> to solve the problem, which is perfectly consistent with the Stan
> Greenberg
> "narrative" approach to politics: tell 'em a winning story and
> they'll vote
> for you. Even if the story is crap.
I'm no Gore groupie. I was onto this before him.
Gore has latched onto or blundered into a long-running literature on de-urbanization and metropolitan government. The story is not crap. In a nutshell, it is that governmental fragmentation under federalism fosters inefficiency and inequality. Suburbanites exploit the amenities and economic advantages of center city locations and take their money home with them. Suburbs get overbuilt, resulting in more pollution, time lost in commuting, and loss of green space. Cities get depopulated, their public infrastructure is allowed to decay, neighborhoods deteriorate, "brownfields" proliferate, and human potential is wasted. Job markets are hampered by the difficulties of getting to work in an unplanned regional transportation network. All this is fed by public policies favoring suburban sprawl. Key to reversing this is a regional transportation network that facilitates the exploitation of urban land by increasing the density of activity on it. (See EPI's report, Does America Need Cities?, which includes many references.)
The thing missing from Gore's message is money. If we escape budget rules that lock up spending for the next decade, the merits of the idea can free up real money and do some real good.
mbs