The World Peace Problem

The Problem

World Peace.  (Or, "Jeff's list of simple, easy steps to achieve world peace and great abs in just twelve minutes a day.")

Is it a person hugging a tree or a tree with arms and legs?  Look closely.

The Backstory

This is kind of a big one.  But I haven't seen anyone solve it yet, so why not give it a shot?

First, it's important to note that we're already making good progress.  As this excellent "Think Again" article in Foreign Policy points out, war deaths have been steadily decreasing for decades.  War has declined in scope, quantity and violence.  Even civil war.

"Worldwide, deaths caused directly by war-related violence in the new century have averaged about 55,000 per year, just over half of what they were in the 1990s (100,000 a year), a third of what they were during the Cold War (180,000 a year from 1950 to 1989), and a hundredth of what they were in World War II. If you factor in the growing global population, which has nearly quadrupled in the last century, the decrease is even sharper." 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war 

That is reassuring.  So, in addition to asking what we can do different, we should also be asking, what are we doing right and how can we do more of it?

Also, I think that this issue, more than most, is a psychological and philosophical one, which leads down the path to mushy "everyone should just love one another" thinking but I will nonetheless do most my best to keep it as practical as possible.

The bigger picture aspect of all three steps I will suggest is a desire to have different groups of people see themselves as a single larger group (see what I mean, it's already getting abstract.)

The Solution

1.  Landlines

What is the difference between the slavery issue in the 1850s and the abortion issue in the 1970s?  They were both vicious disputes that polarized the United States into two equally large rival camps -- one for and one against.  The two sides showed repeatedly that they felt strongly enough to kill for it and in neither case was there much room for compromise.  So what was the difference?  Why did one result in the most destructive war in the nation's history and the other didn't?

The difference was that while in the 1850s the two camps were split along geographical lines (The North versus the South), that was not the case in the 1970s*.  There were of course some areas that were more pro-life and others that were more pro-choice but at no point could you draw a line down the middle of the country and say these people are for and these are against like you could with slavery.  Because all of the pro-life and pro-choice people were mixed in with each other, there was no front line.  There were not cohesive groups.  And equally important, every pro-lifer knew a pro-choicer and vice versa.  These were not faceless masses, they were friends and neighbors.  For all the talk about the civil war being a fight between brothers, the northerners and the southerners were so separated by distance and lifestyle I don't think they had any trouble de-humanizing their enemies.

So how do we turn slavery into abortion?  We do it with Internet and English.  The combination of English steadily becoming the international language and the internet easing communication a thousand fold has the potential to form us into one giant world community.  As soon as the individuals within two groups can talk to each other and socialize with each other, the de-humanizing breaks down and it gets a lot harder to kill your facebook friend (unless they besiege your status update page with farmville presents -- but surely a jury would understand.)

There will still be major disputes, just like abortion, but as long as they don't split the world geographically, I think we'll still be ok.

This could be a nuclear warhead launch sequence graphic instead of being about the internet and you would never know.

2.  The Anti-National Movement (Note I am not referring in any way to the band The Nationals -- I am decidedly pro-The Nationals)

It's clear to most people that disliking another group because they are different than you is a social ill.  It causes discrimination on a national level and war/agression on an international level.  What is less clear, but I think equally true, is that liking a group because they are the same as you is also a social ill.  For instance, they knew in the 1910s that it was wrong that the French and the Germans should hate each other just because they were different.  However, they saw no problem in French people loving France and German people loving Germany.  That is nationalism.  But there is a problem with that.  It separates the human race into little sections that you elevate or leave alone.  Saying the French are the best is just a different way of saying the Germans and everyone else aren't.  This nationalism led to World War I.

But it isn't so obviously immoral.  Why is there something wrong with celebrating your people?  Patriotism and national, ethnic and religious pride still feel a bit like virtues, not vices.  Shouldn't we be proud of our communities?  My answer to that is yes, but only on a global scale.  Rather than be proud of the accomplishments of the Korean people, we should be proud of the accomplishments of people.  It is the compulsion to love our own kind that causes us to think less of someone else's.  I think that we are emotionally wired to have this attachment.  If you hear about a shooting spree in the town where you grew up, you care more for some reason than you do when you hear about the same thing happening on the other side of the world, even if you didn't know anyone involved.  But the only real distinction between those two horrific events is that one happened in a community you elevate.

Not much has changed on this front in the last 100 years (or 1,000 or 10,000.)  American presidential candidates still spend all of their time declaring America the greatest country in the world and Americans the greatest people.  But flattery is the sincerest form of bullshit.  This addiction to nationalism (and its relatives) is a real problem, and we should work on it.

My suggestion is an anti-national movement.  I would like to see people all over the world give up their citizenships.  I want an international movement of non-citizens, of world citizens, working for common interests.  I don't this blog has quite the clout necessary to make a public call for the renunciation of all citizenship, but maybe one day.

Patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it. - George Bernard Shaw

A Stronger World Body

I think this is becoming a recurring theme in my posts on world conflict but the UN needs to be stronger and its rules need to be crystal clear.  Diplomatic Intervention in Libya worked.  It is the future.  Any aggressive country acting against any other will soon have the world's military might in the other corner. This is the most powerful deterrent we have.  We should use it more.

This is also a step towards a true world government, another way in which we could see ourselves as part of one big body rather than a bunch of smaller ones.

Notes

You may have noticed that these steps are not as quick and are a little more wishy washy than I usually prefer, but they'll have to do until I or someone else thinks of something better, or more comprehensive -- like some kind of peace drug (not pot.)

*Yes I know there are other important distinctions here.  The biggest one is that slavery was so economically important to the south, while no one in the 70s had their life savings in abortion futures.  Economics are as big a driver of war as anything else so this is a more than warranted criticism however, I don't think it invalidates the point I made above about the importance of a geography split.

Sorry, no time to edit it this.  If it rambles and makes no sense that's because it's a blog.

The Hollywood Remakes Problem

The Problem

Hollywood is remaking the wrong movies.

Wax on, Turn off.

The Backstory

In addition to the terrible flood of board game adaptations (Battleship the movie will be playing in December!) and the endless sequels that are now coming out, in a desperate attempt to avoid creative, original thought Hollywood is also redoing all of our favorite movies -- and wrecking everything we loved about them in the process.

This is not new, but lately there has been an especially noticeable dearth of original film ideas.  In the next year or so, modern updates of Total Recall, Evil Dead, The Warriors, The Three Musketeers (again) and RoboCop will all be at a theater near you.  The problem with this is, Hollywood chooses only movies that were already done very well and were hugely popular, and then, unsurprisingly, is unable to live up to its own past success.  Pyscho, Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, Poseidon and the Stepford Wives all come to mind as particularly hideous failures.  Psycho is especially maddening as it was a shot for shot remake of a classic -- intended as an exact modern duplicate -- yet it still sucked.

The executives' logic is obvious.  There is already a huge fan base for this, so (like other properties where a big fan base existed before the film -- Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, X-Men) a new version will be hugely successful and make lots of money because everyone already loves it.  This fallacy is also the root of our board game adaptation problem.  Unfortunately for the executive that success rarely materializes.  Remakes on the whole do not do so well financially for the studio and are loathed by the viewers.  There are exceptions to this, True Grit for instance was very good (still prefer the original), but they are rare.

The Longest Movie (Yard)

The Solution

Rather than remaking great stories from the past that were executed perfectly, Hollywood should focus on remaking great stories that were executed poorly.

Despite the current focus on brand name recognition, I think that movies always have and always will rise and fall based on the quality of their stories.  So, if you are going to mine the studio archives for anything it should be for that -- a good story.  But if you redo a good story that was already done well, you are setting your movie against a standard that it will never match.  A great movie alone is tough to compete with, but a great movie plus nostalgia -- it's nearly impossible.

So if story is the most important thing, how can a bad movie with a good story exist already?  Generally this happens when the idea is brilliant, but the script writing does not live up to the quality of the idea.  Sometimes it's also the result of bad directing, acting, special effects, chemistry etc... but I think that usually it all goes back to the writer.

let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.  My Hollywood remake suggestion: 2009's The Invention of Lying.  The idea is that the world is exactly like it is now, but with one crucial difference ... everyone tells the truth.  All the time.  Then, one day, an ordinary man realizes he can lie.  Imagine the power that comes with that realization.  This should have been a brilliant comedy.  It should have been Groundhog Day.  But it wasn't.  It spends too long insulting Ricky Gervais in a way that is more cruel than funny, and half way through it makes a major right turn into religious allegory.  I would wait a few years, until the last memories of the first movie have disappeared, and then I would rewrite and remake this immediately.  The potential for brilliance is still there.  This is the kind of thing I'd like to see someone take a second chance on.

Jim Carrey -- Christmas Killer

Notes

Another movie that deserves a second chance is Year One.  There is a lot of comic potential in the dawn of history.  Unfortunately it was wasted on Jack Black and Michael Cera as two completely uninteresting, unfunny cave men.  Do Not See This Movie.  At least until it is remade.

Also, doesn't it seem like the studios are waiting less and less time before they're willing to redo something?  Seriously, a Spiderman reboot already?  The rule of thumb for popular movies should be, if people who saw the original in the theaters are probably dead now, then it's ok.  Otherwise, you need to wait.

The Space Problem

The Problem

The private space industry is struggling to get off the ground.

Hobbes waits anxiously for news in Houston.

The Backstory

In 2010, Barack Obama halted existing plans for manned missions at NASA, reduced their funding and announced a new focus for the organization -- to help the nascent private space industry.  NASA will continue with certain goals itself -- scientific projects, new rocket prototypes and landing a probe on an asteroid -- but American astronauts will have to hitch a ride on another country or company's rockets.  This was largely due to a reduced federal budget in the wake of the Great Recession.  Companies like Virgin Galactic, Scaled Composites, Boeing, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are taking the lead, but progress has been slow.

Some predict the first commercial sub-orbital flights will start as early as 2012, but that will still leave private companies a long way away from landing on the moon or even docking with the International Space Station.  In the meantime countries like China, with booming economies, have ambitious plans for space.  China intends to be not just landing on but mining the moon sometime in the 2020s, which would probably involve them building a large moon base there as well.  The commercial space industry is lagging behind government-sponsored drives like that because their funding can't compete.  So the question becomes, with a hollowed out US economy, how can we fund the private space race until they can reasonably fund themselves?

The Solution

Large investments or buy-outs should come from the two companies that will benefit most from safe, cheap, reliable and frequent sub-orbital and orbital flights -- FIFA and the NBA.

The unification of basketball and space -- another childhood dream becoming a reality.

What the private space industry is essentially working on now is a space plane.  A reusable launch vehicle that can take off and land on its own and is cheap enough for commercial purposes.  One of the goals of a space plane (in addition to simple, hop up hop down space tourism) is the ability to fly from New York to Hong Kong in two or three hours.  This is likely feasible now, it's just not cost-effective.  And that's a big problem, one that NASA has spent decades trying to solve.  Now it's private industry's turn.  So the next question we have to ask is, who needs the ability to fly around the world in two or three hours and has the money to make it a reality?

The answer is FIFA and the NBA (as the two sports organizations best poised for international success right now.)  Why isn't there a world soccer league right now?  Why is all major club soccer centered around Europe when many of the best players and most rabid fans are in South America, Africa, and Asia?  Why does the NBA import players from around the world instead of playing them on their own courts (usually)?  Imagine a league where the club team from Britain played the club team from Chile in Chile and then the next day, played Beijing's team in Beijing.  The potential for profit in expanding into true world leagues is enormous.  Right now 87 percent of FIFA's profits come from one giant event -- the World Cup -- because it is the only event that the entire world is interested in.  What if they could command that kind of interest all the time?  It's possible with a space plane.

I believe the thing that has been holding back both FIFA and the NBA from trying to institute something like this is the air travel involved.  It would be expensive, impossible to schedule and incredibly draining on the players to fly up to 30 hours for normal league games.  Even transatlantic flights are a lot to ask.  But if one of these leagues bought a controlling stake and invested heavily in a company that is on the verge of successfully manufacturing a space plane, international leagues will get real very quickly.  A true world league would take something that is already incredibly profitable to a factor of ten or more.  This is why FIFA and the NBA have the most to gain from getting a space plane (and thus a 2-3 hour round the world flight time) working as fast as possible, and why they should back it up with the billions they have.

Yeah, I'm in a comics mood today.

An investment in space companies isn't exactly throwing away money either.  It is an investment like any other -- it could be profitable or not -- which means there is a possibility that not only will the leagues get their affordable space plane but also that they won't lose any money in the process.  Increasing profits by a factor of ten and making money while doing it.  Even if the ventures are unprofitable, as long as they succeed with the space plane it will still be more than worth it for the international leagues.  And it's exactly what the private space industry needs right now.  This is a merger with serious upside for both parties.

Notes

I didn't crunch the numbers to figure out what are truly the most popular sports in the world, just made an assumption, but I don't think it affects the analysis much.  If it happens that Cricket or Rugby or Baseball are that popular too, they could certainly get in on the action, but the glaring ones seem to me to be Soccer and Basketball.

Also I did not bother to go into why I think speeding up the development of a space plane will also speed up the development of other space vehicles but I think it's logical.  If a successful space plane is developed it will not only serve commercial travel interests (like the leagues) but also space tourism.  Space tourists will want to go deeper into space and to the moon as well so it would make sense for the companies to put their profits in that direction.  Not to mention they've already declared this their eventual goal, and the US and state governments seems willing to help them achieve it.

The Mafia Succession Problem

The Problem

The Mafia is terrible at handling succession.  Because there is no clear way to determine who becomes the new boss and when, nearly every new administration arises out of bloody conflict.  This is bad not only for the mafiosos but for the innocent bystanders who frequently suffer the most when war breaks out in the criminal community.

Steve Martin -- the boss of all bosses

The Backstory

This was first pointed out by wunderkind Attorney General John Kroger in his excellent book "Convictions."  Kroger spent years as a US attorney in New York putting away the mob.  Most of the worst periods in mob history, both for innocents and for mafiosos, were during power vacuums when rival factions were fighting for control.  What the mob needs, he said, is a peaceful answer to the succession problem.

Today there are not only the classic Italian mafias but all kinds of large gangs around the world -- South and Central American drug gangs, warlords in Africa, the Yakuza in Japan, the Triads in China (2.5 mil. members worldwide), tribal leaders in the stans, the mobs of eastern europe and hugely powerful criminal organizations in Russia, often run by oligarchs and politicians.  They all fight violent internal wars over this and the real loser is the society that is forced to tolerate it.  This is a rare situation where helping them helps us too.  I use the Italian Mafia as an example, but it applies equally well to any organized criminal group.

The Solution

Term limits.  If capos are limited to ten years at the head of an organization, and then have the ability to choose their successor, it could allow for a peaceful transition of power.  It is practical, in the mafia's own interest and actually enforceable -- but I'll get to that in a minute.  

I know that it sounds crazy to try and apply a democratic principle like term limits to a criminal organization but it is not without precedent.  In 1931 the five families in New York City, and the outfits in Buffalo and Chicago formed a ruling council known as "The Commission" to run organized crime in the United States as a whole.  It replaced the position of "boss of all bosses" -- essentially a dictatorial government -- with something equivalent to a United Nations.  The Commission has ruled for the last 80 years and is still in power today.  It is both the model and the means for solving the Mafia Succession Problem.

More from "My Blue Heaven" -- Steve Martin's mafia bicycle story (I love this movie)

So first of all, why would the Mafia want to enforce this?  The costs of war within a criminal group are massive -- the losses in soldiers, family loyalty and business alone are unjustifiable.  And that's just what happens internally.  Externally, they are severely weakened and vulnerable to claims on territory and takeovers both by other mafia families and by prosecutors and police.

But imagine a situation where bosses stepped down peacefully.  This would confer numerous advantages beyond just preventing the power struggles (which should be enough.)  

1.  It would attract more soldiers.  With a new boss every ten years, it makes the possibility of becoming a capo reasonable enough that new recruits would believe they had a chance.

2.  The retired bosses become advisors and useful smokescreens for the authorities.  At any time, there are four or five men who could be the boss.

3.  The limits will encourage underbosses to wait their turn rather than murder their capos, sparking these conflicts.

Now, how could the mafia enforce this?  Enforcement is after all the problem with so many dictators around the world who overstay their welcome.  The answer is to use one relic of democracy to create another.  Decide that the Commission has the power to enforce ten year limits within families, and it will be able to.  The prospect of internal war has not proved to be enough of a deterrent.  But if the other four families united against you should you try and usurp power, you wouldn't have a chance.  At the very least the war would be short.  

The Commission has the power to decide conflicts between families; it could be used in exactly the same way to decide conflicts within families.  If a capo is killed, the Commission steps in and chooses a leader.  If a capo tries to stay longer than ten years, the Commission has the power to remove him.  This should be all the easier because preventing a war within one family is in every families' interest.  That kind of conflict, and the innocent bystanders that suffer from it, forces the hand of the authorities to act against all organized crime.

The families should also be required to provide a generous pension to retired bosses.  This will sweeten the deal, encouraging them to follow the rules.  If they don't they get nothing.  The money saved from the absence of frequent internal wars will more than pay for this.

That's how they get you.

Notes

During periods in its history the Commission has taken on the role of approving new bosses, but it was never an official part of its work.  That lax attitude toward internal family decisions has allowed the dangerous situation that exists today.

Also it should be noted that the Commission isn't strictly an American development.  Similar groups are believed to be in power in the Yakuza, cartels in the Americas, and the Russian and Ukrainian Mafias, though information in this area is pretty scarce for obvious reasons.

The 19th Century Umpire Problem

The Problem

Major League Baseball currently operates in a way that allows the commentators in the booth and the viewers at home to make more accurate calls than the Umpires on the field.

An old-fashioned dust-up

The Backstory

The MLB has always been slow to change.  The National Football League recognized the discrepancy (read: stupidity) long ago in letting viewers at home watch slow motion instant replays on a tough call but not the referees actually responsible for making the correct decision.  Then they did something about it.  But that's to be expected as football has always embraced technology much better than baseball.

If you've never seen this -- George Carlin said everything that ever needs to be said about the differences between the two

Professional baseball has, out of sheer embarrassment, allowed one concession.  They now let umpires review plays when there is a question over whether a ball went to the right of the foul pole or the left, hit the wall or cleared it, or was knocked by a fan.  After a year in which umps called a number of home runs foul balls (just about the biggest and most obvious mistake an umpire can make) the commissioner was kind of backed into a corner.  But there are still a great many important plays that, though obvious on film, cause problems for umpires.  When the Tigers' pitcher Armando Galarraga had his perfect game taken away by a blown call in the ninth inning in 2010, everyone at home knew it right away.  The umpires were the last to find out they'd screwed up.  Bud Selig's fear is that adding replays will slow down what is already seen as a very slow game even more.  It's a legitimate risk, but something needs to be done.

The Solution

There are currently at least four umpires on the field in every MLB game.  There should a be a fifth, a video umpire, who sits in a booth watching the video feed all game.  When the umpires meet on the field to discuss a call, he should be miked in and contributing his opinion based on the replay evidence.  Sometimes it will be conclusive and he will make the call.  Other times it won't and he can defer to the decision of the umps who were close to the action.  But at the end of the game, the umpires will have been privy to all the evidence available, thus saving them from the glaring errors of their recent past (not to mention the death threats.)  And it will not slow down the game in the slightest.

Someone like this guy

Notes

To make sure video isn't used excessively (for balls and strikes for instance, where a nebulous concept like a strike zone is so nuanced that video is never conclusive) I would mandate that the video umpire be miked in only when the umps have a meeting to discuss a call.  This way the video ump will settle disagreements but not take the place of the men on the field.

An alternative to this is the challenge system imposed by the NFL.  Give every manager one challenge per game to use at his discretion.  When they think a call was blown they throw their flag and the umpires look at the replay.  I don't like this as much because it assumes no more than two calls per game will be blown, and it adds another round of commercial breaks to the runtime.  The video umpire solution takes no more time (so no more commercials) and can handle any amount of screw-ups by the officiating crew. 

The Democratic Revolution Problem

The Problem

The US government wants to help democratic protest movements around the world, but it doesn't know how.

The revolution will not be televised; it will be tweeted.

The Backstory

In the last year, major protests have appeared in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Iran, Israel, Greece, Spain, England and India (among others.)  The causes are varied -- corruption, lack of representation, unemployment, austerity measures, inequality -- but the methods aren't.  They are planned and organized on the internet, specifically on social media.  They are very, very adaptable.  Because of the rise of smart phones, it's possible for a million man march to change direction halfway through with a single facebook post or sms.  It's possible for documentation of violence against protestors to get out of the scene and even out of the country in seconds.  In the last few decades, world internet use has been growing and we have apparently arrived at the tipping point.  It seems now that if you allow a country of disenfranchised people to talk to each other, Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria is the result.

Unfortunately, after the protests start, everything doesn't always go smoothly.  In Iran, Syria, Libya and Yemen (possibly Bahrain too) the pro-democracy marches have been met with wave after wave of violent government repression.  The dictators have also noticed the importance of the internet in growing these movements and they have responded the rational way -- by cutting it off.  The protestors are struggling.  In the US, there is a sense of duty to support fledgling democratic movements like these, but we can't afford to send troops or even missiles every time.  Libya is a rare case.  That won't work in Syria, or Yemen, or Iran.  There is also the very real risk that any help we provide will give ammunition to those pro-government forces who want to claim that the protests are the work of an instigating foreign power, not their own beloved citizens.  The US is left helpless on the sidelines as a result.

The Solution

We need to give the US State Department a real R&D budget and their first project should be the development of a kind of wifi bomb.  That is, a transportable device that can provide wireless internet to an entire city or region at the flip of a switch.  The device could broadcast from US Navy ships operating in international waters, and if it's cheap enough (and possible), be smuggled into the troubled countries.  Then, when a calculating despot turns off his people's internet, we can turn it right back on.

During World War II, when German and Italian soldiers in Europe were in complete control of the continent, all phone lines, telegraph lines and postage went through them.  Millions of conquered people were cut off.  But the British fought back, and they did it with radio waves.  BBC radio was broadcast everywhere and no matter how thorough the nazis were they couldn't stop people from putting together tiny receivers in their homes and learning the truth about the war.  The resistance movement and the continued hope of millions relied completely on this single source.

"Keep searching!  The Eurovision Songs should have started already ..."

We have the potential to do something similar today.  Providing wireless internet without censorship to oppressed countries would have the greatest possible positive effect on their struggles for democracy.  It will not cost American lives and will require neither invasion nor assassination.  And the resulting technology will be as useful for our cities and our businesses as it will be for our foreign policy.    

Furthermore, this will not give PR ammunition to the dictators because they deny turning off the internet anyway -- leaving them unable to blame us for turning it back on.

Notes

I know that in the age of spending cuts and deficit considerations the money needs to come from somewhere so I would take it out of the Defense Department's budget.  Ideally, we will save enough money by not needing to employ our military in these situations that the project will at least break even.  I also sincerely believe this will generate some sorely-needed goodwill towards America, especially among the next generation of leaders who will likely have been in the protests themselves.

I can think of a few other uses for a State Department R&D component as well -- namely non-lethal weapons -- but I'll save that for another post.

Bike Lane/Bus Pullover Problem

The Problem

Today's streets are designed to put buses and bikes in direct and dangerous conflict with each other.

This guy's about to get squeezed.

The Backstory

The bike lane is typically on the side of the road, between the main car lanes and the parking spaces or sidewalks (already a pretty dangerous location.)  But this is also the area that buses use when they pull over to pick up or drop off passengers.  That means that bikers are often confronted with a bus swerving in front of them and stopping quickly.  The biker usually then has no escape route.  He cannot go into the fast-moving car lanes on one side or into the parked cars/sidewalk on the other.  The all-too-common result is a biker with a flatter face.

The Solution

Bus-only lanes in the center of the street, with crosswalks leading from the sidewalks to the new bus stops in the middle.  This will have a number of advantages.  Taking buses out of the main flow of traffic will make them much faster so they will be more attractive as a means of transportation for the public, especially during rush hour.  That will also decrease the number of cars on the road, helping ease the traffic those riders were running away from.  

By making biking safer and riding the bus faster, you will make the two most popular alternatives to cars even more popular -- an always helpful boon to the o-zone layer, and gas prices.

Take notes from Israeli city planning.

Notes

The safest solution for bikers would obviously be one that separated them from cars entirely.  However, convincing a city to build a whole second grid of bike lanes is unlikely to happen and in some cases, there just isn't the space for it.  Central bus lanes only require the addition, or alteration, of one or two lanes in an existing road.  In most cases you would only need one lane as bus routes don't typically go up and down the same road anyway.  A few cities have started implementing this but it needs to become the norm, not the exception.