The more I think on Ted Zoli's proposal, the more irritated I get. Think about it. That 8 billion a year figure is, presumably, the total of vehicle repair or replacement costs and medical expenses caused by collisions with wildlife. Zoli proposes taking one quarter of that to build wildlife overpasses.
How is that to be done? During that first year, while there are no overpasses, wildlife/vehicle accidents will presumably continue at historic rates, incurring $8 billion in costs. Are one quarter of the injured to forego treatment, one quarter of the vehicles to go unrepaired so as to make available the $2 billion Zoli proposes to "take"?
The thing is a prime example of "pie in the sky by and by", or perhaps merely an empty head in action.