In 1990, eight years into my FAA air traffic controller stint and immediately following the NWA DC9/727 collision on the ground in KDTW, I suggested a similar idea to the FAA (in writing). In fog, the NWA DC9 had inadvertently taxied onto runway 3C, thinking they were still on a taxiway, and collided with the 727 on departure roll. My suggestion was pretty simple: I suggested that a 75 mHz transmitter/antenna be wired to the runway or taxiway lighting and thus only transmit during night and/or low-vis ops in a narrow beam at the hold short line. All the transmission would have to say would be something like, "runway three center" over and over again.
I thought the idea was elegant because the transmitter would be powered during the periods when it was needed because the lights already were required to be on during those periods, and on the other side, any aircraft operating during low-vis operations would be equipped to hear the transmission. All the FAA would need to do would be to require crew to listen to the receiver during ground ops. Admittedly, it was neither interactive nor high-tech. It was simply an extra tool which provided an additional safety net at very low cost.
It was rejected out-of-hand by the FAA. First, I couldn't get them to respond to me at all, so I contacted my Congressman with the story, and his staff called the FAA (yes, I set my Congressman upon my employer). Finally I got a call from someone (a surveilance program manager) in DC who explained that this was a stupid idea because no pilot would ever comply with such a rule ("we'll never get the pilots to do it"), and, to the extent they WOULD do it, it just increased the pilots' workload. I explained that in the case of the DC9/727 collision at DTW, it might very well have prevented the incursion in the first place. He said that that was a unique case and it was unlikely to happen again. "Anyway," he told me, "we've got a new system in the works that will use SSR data to tag aircraft on the ground and display them to the controller."
If you think I'm still irritated by this, you're right. And in the years since, I've not found the FAA to be any more willing to listen to subject-matter experts than they were back then.
Dave