In the midwest, notice how many major cities we have in every direction, less than 2 hours away. Many people in Cincinnati drive to other cities for cheaper airfares where the low cost carriers are. Many people are taking flights from Columbus to Cincinnati--a much bigger hub. Many people are taking regional flights, from say...Indianapolis to Columbus. The aviation industry does not make money off of these short regional flights because the majority of time is spent on the runway loading and unloading passengers and luggage, doing safety checks or whatever else they do. Airplanes generate more money when they are up in the air.

 

Now...since its beneficial to our economy that airplanes spend more time in the air, why not decrease the amount we are subsidizing aviation and promote better regional transportation by offering quality regional heavy rail service in dense regions like ours?! Someone could more easily travel from one city to another without using planes and our major airport hubs could focus more on nationwide and international flights. The increased efficiency in the airline industry would justify a decrease in subsidies that would be reallocated to Amtrak or regional bus services.

 

Are there any flaws in this logic? I just don't understand why our transportation isn't more diversified. It seems like an extremely high risk for the future when we run out of oil. By then, Ohio will have no gas tax revenue generated to build heavy rail because they've already spent it on cars and planes! It doesn't make sense for almost all of the federal budget to go to highways and aviation. Grrrrr!!

David,

 

Read the recent posts on the Ohio Hub / ORDC thread about Senate Bill 294 and the recent testimony in favor of the bill in the U.S. Senate.  There is hope, but it's going to take a strong federal commitment to make better passenger rail happen.

 

Let your member of Congress know how you feel, and both of our Senators as well.  The most common comment (excuse) I hear from some members of Congress is that they aren't hearing from their constituents on issues like this.  Let's change that.

David:

 

Your logic is not flawed.  It's entirely sound, which is why it's not widespread in Congress  ;)

 

I am encouraged by the SB 294 hearing, but I still don't see anyone in Congress connecting the dots between rising oil prices, global warming, energy independence and that investing in transportation alternatives to the automobile--particularly rail-- is part of the solution to all three.  They all seem to think that these problems begin and end with ethanol and more efficient cars.

 

 

Take a look at this.  Congress is starting to connect the dots between energy and transportation.  See the area I highlighted in red.  The House energy bill (Program for Real Energy Security Act) proposes grants for commuter rail and mass transit.  :clap:

 

 

House Democrats unveil new energy plan

By Chris BaltimoreThu Mar 1, 4:03 PM ET

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday unveiled a bill that would spend about $15 billion to double U.S. automobile fuel efficiency, expand ethanol distribution and build more mass transit.

 

The so-called "Program for Real Energy Security Act," to be introduced next week, is the second energy bill Democrats have proposed since taking control of Congress in January.

The House in January passed a bill that would roll back energy industry tax breaks and force companies to pay more drilling royalties, valued at $14 billion over a decade. That bill has not seen action in the Senate yet.

 

The new bill, backed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) and about 100 other lawmakers, could form the basis of energy legislation House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) wants to call for a vote before the chamber recesses in August.

 

The bill would fund research into ways to double U.S. automobile fuel efficiency, focusing on hydrogen, fuel cells, plug-in hybrids and other high-tech ideas. It would give grants to build more public transit and commuter rail systems, Hoyer said.

 

It also would reimburse companies for installing new pumps at service stations to dispense gasoline blended with 85 percent ethanol, as well as tanks to hold the fuel, which because of its corrosive properties cannot be stored with gasoline blended only from crude.

Rep. Joe Barton (news, bio, voting record) of Texas, senior Republican on the House Energy Committee, called the bill a "starting point for real energy legislation," but criticized Democrats for not backing more supply-oriented ideas like drilling for oil in Alaska or the offshore waters where energy exploration is now banned.

 

"We'll need to sort out costs and benefits, see what can be accomplished without forcing people to change the way they live, and figure out how new technologies can be made affordable," Barton said.

 

The bill takes a different tack than a plan proposed by President George W. Bush in January which calls for Congress to require a five-fold increase in ethanol use by 2017.

"It's very nice to produce biofuels but if we can't deliver them to energy users, they won't be helpful," Hoyer said.

 

Boosting the so-called "renewable fuels standard" to require more ethanol use and requiring U.S. automakers to make more fuel-efficient cars are "possible add-ons" to the bill, he said.

Hoyer said the bill also would offer a stimulus to help rail freight shippers build more tanker cars to transport ethanol. Railroads and tanker trucks are the primary way of transporting ethanol, which cannot be shipped in the U.S. pipeline network.