Below is an excerpt from the letter that I wrote to Larry Flowers, my Ohio Senate Represenative from District 19. His reply suggested that I air my ideas toward the newly formed committee on alternative forms of energy.

“RE:Automotive Fuel Economic Standards

Dear Mr. Flowers and Staff:

Please reconsider your stance on automotive standards for cars sold in the US.

I propose several topics, which I’m sure you’ve heard already.

1. Standardize regenerative braking on all new models and offer credits for retrofitting vehicles
2. Standardize electronic governors that are tuned at 55 mph, the optimal wind resistance speed, and offer credits for retrofitting cars.
3. Offer credits for alternative forms of transportation, since transportation is using 67% of the US oil demand, while this will undoubtedly reduce peak demand it will economically reduce new cars sold, and this is my point.”

By reducing peak demand for oil you also reduce peak air emissions from cars. The gasoline taxes will take a hit, but the freeways will be able to accomodate more cars more efficiently. In addition, high speed fatalities will be reduced and so will accidents in general due to the reduction of the speed differential between the max speed and the minimum speed. Therefore, congestion decreases even more. The only major public argument is that driving whatever speed you want to is an American right, but ask those same individuals whether or not they have control over the speed of a flight, or the speed of a train or bus, and, you know, if there was no energy crisis (diminishing returns on worldwide oil production), smog problems in Ohio, hour long patrol/police investigations causing rush-hour congestion due to law suits and insurance companies gathering evidence from Ohio highways on fatality accidents, general congestion in Ohio, or investigations of price gouging by oil companies (an enormously vain waste of taxpayer dollars) or a serious consideration of a carbon tax, and a posted upper speed limit of 65 MPH despite the average speed of 74 (the self-imposed limit for most drivers) or any of the thousands of other problems caused by not regulating cars for optimal performance, then I would definitely not be swayed by some naysayers argument. Instead I hold fast and true, because I believe this is the proper way to move forward in Ohio and the U.S. Furthermore, this proposal is benefiting taxpayers on a grand scale in an indirect way. It forces limits on dwelling distances from work! Over the world’s history, the mean travel time has not changed at all (approximately 22 min.). Given enough time this will impose a limit on developer’s interest in Ohio’s real assets, our farmland, because people will not be willing to increase their commute to intolerable lengths. In addition, this may likely spurn new ideas for new and acceptable modes of transportation. Believe it or not, Ohio used to be home to the country’s most advanced transportation system (inter-urban electrified railways) and we had over 1,000 miles more track than any other state. Strangely, this perfectly good and efficient means of transportation was literally bought out and dissolved one company at a time between 1928 and 1930 by none other than the automobile and oil industry. Yes, it was an excellent alternative to the car, and yes, to have a monopoly you must reduce competition, so goes the story. However, exurban growth is continuing to drain Ohio’s budgets to keep up with infrastructure costs. Essentially, developer’s are getting a huge subsidy to develop farmlands, since we put in new roads to accomodate the growth, water, sewer, electric, etc., for a quick buck on cheap land. THIS GROWTH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

“The time to act is not in 2012 or 2020, but today, this year, right now. Please hear the voice of the people and allow us to have our children enjoy the prosperity of the energy revolution.

Thanks for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

United States Citizen, Engineer and Father-To-Be.”