[RTC List] Bringing Delta Airlines to the Eureka/Arcata Airport

[Aaron Antrim]

As someone who occasionally flies, local business owner, as well as a  
sustainable transportation advocate, I am in a bit of a quandary over  
whether I personally support expanded service at ACV.  I certainly do,  
however, support everyone's right to make their own choice about  
whether or not to fly and/or buy into the travel bank based on their  
values, needs and available information.

In that light, I feel compelled respond to William Van Hefner's post.

Just because air travel is faster doesn't mean any less fuel is  
consumed.  On the contrary, modern jet aircraft get very roughly the  
same passenger-MPG as an efficient passenger car (http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th-3.html#air_eff 
).  However, load the same car up with 2, 3, or even 5 people, and the  
passenger car will offer 2, 3, or even 5 times the passenger-miles per  
gallon.  Greyhound buses average 167 passenger-MPG.

Fuel efficiency isn't a direct indicator for comparing climate change  
effect, however.  Jet emissions are different than passenger car  
emissions in that they contain nitrous oxide and leave "con trails."   
These emissions, and the altitude at which they are produced,  
significantly increase the climate change effect of air travel.  Read  
more in this Christian Science Monitor article: "Air travel latest  
target in climate change fight:" http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0817/p01s01-woeu.html

Currently, air travel accounts for 3% of greenhouse gas effects.  This  
will likely rise, as the number of air miles traveled is increasing at  
a rate of about 5% of year.  Also see this article from Science Daily,  
"Jet Contrails To Be Significant Climate Factor By 2050:" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990624080829.htm

See also this article by HSU Energy researcher Michael Winkler,  
"Logging Global Warming:" http://www.green-wheels.org/node/164

Of course, jets no longer fly out of ACV, so the climate change  
effects of prop planes must be considered differently.  I would  
venture to guess they consume more fuel flying at lower altitudes in  
thicker air, but that their per unit of emissions effects are less  
than the climate change impact of jets.  However, it is important to  
remember that most travel out of ACV is to connect to jet flights.

I realize finding alternatives to air travel can be challenging, to  
say the least.  As I am sure many others will, I may continue to fly  
when there is no other viable option.  But I often opt to ride the  
Amtrak and Greyhound buses instead of fly, and see plenty of  
opportunity for their improvement if there was greater passenger  
travel demand.  One example would be making Wi-fi internet available  
onboard like some metropolitan public bus systems do, or providing  
power stations for laptops.  Another example would be offering better  
BART connector service for these buses in the Bay Area.

I saw how bus travel can be different when I was in México and was  
surprised at the quality of the buses and stations — since middle  
class people rarely fly in México, they have frequent, high-quality  
bus service between cities, at several service levels.  Some service  
levels even include beverage service and meals, with seats that rival  
airlines' business class.  More in my article here: www.green-wheels.org/node/129

--
Aaron Antrim
707.633.4464
Principal, Transit Information Solutions
www.transitinfosolutions.com
Outreach Director, Green Wheels
www.green-wheels.org


On 17 Dec 2007, at 11:14 PM, William Van Hefner wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Perhaps if we all got together and booked flights on one of Al Gore's
> private jets we could reduce the "carbon footprint" enough to  
> warrant air
> travel for those of us in Humboldt that are not millionaires?
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that it is somehow more eco-friendly for
> several people to spend 6+ hours driving to San Francisco than it is  
> for
> 30+ people to fly there at once in a little over an hour? I'd really  
> like
> to see the math on that one.
>
> Unless you are volunteering to drive everyone there yourself in a  
> 30+ seat
> bus that runs on vegetable oil, I don't see how it is that stopping  
> people
> from flying is going to help the environment. It is inevitable that  
> most
> people will eventually need to travel to/from the area. Telling  
> everyone
> to "telecommute" doesn't really help. It is easy to tell other  
> people what
> to do without providing any type of relevant solution to the  
> problem. If
> you believe so strongly in the subject, perhaps you should do  
> something to
> create an alternative for people that is economically and  
> environmentally
> feasible.
>
>
> -- 
>
> William Van Hefner
> President
>
> Vantek Communications, Inc.
> e-mail: vantek at sonic.net
>
>
>> Hi John. Not sure how you made that leap, but I will say this.
>>
>> Air travel is about as far as we can get from the sustainability  
>> that both
>> businesses and the public must figure out how to achieve. It is a
>> convenience choice which saves time, but at very large costs to the
>> environment.
>>
>> It is not going to be easy, but we all must figure out how to correct
>> human-caused climate change. Telecommuting goes a long way toward  
>> that.
>> And voice- and teleconferencing can help as well.
>>
>> John Yolton wrote at 03:25 PM 12/17/2007:
>>
>>> In response to Michael. I moved back to Eureka in 2000 (from  
>>> Atlanta) so
>>> I could enjoy our 'quality of life', I hope you are not  
>>> insinuating that
>>> business travelers should be excluded from that enjoyment.
>>
>>