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

Tue Dec 18 06:53:56 PST 2007

Michael,

Thanks much for the intelligent and thoughtful reply. I am definitely
concerned with the environment as well. I must admit that it does irk me
when I read knee-jerk overreactions to real-world problems with no
realistic solutions offered though. IMHO, this is the type of attitude
that actually harms the environment by making environmentalism appear to
be the pursuit of some radical fringe, which can't be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, there really is not much of a mass-transit alternative to
air travel in this area, unless you count Greyhound and Amtrak. As you
rather eloquently pointed out in your own article though, few people would
want to spend any amount of time (let alone 6+ hours) in a Greyhound bus,
let alone in a Greyhound bus terminal. There are real, valid safety
concerns involved, if nothing else.

I still believe that air travel is (or should be) inherently more
efficient than ground transportation for a number of reasons (chief among
them, the fact that you can fly STRAIGHT to a destination, not around a
twisty, crowded roadway). Until someone "man's up" (no sexism intended)
and invests their own money in a better alternative for this area though,
I'm stuck with the same practical alternatives as everyone else.

One of my chief complaints about the RTC is that it seems to more of a
place for people to whine about our problems or raise more funding to
"study the subject", rather than being a group that actually DOES
something. At least this Delta situation provides many of us with the
ability to vote with our pocketbook, rather than propose some
pie-in-the-sky (no pun intended) project or proposition for us to let the
government solve the problem (the single most inefficient way possible to
solve any problem).

William Van Hefner
President

Vantek Communications, Inc.
e-mail: vantek at sonic.net

> 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.
>>>
>>>
>
>