Saturday, May 10, 2008

Airline Emissions Much Higher Than Previously Thought













Anonymous said...

The article you refer to is poorly worded in that it implies that global carbon emissions by civilian airliners is 20% higher today than previously estimated. This is nonsense, since there is a known quantity of carbon in each ton of kerosene and, airports know exactly how much of it is being dispensed.

Rather, the study suggests that total emissions may be 20% higher by 2025 than previously forecast. Efficiency gains in aircraft design will be dwarfed by the gains in passenger miles delivered - especially in Asia.

Of course, these models always include any number of assumptions, e.g. regarding future economic growth, the price of kerosene or substitutes, the availability of viable alternatives (especially telecommunications), how the electricity for trains is generated etc. Nevertheless, common sense suggests that simply choosing to fly only when there is no other option will yield do most to curb the growth in carbon emissions. Where available, HSR is such an option for trip distances of 100-600 miles. For example, many flights between London, Paris and Brussels have been eliminated.

A key factor in shifting the airline business to long-haul service will be good integration with airports and booking systems. US airlines still think specifically in terms of connecting flights, rather than connecting transportation service.

In many European countries, you can already obtain your boarding pass(es) and check your luggage through at selected train stations. In some cases, the station serving the airport is actually within the building (e.g. Charles de Gaulle in Paris, Frankfurt/Main, Schiphol in Amsterdam and Schwechat in Vienna).

Wrt California HSR, rail ROW limitations mean the primary focus is on displacing simple interstate flights and long-distance driving. None of the proposed stations is physically inside an airport terminal. Ontario's will be within walking distance and several other airports will offer frequent rail shuttles or unmanned people movers. In San Diego, there's an express shuttle bus that only needs to cover a relatively short distance.

Unfortunately, there are currently no firm plans for a non-stop rail shuttle between LAX and Union Station, nor for a subway stop. There is a non-stop shuttle bus but that could easily get stuck in traffic, so you have to allow extra time for the transfer. This buffer will undercut HSR's ability to displace connecting flights between LAX and other airports within the state.

The HSR stations proposed for Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, Bakersfield also lack firm plans for fast, dependable connections to the nearest airport. One option would be to tweak the HSR route near Merced and put add a station inside Castle Airport.

As much as anything, scoping airport connector service out of the overall HSR plan - just because such trains would run at or below 110mph - reflects a failure of imagination on the part of both CHSRA and the aviation industry.

bmfarley said...

Anon 2:39,

You hit on a couple topics in your post and a couple particular phrases come to mind. One is, "Airports are not destintions, cities are."

It is true that HSR is proposed as a mean to reduce the need to build additional highway lanes and airport terminal gates. And, that persons using those modes will be diverted to HSR instead.

I am not suggesting 'all' persons, but I would suggest enough that make HSR more than viable.

I think you're saying that HSR stations need to have good connections at airports in order to lure air travelers having connected in-state flights to HSR. Perhaps with Origin or Destination airports from out-of-state.

I would agree.

But, I don't think such connections, or in-airport stations, are critical to the success of CHSRA. Substantial in-state only travel demand will be more than sufficient for HSR services.

Thus, I disagree with your final statement about CHSRA and others not having 'imagination'.

And here's why:

Airports are not destinations, cities are. The plan is to serve cities, and city cores with fast and frequent inter-city service. City cores are where most people are located or destined to.

Airport connections are nice, but, more stations at airports that are in outling areas will add more stops and slow trains down. That makes HSR less competitive.

However, there is one possibility that could be explored further, but will not be the responsibility of the CHSRA.

Locals can pursue addtional in-line stations for local over-lay service. A commuter overlay is mentioned in some places. Airport servic is another option.

Robert Cruickshank said...

I agree with bmfarley's take on this. The HSR plan is already well integrated with CA airports - there will be a stop at Millbrae, providing a quick connection to SFO. BART's OAK extension will be open by the time HSR is as well. SJC is fairly easily reached from Diridon Station, even considering the shuttle bus from Metro/Airport VTA light rail station.

And while HSR won't be "tweaked" to include Merced's Castle Airport, which would seem to me an entirely unnecessary modification, it is planned to stop at the Palmdale Airport, which is already being developed as an alternative to LAX. The Metro Green Line extension to LAX is not dead, and some increased federal funding for local rail might help close that gap.

In any case, the HSR system is primarily designed to move people within California, whether they are intercity travelers or regional commuters. It's not HSR's job to integrate itself into long-haul air travel, although the connections described above will make this easier. What anonymous seems to be talking about is more an issue with operating the HSR system and not so much about its route or station choices.

sexy said...