People and Communities Would Benefit, if We Disincentivized Hubs

Interesting discussion about community impacts and port authority overdevelopment at Sea-Tac [KSEA], in this Quiet Skies Puget Sound Facebook Post.

(click on image to view source Facebook discussion)

Here, one of the area residents being victimized by Sea-Tac overexpansion suggests what really is the easiest solution: spread the flights out, so people are served locally, by their own local airport.

So, how do we make this change? The key to getting there includes changing the current system of fees/taxes to economically disincentivize hubs. For example, the U.S. Congress and FAA need to do three things:

  1. end ticket charges (especially the PFCs) that incentivize airport over-development. With airport PFCs, FAA/DoT collects billions of dollars each year, which are then reallocated into airport development projects. Much of this money goes to rural airports with nearly zero traffic (such as the recent debacle at Mora, MN), and the funds are generously doled out with near-zero local matches required. Airports like Sea-Tac are thus motivated to develop far beyond what the actual airport property and surrounding neighborhoods can stand.
  2. impose a steep carbon tax with at least half of revenues going away from aviation, such as to high speed rail. Indeed, the aviation sector provides an excellent opportunity to trial such a tax, while also funding new programs that are far more energy-efficient.
  3. establish a user fee system based on two key factors: direct-miles (between origin airport and destination airport), and aircraft seating capacity. Apply this fee system to all commercial flights (passenger and air cargo) as well as to all higher performance aircraft (e.g., bizjets, and flights by fractionally-owned aircraft). Thus:
      • for any origin-destination pair, a 200-passenger jet would pay twice the fee as a 100-passenger jet, and a 400-passenger jet would pay 4-times as much.
      • a 30-passenger bizjet would pay the same aviation user fee, whether it is chartering one elite passenger of 28, whether it is flying IFR (in the ATC system) or just out on a high-performance VFR hop.
      • passenger ticket fees/taxes would be proportional to itinerary distance. E.g., a passenger ticket from Seattle to Boston via Atlanta would pay 25% higher fees due to 25% higher distance (2,712 NM through ATL versus 2,161 NM direct SEA-BOS); likewise, a SEA-LAX-BOS itinerary would pay 43% higher fees than a direct SEA-BOS itinerary (hubbing via LAX, in this example, increases distance flown from 2,161 NM to 3,091 NM).
      • and, of course, this all would apply to commercial helicopters, too. A helicopter doing an urban air tour, or a helicopter charter hop from KSMO to Staples Center, would pay the fee, subject to a hefty minimum user fee per operation.
      • similarly, it would apply to commercial skydive operators, whose noisy aircraft would also be subject to a hefty minimum user fee per operation.

This simple set of proposed fees/taxes would not only reduce hub pressure at places like KSEA, KJFK, KCLT, KPHX, and KBOS; it would also all but eliminate system delays, and reduce environmental impacts. Plus, this system would strongly incentivize the airlines to offer more direct flights. This would mean less travel time for the consumers who fund this system, and would be a Win-Win for nearly everyone. The only losers would be the airlines and airport authorities who have gone too long, abusing too many, under the current flawed fee/tax system that maximizes consumption.

Just one thing is required: an elected Congress willing to work together, to order FAA reform: to totally revamp the fee/tax system, replacing it with only a carbon tax and a direct-miles fee.

Is Common Sense Creeping Back at Santa Monica?

Good to see that, after a year of horrible missteps, the City of Santa Monica appears to be setting up an environmental study, to be done during the 10-day airport closure in mid-December. Here is an archived copy of the news article (or click here to view the source article):

Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.

In the past, assessments done during airport closures have shown dramatic air quality improvements, suggesting clearly that local resident concerns go WAY BEYOND ‘annoyance’ (that was the word used by FAA’s community liaison person, in dismissing concerns by long-time residents of western Long Island). And, Marty Rubin looks to be wise to reserve judgment; too often, these studies get hijacked and watered down, so let’s hope Paulson is involved and credible data is collected.

We should start educating youngsters early on about the dangers of noise

In a big city, we all expect noise. But, the most responsible among us also expect to do all they can to minimize the impacts and manage how we live with it, so that children can learn, homes can be enjoyed, nature can be heard, and we all can get daily sleep. The importance of sleep to New York City is reflected in the following education module:

(click on image to view source)

BTW, one of the key advocates for ‘noise-management-sanity’ in the NYC area is Dr. Arline Bronzaft. See two of her archived articles, spanning TWO DECADES(!), at these links:

And let’s be careful to never forget: it is not just the noise, but the pollutants, too. The toxins we breathe near airports, as well as the rapidly growing aviation contribution to global warming.


UPDATE, 11/17/2017: — Another excellent reference resource is the Noise Awareness webpage, at GrowNYC.org:

(click on image to view source webpage, at grownyc.org)

…Martin Rubin and Jack Saporito helped identify this activism resource … THANKS!

 

WaPost OpEd: “For the Love of Earth, Stop Traveling”

An opinion piece in the Washington Post lays out the simple answers: air travel consumes far too much energy, creates far too much environmental damage, per person. Good points.

The simple solution is for more of us to voluntarily travel, a lot less. The government would help, a lot, if they would impose a very steep aviation carbon tax, with all revenues going to reducing other personal taxes and/or funding far more energy-efficient transportation modes, to replace the energy-efficiency of aviation.

Check out this archived opinion piece, as well as the telling reader comments.

Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.

Airport Noise Complaint Systems are Broken, Need to be Replaced

For years, you live happily in your home – raising kids, adding on, gardening, studying the birds, and relaxing in the yard. Then, one day, a heartless FAA and a soulless airport authority ‘collaboratively’ impose new routes and ever-expanding flight schedules, taking away your peace and relaxation. Whether it is the repetitive noise pattern of a NextGen RNAV procedure, or the interminable drone of a skydive plane circling to jump altitude, the impact is real and destructive to both health and quality of life.

There has to be balance between aviation commerce and residential quality of life. According to decades worth of Congressional actions, this balance is supposed to exist, and FAA is supposed to protect people. But, this is not happening, because this federal agency is captured: FAA SERVES ONLY AVIATION COMMERCE.

What can be done? Any good person – homeowner, caregiver, parent, teacher, community official, whatever your role in this world – should take action. We should see it as our duty to take action, but the current system is broken. In fact, the system has evolved to thwart citizen engagement, in three ways:

  1. first, the airport authorities have made the noise complaint filing process incredibly onerous. They arbitrarily require the citizen to tabulate all sorts of details onto clunky forms.
  2. then, the airport authorities throw out nearly all the data and create condensed periodic reports (typically monthly or quarterly), but the reports tend to fail to assess the real impacts. A huge effort by many citizens, and almost no effort by the airport authorities. It is as if the process is intended to be a black-hole for complaint data.
  3. and finally, the ultimate proof of failure: the impacts continue unabated. In fact, in most cases, the impacts are getting worse each year.

So, for the current noise complaint system, the net result is to simply burn out citizens … to condition them to not complain. We should be good and responsible, taking action to protect family and community, but instead, many of us just give up. In today’s world, where distraction is the go-to weapon for perpetuating status quo inequities, we often become obsessive about something else – shopping, sports fanaticism, online gaming, or even recreational mind alteration. So much for quality of life.

Noise Complaint Systems are Evolving

Here are two noise complaint systems, the old and the new:

The Old: an onerous online form that compounds the initial noise injury by arbitrarily forcing citizens to waste time compiling excessive data that the airport authority already has. (click on image to view source)

The New: a 1-click system that collects complaints, researches, submits the complaint to the airport authority, and compiles data. (click on image to view source)

Looks like a no-brainer. The airnoise solution is a vast improvement, a step in the right direction.

What We All Need from Noise Complaint Systems

First and foremost, we need to be heard. The impacts are real, and we should be empowered to document the extent of these impacts, so that a responsible authority can work with us to resolve these impact problems. But, we also need to be protected from retaliation for exercising free speech complaint rights.

In short, our airport noise complaint systems need to:

  • compile all complaints, including repeat complaints from the same household (it makes no sense that, after one noise event, a citizen should be assumed to be immune from further noise impacts!);
  • generalize the complaint location, such as to the nearest cross-street, to protect the identity of the complainant;
  • share the generalized data ONLINE so that all can review the data, objectively. After all, this is what transparency and Democracy are all about: ensuring all have a voice and are empowered to apply their individual intelligence to meaningfully contribute to problem-solving.
  • smartly process the complaint data, to go beyond the shallow compilations FAA and airport authorities produce. Create the valuable analyses that can guide us all to seeing the obvious real solutions. Now, not years from now.

Santa Monica Update: Air Quality Study Needed, During Runway Closures

In the U.S., one of our greatest advocates for resolving aviation impacts is Marty Rubin. Marty has been fighting the right fight for decades now, against a city (Santa Monica) whose elected officials appear to be corrupt to no end (…well, most of them; a few have been great!). His website, CRAAP, recently forwarded the posting below, which is a blogpost by staff at Mike Bonin’s website.

For those not in the LA area, here’s the deal: this airport is run by the City of Santa Monica, but has HUGE impacts upon people who reside in homes outside the City’s boundaries … in old and very established residential communities like West LA. In a just world, a higher level regulator, such as FAA, would guard against gains for some with uncompensated losses for others. But, here in West LA, FAA is failing their role. In these neighborhoods, even beautiful homes are subjected to aviation fumes and jet blast, with homeowner’s having no evident right to fix these impacts. Why? Because of FAA’s refusal to serve EVERYONE, not just the aviation industry! But, then again, this is what we expect from a captured regulator.

Here is a copy of the blog and Councilmember Bonin’s letter to the Santa Monica City Council. (click here to view the source)

Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.


See also:

FAA Ordered to Vacate Their 2014 NextGen Routes in Phoenix

After three years of misery and sleep loss, residents in the Phoenix area may finally see some relief. This Judgment was just announced:Using the only legal recourse available to those impacted by FAA’s NextGen implementations, both the City of Phoenix and historic neighborhoods filed a Petition for Review at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. FAA lawyers, aided by attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice, delayed and wrangled for dismissals. It took nearly two years to get the case argued; that happened on March 17, before Judges Griffith, Rogers, and Sentelle. (Click here to go to the USCADC website, where you can read the bios for each judge.)

Nearly six months later, finally, the Judges issued their decision: for the people, and against the FAA. Here’s a copy:

Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded

The Opinion found that FAA was arbitrary and capricious, and in violation of the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Transportation Act, and the FAA’s Order 1050.1E.

This Decision deserves careful study by all of us who are increasingly impacted, across the nation, by FAA’s brutally impactful NextGen implementations. City officials and airport authorities need to take notice: quit telling everyone that nothing can be done; instead, start advocating for health, quality of life, and real local control at these airports.


See also:

UPDATE, 8/30/2017: — Peter Dunn’s Analysis – a condensed review, posted at the Fair Skies Nation Facebook page (Boston area); click here for the source, or here for the archived copy.

UPDATE, 9/1/2017: — see the analysis written by Steve Edmiston (click here for the source, or here for the archived PDF); Steve is a Seattle-area attorney, and a lead activist seeking to correct the over-expansion of the Sea-Tac Airport [KSEA].

UPDATE, 9/5/2017: — yet another excellent analysis, this one blogged by Kevin Terrell (click here for the blog source, or here for the archived PDF). Kevin resides in an area impacted by the Delta hub at Minneapolis- St. Paul [KMSP]. Kevin’s activism has included creation of an outstanding series of educational videos that explain aviation noise while also illuminating FAA’s total failure to manage the noise impacts.

Did This Letter Motivate Huerta’s Response to Governor Hogan?

Activists in Maryland shared a copy of this letter, another excellent effort by their Governor, Larry Hogan.

(click on image to view archived copy of full letter)

Essentially, the Governor sent a letter on May 11, pressing FAA to take actions to reduce impacts on constituents under flight paths for both Reagan National [KDCA] and Baltimore-Washington [KBWI]. Nearly three months after sending his letter to Michael Huerta, and having gotten no reply, Governor Hogan followed up with a letter to the Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao. Here’s an excerpt:FAA’s reply letter, dated 8/3/2017, is here. That is, if you can even call it a reply.

FAA has a shameful record of not just blowing off everyone – even Governors! – but also engaging in obfuscation to frustrate activists. This pattern of failure needs to end.

President Trump: You Need to Fire Michael Huerta

Whatever happened to draining the swamp? Is there any agency more dysfunctional, more corrupt and more locked into serving industry cronies than the FAA, the faux-regulator headed by Administrator Huerta?

Here’s the latest example of how out of control this agency has become, and how badly Mr. Huerta fails at leading long overdue change. Back in early May, the Governor of Maryland wrote an excellent letter (view a copy here), pressing FAA to bring relief to thousands losing sleep and health under NextGen routes. It took nearly three months for Mr. Huerta to finally send a response letter. The long delay was not necessary to do any difficult analysis or produce any changes. No, nothing was analyzed, and nothing was changed; the long delay was just to waste time. In fact, Huerta’s letter was chock full of platitudes and unsupported sales pitches. Here’s a PDF copy of the entire letter, showing portions with footnoted analysis added by aiREFORM:

Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.

Enough is enough. Huerta’s belated reply letter is garbage: a classic example of what we would expect from an agency head who views the airlines as his ‘customers’, not the regulatory subject for the rigorous regulations FAA fails to write and fails to apply. Through the botched NextGen implementation, Mr. Huerta’s agency has also become a case study in ‘runaway captured regulators’. FAA is a perfect target for sweeping reforms. If President Trump wants to do good while throwing fire and fury, he should direct his energies domestically. Cleaning up FAA can set the example for how all federal agencies need to be trimmed back to a focused mission and restrained from federal over-reach, while becoming massively transparent and accountable.

It’s an easy call: fire Michael Huerta, and make FAA serve the people, first.

List of Amendments Submitted to House Rules Committee, for H.R. 2997

Noon on Monday was an important deadline, for the formal submission of amendments to the draft House legislation reauthorizing FAA. A flood of amendments were submitted, very many of them related to reigning in FAA’s abusive NextGen implementation. A list of 116 amendments, with summaries, was posted, and a PDF copy is archived here. One of the most important amendments was submitted by Representative Lynch (MA), calling for a National Academy of Medicine (NAM) “…expert consensus report that sets forth current scientific knowledge relating to the various health impacts of air traffic noise and pollution.” (this amendment was marked as #50, in the center column of the list).

(click on image to view source tweet)

Cindy Christiansen deserves much of the credit for this, as she has done a great job researching and focusing on a much-needed study. Below is an excerpt from her letter to Rep. Lynch, earlier this month (view archived copy here): she lays out the NextGen impacts that FAA and airport authorities continue to ignore, and not just at Boston but across the land:

“…over the last several years, the FAA has implemented NextGen technology that replaces radar navigation with satellite-based navigation systems (GPS). Now and because of the new technology, concentrated flight paths that vary by less than a few feet vertically and laterally, increased airline operations, decreased separation, and lower altitudes have created a public health crisis in communities across the country. The new navigation system was implemented without any investigation into the human capacity to withstand the concentrated and relentless aviation noise and exposure to pollution, but the evidence is there, in the peer-reviewed literature, that there are significant detrimental effects on population health that are associated with these changes. We need a National Academy of Medicine committee of experts to synthesize the evidence and to report their consensus….”

As a side note, this is one of the rare ‘studies’ that has a chance to be very quickly produced, and with meaningful positive impact. Too often, and for decades now, FAA et al have used ‘more study’ as a delay tactic, to perpetuate changes that serve airlines/industry while impacting residents. This study is quite different, and essentially will soon force FAA to acknowledge the compiled content of dozens of studies they continue to ignore. Clearly, a NAM consensus report makes good sense, and will help us to break out of this stuck cycle.