Perhaps Flying Turboprop isn't Dying
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 12.16.06
Startup airline Porter Air flies Bombardier Q400 turboprops from Toronto to Ottawa and Montreal, evidently with some style, having its interiors, graphics and uniforms designed by *Walllpaper founder Tyler Brûlé's Winkreative. It appears to be quite a nice way to travel-leather seats, free wine and food. Many Torontonians wish it would go away, having bought condos overlooking the island airport and being surprised to find that planes are using it. My first reaction was that in this"flying is dying" era, perhaps Porter was a misguided venture. Then I started looking at the numbers.
When you look at the statistics for "energy intensity of passenger travel modes" and compare BTU's per passenger mile travelled, remarkable numbers pop up. George Monbiot makes a big case for the return of bus lines, and makes a valid point- they are efficient. US department of transportation, from worst to first:
Car other than normal passenger car (SUVs) 4509 btu per passenger-mile
Transit Motor bus 4147
international flights 4126
domestic flights 4049
passenger car 3589
motorcycle 2273
amtrak (high speed modern train) 2134
Intercity bus 1286 (correction from earlier version of this post)
Monbiot will also point out that even if different modes use the same amount of fuel, flying is far worse because it exhausts CO2 and water vapour into the stratosphere where it is far more effective as an agent for global warming. (Great interview of George on CBC here)
Then let's look at the Porter Air model. It is a short hop to the airport; I can take the bus or bicycle there because it is downtown. They fly new Bombardier Q400 turboprops, which use 64% of the fuel per passenger mile that jets do. Apply that to the BTU's for domestic flights and we are at 2591 BTU's per passenger mile, less than a car and just slightly above a modern train. (efficiency is slightly less on longer flights)
And being turboprops, their ceiling is half of that of a jet- they do not fly in the stratosphere.
Follow up with another of Monbiot's points about flying, namely that there is no viable substitute fuel, we might point out that turboprops are piston engines turbines and could probably fly on biofuels.
We note that British airline Flybe makes the case that its Q400's are environmentally good choices- "We accept that we have a responsibility as one of Europe’s leading low cost airlines to reduce the carbon emissions produced by our aircraft.....The latest aircraft flying today often match the fuel consumption of modern passenger cars and in some cases – depending on speed and distance – even of high-speed trains."
I love George Monbiot and every word of his book Heat. But perhaps flying isn't dying, just flying the way we do now is. Fifty years ago, a flight to Europe from New York meant a stop in Gander, Reykjavik and Shannon- it was slow, it was low, but you got there in a day. For domestic or European flying, it seems completely obvious. Perhaps we need more Porter Air type airlines. Perhaps we don't need to stop flying, we just have to slow down and enjoy the trip.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Sharing Garden Chores with a Friend: Hits and Misses
- Meet Xavier Helgesen, Co-Founder of Better World Books
- Meet Green Business Consultant Tyler Moorehead, of GreenUnlimited
- How to Cool Your Vehicle Quickly During the Intense Summer Heat and Reduce Your Carbon Emissions
- Grow Your Veggies Upside-Down!
- Great Green Alternatives to Traditional Gifts for Dads and Grads
As usual with aviation I need to clear up a couple of points:
1. Turboprops are not piston engines, they are turbines with a propeller attached through reduction gears. They exchange speed for efficiency in comparison to jets. They are slower, but use less fuel.
2. Turboprops fly fairly high (because they are turbines), though lower than jets do. They are pressurized and a typical service ceiling is 25,000 feet.
3. Turbines use kerosene and could in theory use biofuels though there are some issues to be resolved. It certainly has not been done yet.
4. A big point about flying is that it is done in a straight line. A look at any map will show you that flying save about 30% of the distance over land travel. It can save 200% of the distance over mountain areas; I have no doubt that it is more efficient to fly to Colorado from LA than it is to take a bus, and that's not even taking into account that motor vehicles become less efficient with altitude and use a lot of fuel to climb grades.
5. George forgets about road building and maintenance, a fuel-intensive process. Asphalt requires fuel to make, and still more fuel is used to truck it into place.
Aircraft also remain in service a lot longer than buses, which reduces their manufacturing footprint. In fact, given how many more miles they travel, their manufacturing CO2 load per mile dwindles to insignificance.
Back in the late 70's experiments were done with propfans, which are a kind of advanced turboprop. They are more efficient than turboprops and yet allow for near-jet speeds. However, they are noisy and require a good deal of engineering to fix that (though there has been work on this already), but their main problem is that passengers instinctively think any kind of propeller is less safe than a jet, so when fuel prices dropped back in the 80's, airlines and aircraft manufacturers lost interest in the technology.
Oh, and if George is so concerned, he should stop flying.
I'd much rather have flying be like taking a Pan Am clipper to Hawaii was than the glorified cattle cars we have today.
The major reason I've avoided flying isn't so much the environmental aspects, but the horror stories I hear from people (like Wil Wheaton) since the communications crackdown.
Areoscorp
http://www.aerosml.com/Aeroscraft%20Info.asp
uses a turbo-prop blimp. The data isn't available for how much more efficient the bugger is-I imagine it would be considerable, but without the need for a runway, it would enable much simpler logistics for moving people and cargo around the world.
I believe that within-city bus (presumably that's what they mean by "transit motor bus") is not hugely energy efficient (low number of passengers), but that between-city buses do super-well (because they typically travel with more passengers).
So, that might explain the difference between you and Monbiot.
LA: you are absolutely right, the original source did not list intercity buses. My argument is significantly weakened, buses are the most efficient mode of transport. But the Turboprop is still better than cars and almost as good as trains.
So, bus travel is not much better for the environment than your individual SUV.
For shame on the bus manufacturers and the organizations that buy them.
J.C., Sr.
STOL lives on. Short Take-Off and Landing was the experiment/ program that really brought Toronto Island Airport into it's own some 20 years ago. It used turboprops and took you from downtown to downtown, saving the mess of a transfer down the QE expressway in T.O. and/or the "20" in Montreal. Did you factor in the parking lot that is the QE at rush hour from Pearson? That said, the VIA train is still my fave at just over 4 hours from downtown to downtown...
The problem with "btu per passenger-mile" is that it's a relative measure, and people often forget that you will rarely drive your car (or take the bus..) for 10,000+ miles in 2 weeks, while people who fly back and forth for a vacation will often do that.
It's not so much that planes are super-energy intensive alone, but that you just travel a lot more miles when you fly.
Lloyd- more than just condo owners are anti-airport. For readers outside Toronto, the waterfront has morphed from industrial to residential/recreational in the last 2-3 decades. The issue is that air traffic used to be minimal and Porter will ramp up the frequency of use. Who wants to hang out by the water with props roaring? Not me and I live near High Park. There is the safety issue as well- planes approaching with Condos very close by. The airport is also a money-loser in spite of Porter. Last word goes to Jane Jacobs-
“Expanding the Toronto Island Airport will undermine the downtown's economy and liveability and intensify pollution and smog from Oshawa to Oakville. I urge Torontonians to close down this dangerous Trojan horse and get on with planning constructive and delightful ways of using our magnificent lakeside assets.”
ps Wallpaper sucks
Flights from Toronto City Centre Airport produce considerably less pollution than flights from Pearson (even allowing for aircraft with identical characteristics). More people live in the immediate downwind from Pearson than live right near Toronto City Centre Airport (data from the 2001 census). 150,000 people live in the high noise impact area, or NEF-25 contourfor Pearson; nobody lives in the NEF-25 contour for Toronto City Centre Airport (Source: City of Toronto documents).
The effort to close Toronto City Centre Airport enjoys a popularity among "trendy" inhabitants of Toronto; the same crew who manage to oppose subsidised housing projects in the name of serving an "artistic community". But the hard facts show the effort to close Toronto City Centre Airport as an effort to relocate pollution from a wealthy, articulate downtown community to a working class community near Pearson (source: Canada Census data).
I am neither for nor against the Island Airport. I don't think it provides a massive benefit to the city, but as a frequent visitor to the waterfront, nor do I think it harms it. Therefore, the decision should be rational (i.e., based on real cost/benefit and environmental criteria; not the whining of a privilieged few, who decided to buy condos next to the pre-existing airport, then act as though an airport is being built next to their condos).
Moving in next to the Gardner Expressway and then arguing that the pollution from the Island Airport is ruining your life is fatuous at best and an indication of obsessive-compulsive disorder, at worst.
And the "I live here now, so everyone else has to change" argument is extraordinarilly egocentric. The airport was there when the residents moved in. If they didn't want to live next to it, they should not have bought.
Frontier Airlines just announced a deal to purchase 10 new 74 seat turboprop planes with a goal of starting service next fall in four mountain resort communities and five non-mountain cities. From a green perspective, this great news! However...
Just like the CFL bulbs she removed after installation, the big question is will my wife fly a turboprop? Even if the alcohol were complimentary and service better, she is uncomfortable with those planes. She gets very upset now if any of our legs are on a prop plane. Stigma goes a long way...
http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_Biz_D_frontier10.dd8766.html
Brent Quebman
Very interested to read the pollution comparison info for turboprops v pure jets. I am a green-minded person in the UK, who is also a great fan of old airliners. I'm keenly aware of the tremendous polluting effect of the large nos of modern jetliners and had thought that turboprops were much more economical and less polluting than pure jets-this confirms it.
I think it would be a good thing if we could go over to using mainly turboprop aircraft for short to medium haul flights-I can't see them being used on long haul, due to the time penalty from their lower speed compared with pure jets. Trouble is it would mean longer journey times and one of the big reasons why jet aircraft took over from the old pistonliners was and is their much higher speed. There's also the stigma effect for some people of flying in a propellor-driven plane, which personally I can't understand at all.
Are we really all in such a hurry that we can't put up with slightly longer journey times on short to medium haul flights? The time may well come soon when we will be forced by oil shortage and global warming to go over to turboprops as above.
The Toronto Island Airport issue.
If its greener taking a Q400 to Montreal from the Island rather than an A320 from Pearson then there's obviously good reason to ignore the "close it" camp. Two reasons:
1. The condos were there last and I'm positive Jane would have lamented what they've done to the area as much as the airport.
2. Safety: The aircraft fly no closer to those condos than the big jets at Pearson fly to the cul-de-sacs of Missisauga & Brampton.
In fact, Island traffic is forced over the docklands and the harbor, there is nothing underneath them except water and the occasional factory, ferry or boater.
What worries people is that the planes fly past their windows instead of over their homes. Given that the condos are along the flight path and not in or under it, they are probably safer than those poor suburban dwellings under the flightpaths of Pearson.
Almost any incident on the approach to the island is going to end in the lake proper or the harbor.
One thing that noone thinks about which is typically "Torontonian" of them is the REASON why Porter flies out of Toronto Island. It's economics. Sometime awhile back, one of the "geniuses" at the GTAA (Greater Toronto Transport Authority) thought it would be cool for Pearson to be the most expensive airport in the world. (Tokyo has since re-claimed that title.) Now riddle me this, what is so special about the 5th-largest city in the world that makes it deserve that? I live in Toronto, it's a lousy city at best lacking the charm and cleanliness of Vancouver or Montreal. Think about it, it's cheaper to land at LAX than it is at YYZ!!! I would be complaining instead about the fact that Pearson drives up the prices of air travel rather than complaining about a maverick airline that gives people great service at a great price. I swear, some Torontonians just want to hear themselves whine. I don't work for Porter but I say "Way to go boys!"
I thought the numbers on the transit bus were a little fishy, so I did some research of my own. I found this article that was pretty well written.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
What it points out is:
a) Bus transit (at average loads) is more fuel efficient than a single passenger vehicle, but not more than a passenger vehicle at average loads. So it's not quite as fuel efficient as you might think.
b) If you just judge on BTUs / fuel efficiency, you're missing a lot of other variables that contribute to the more efficient nature of public transit.