Lawmaker questions Salt Lake City International Airport project's impact on air quality

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • SLC BYU Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2014 2:32 p.m.

    This has to be the most ludicrous argument against airport expansion I've seen yet. A liberal legislator who perhaps doesn't like Delta due to the lack of labor organization (except for pilots and flight dispatchers, Delta is non union), so assume a hidden agenda. If he really cared about his overall agenda he should be pushing for a carbon-offset tax against Delta, Southwest, SkyWest & all major carriers at SLC.

    Salt Lake City isn't likely to see 4 engined aircraft like the Boeing 747, Airbus A380 or 340 at all, even with a 4th runway & one runway having 30% added to its length to accommodate high elevation with hot temperatures summer departures. Boeing 777, 787 or Airbus A330 or A350 will be as big as anything gets for SLC.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    I really think the lawmaker is making a tongue in cheek comment. Especially when he mentions Stericycle. The proposed expansion will allow larger aircraft to use the airport, projections say 30 million will be accommodated. The liberal progressive mayor wants to eliminate fireworks by Salt Lake City on the 4th and 24th for the purpose of reducing pollution, Dr. Monch fights so hard to eliminate Rio Tinto and Stericycle but makes no effort to fight the airport expansion.

    Those aircraft coming and going are dropping more pollutants on the residents of Foxborro than Stericycle does.

    "like to restrict auto traffic, maybe 1 car per household or allow driving only on certain days of the week based on license plate numbers" I do thing I have heard local liberal environmentalist suggest this and more.

    Don't get me wrong I am for the expansion.

    But liberals are swinging at gnats to control the population on their terms.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    @yeah - B767 is wide body twin aisle and larger than the narrow body single aisle 757. Your point of improving traffic flow is spot on, get the planes to the gates and runways faster and you'll have less engine burn time. Also, there is already an ordinance in place forcing planes to not power up the engines until the last possible moment when air quality is poor, tugs move planes around in that scenario.

    I agree with the Senator that more needs to be determined about the airport. However, to hamstring the local economy by not fixing the problems at the airport is just plain silly. And to cite studies of planes that don't fly here and that don't address improvements in engine efficiency is also misguided. These fixes should have been implemented 20 years ago and would further cement SLC's importance in western US air traffic. Maybe the Senator would also like to restrict auto traffic, maybe 1 car per household or allow driving only on certain days of the week based on license plate numbers. He's taking this WAAAY too far.

  • Yeah but South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    Boeing 747? Really? It takes 4 very large engines to move that much mass. The largest plane we have at SLC International is a 757. Nothing with 4 engines. Your comparison of SLC to DIA is ludicrous. Are you suggesting moving SLC to the Salt Flats? The new configuration will allow much easier traffic patterns in the airport, decreasing the ground time for planes. Currently one stalled plane can tie up nearly a dozen gates. The new configuration will not add traffic; it will make the passenger traffic we have and will have much less polluting. Getting planes on the ground, to the gates, out of the gates, and back in the air faster results in less pollution.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 2:43 a.m.

    The lawmaker has a good point about increased air traffic without any environmental impact studies being done but if a company want to put in a business to create new industry he has to apply for and go through and pay for years of EPA requirements.

    Maybe its because they can prover aircraft will run on corn oil and is less toxic they waive the EPA studies. Of course we all know that they don't fly airplanes on corn oil because its not very efficient or reliable. How ever though everything that will burn has a by-product of carbon waste and in renewable energy circles that is an irrelevant issue.

    Another point of the valley air pollution why isn't there more tax on the number of miles commercial vehicles drive every year and the engine operating time? We need to target commercial use vehicles and make them cut down on commercial vehicle use and speeds, we need a penalty tax from the DMV. But thats too basic in concept to impose more cost on those who are the problem. They'd rather tax smokers with cigarette health tax to pay other peoples environmental crimes.