PUBLICATION: ANP English News Bulletin
DATE: July 14, 1997
DATELINE: Amsterdam, Netherlands
ANP English News Bulletin reports that officials at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, Netherlands recently announced that in order to meet legal noise limits, they intend to ban nighttime flights of noisier planes starting August 1. Officials from the airline Martinair, which will see its three older Boeing planes banned from nighttime takeoffs as a result of the rule, have complained that the restriction is discriminatory and asked the airport to focus its ban on airlines that have recently increased night flights, thereby contributing to higher overall noise levels. Martinair officials maintain that tens of thousands of vacationers could be stranded in August as a result of the ban.
According to the article, Schiphol wants to ban Martinair's three older Boeing 747-100, 200 and 300 planes from nighttime take-offs between 11:00 pm to 6:00 am. Nighttime take-offs were targeted, the article says, because more flights were planned and delays from the evening often spill over past 11:00 pm. Schiphol's noise reduction plan also called for the implementation of a slot allocation system, which transfers the granting of take-off permits to an independent body.
The article says that the new rules will cut the number of night flights in half, mostly affecting freight traffic. Competitors of Martinair, Transavia and Air Holland, will not be affected by the ban because they use smaller, quieter, aircraft, the article reports.
Meanwhile, Schiphol director Hans Smits said although he realized the plans would have a negative impact on the airport's strong international position in freight transport, "we have no alternative if we are to remain within the legally defined noise limits. Smits went on to say, "If we don't impose these restrictions now, the whole airport would have to shut overnight from around September." He added that he would discuss the implementation date with Transport Minister Annemarie Jorritsma.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: July 17, 1997
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 2; Zone: NW; Northwest overnight
BYLINE: Tom Papagiannis
DATELINE: Wheeling/Prospect Heights, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that the construction has begun on a new holding apron at the Palwaukee Municipal Airport outside Chicago (Illinois), in order to reduce noise for residents from planes waiting to take off from the airport's main runway.
According to the article, the new apron will be located next to the main runway, and will allow waiting planes to be positioned with their engines facing into the airport and away from adjacent residential areas, said Dan Quiery, chair of the Palwaukee Municipal Airport Commission. At previous meetings of the commission, residents from Wheeling and Prospect Heights have complained about jet noise at the airport. Quiery said construction on the new apron will be finished next month, and that the airport was trying to control noise.
PUBLICATION: The Tampa Tribune
DATE: July 18, 1997
SECTION: South Tampa, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Ivan Hathaway
DATELINE: Tampa, Florida
The Tampa Tribune reports that the Tampa (Florida) City Council decided Thursday to consider in three weeks a new noise ordinance aimed at noisy bars in the Ybor City entertainment district. The article says that if bar owners voluntarily improve the situation, the council might decide to put the noise ordinance on the back burner. However, the article reports, if the ordinance is passed when the council considers it in three weeks, it would then be called up for a second and final vote in 90 days.
The article says that the council passed a law two years ago that sets a noise standard to anyone holding an alcohol sales permit in Ybor and the downtown area. That noise coming from bars and nightclubs can't exceed 85 decibels as measured just outside of the bars and nightclubs, the article reports. However, the new noise limits didn't apply to bars already in business, resulting in dozens of bars that had to meet the requirements and dozens that didn't.
But a new ordinance now being drafted by Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Hernandez would set an 85-decibel limit for all businesses and events throughout the city, the article reports. Some exemptions would be permitted, including school-sponsored events on school grounds; parades and fireworks displays; amusement parks; sporting events; and common carrier stations, such as bus and train stations and airports. Violations of the proposed ordinance would be civil infractions with fines of up to $250 for the first offense and up to $500 for each subsequent offense.
Meanwhile, worried about the possibility of a new ordinance, bar owners met with Mayor Dick Greco last week to discuss the issues. The mayor agreed to giving the bar owners six months to work things out on their own, but told them the final decision rested with the city council. The council Thursday night decided not to give the bar owners six months, and some council members questioned whether voluntary compliance would ever work. The council told the bar owners the ordinance was likely to become law after their second vote, unless changes are made by bar owners before then.
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: July 17, 1997
SECTION: Section A; Page 20; Column 1; National Desk
BYLINE: Michael Janofsky
DATELINE: Washington, D.C.
The New York Times reports that Washington, D.C.'s National Airport for years has consisted of a hodgepodge of buildings, but on July 27, its new $409 million terminal will open. The terminal project includes additional traffic lanes, covered walkways to nearby parking garages, and a Metro subway station within a few hundred feet of the airline gates. While new terminals in other major cities recently have been built to accomodate more flights and passengers, National's new terminal was not intended for that purpose. National is one of four airports in the country that have federal restrictions on the number of takeoffs and landings, the article reports.
The article reports that the the new 1,040,000 square-foot terminal was built on the only land that was available for improvement. In 1977, in the hopes that a new terminal would be built there, a Metro subway station was located nearby. But, the article reports, the subway location has been incovenient since then -- passengers faced long walks to their gates or long waits for shuttle buses. Even when they got on the shuttles, passengers weren't always sure where their flights would depart from, since gates for the same airline were located in different buildings. The new terminal was designed to bring together most of the airlines in one building. Three airlines, TWA, Midway, and Northwest, will remain in the old main building, which has been connected to the new terminal by an enclosed walkway.
The article goes on to say that unlike recent airport construction in Denver, Chicago, and at Washington's Dulles International Airport, the new terminal at National was not built for the purpose of adding new flights or passengers. Along with New York's LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports and Chicago's O'Hare Airport, National is subject to federal restrictions on takeoffs and landings. Takeoffs and landings are limited hourly to 37 by major commercial planes, 12 by commuter airlines, and 13 by private planes, and these limits will remain in place after the new terminal opens. Tara Hamilton, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, said National handles about 15-16 million passengers per year, and those numbers are not expected to change dramatically. Nonetheless, the article reports, local groups that monitor airplane noise said they will track any changes in noise levels.
The new terminal's main goal, the article reports, is to provide a better traveling experience for passengers by eliminating the dark interiors and tangled configuration of roadways and gates. Cesar Pelli, the architect of the terminal, designed the building to take advantage of the panoramic views across the Potomac River and views of monuments such as the Washington Monument and the Capitol. In addition, the terminal was designed to connect the airport with the Metro and the parking garages as directly as possible. Inside, the article says, the terminal looks much like many other modern American airports, except that passengers can visit stores such as the the National Zoo shop, a National Geographic store, and the Smithsonian Museum Store.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 15, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Hugo Martin
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that the Los Angeles City Council Transportation Committee has been considering a subway line for the San Fernando Valley, but is now considering alternatives because some fear that they would never get enough funding for an underground system. Although above ground trains or trolleys would be cheaper, residents have promised to oppose them on the basis of noise, traffic, and pollution.
The article reports that the east-west subway line would cost $650-million. Although the Metropolitan Transportation Authority may find federal money for the project, council members think that the funding won't be there when construction could begin: 2007. The main alternative is an above-ground rail line that would only cost about half as much. The city staff will investigate alternatives and present their findings to the council in two months.
The article notes that there are several problems with an above-ground line. First, pollution and noise would bother residents. Also, a 1991 state law -- designed to keep an Orthodox Jewish community unified and able to walk to their synagogue -- says any rail in that neighborhood of Van Nuys must be a "deep-bore subway." A commuter train would not work because the line is meant for short-distance, round-the-clock service: not commuter service. Train whistles required at major intersections would disturb residents, although an above ground train could be placed underground at key intersections. An electric trolley was already studied and judged too expensive because of elevated-line costs.
PUBLICATION: The Cincinnati Enquirer
DATE: July 18, 1997
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B1A
BYLINE: Terry Flynn
DATELINE: Hebron, Ohio
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that the Cincinnati - Northern Kentucky International Airport recently has installed a new $609,000 computer aircraft tracking system to deal with noise complaints. The system, called the Aircraft Operation Monitoring System (AOMS), has the ability to record the flight paths and flight numbers of every departure and landing, along with accompanying information
The article reports that in addition to mapping plane routes, the new system displays detailed street maps of Kenton County, Hamilton County, southeast Indiana, and soon, Boone County, all as far as 15 miles from the runways. This will allow flight paths of aircraft to be matched with the location of homeowners complaining about noise. The system is linked directly to the airport tower radar system, and can identify the type of each aircraft, the flight number, and altitude at a given location from the runway. If planes violate a specific flight path, an alarm is activated, allowing airport officials to determine why the violation occured and what action should be taken. AOMS also is linked to a weather sensor on the roof of an airport terminal, coorelating information about the weather conditions at the time of each takeoff and landing. In addition, the system has the capability to be linked to the sound monitor on the campus of the College of Mount St. Joseph in Delhi Township, so that noise incidents recorded there can be traced to the aircraft that created them. Information from the system is not available for three days, the article reports, so that the Federal Aviation Administration has time to remove military or sensitive flights from the information.
According to the article, airport officials have high hopes for the system's role in dealing with noise issues. Barb Schempf, manager of the effort to control aircraft noise, said, "With this system, we can not only answer questions from residents about aircraft over their homes, but we can pull up specific departure tracts to see if the airlines are complying with the noise abatement procedures." Dale Huber, the airport's deputy director of aviation, said, "The system will not only enable us to answer complaints from residents, but we will be able to do analysis and produce reports for specific periods." Huber also described some results the airport has already gotten from the system. He said the airport received a complaint from a resident west of the airport who said aircraft were turning over his house when they should have been taking another flight path. But Huber said when airport officials checked AOMS, they determined the caller was wrong -- no aircraft had gone in his direction in the time-frame he described. Huber said, "We had proof the planes weren't turning in that direction, and we didn't hear any more about it." In another example, the airport received a complaint about jet noise over a house in Westwood. The article says airport officials determined with AOMS that the aircraft in question had made a legal short-turn approach to a runway, bringing them over the Westwood home.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: July 16, 1997
SECTION: A Section; Pg. F04; The New National
BYLINE: Douglas Feaver
DATELINE: Washington, D.C.
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise
The Washington Post reports that noise problems from Washington, D.C.'s National Airport have been plaguing neighbors since at least 1966, when jets were introduced at the airport. The article outlines what measures airport officials have taken to mitigate airport noise, and how citizens have responded.
The article says that since 1966, the airport has seen lawsuits, political posturing, and citizen association resolutions calling for the airport's closing. To address noise complaints, officials have tried a curfew on middle-of-the-night flights; the "perimeter rule," which limits the miles on a nonstop flight using National; a ceiling on the number of passengers annually; a limit on the number of flights per hour; and noise abatement techniques for pilots. But, the article notes, the night curfew now only applies to the louder, older airplanes; the perimeter has been extended several times -- always to meet the nonstop needs of a district represented by someone with legislative clout -- to 1,250 miles; and there is no passenger ceiling but the limit on major airline flights remains 37 an hour. Back in the mid-1980s, the airport tried a "scatter plan" for one year at the request of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. The plan routed planes throughout the region so that the noise was shared across the urban core. This made everyone mad, the article reports, so the plan was abandoned. The group Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise sued twice and won over the constitutionality of a congressional review panel that was given veto power over the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. The article reports that the review panel was recently eliminated. The review panel was eliminated in a recent rewrite of the legislation. John Hechinger Sr., former D.C. Council chair and the lead plaintiff in the second suit, said: "We're the only airport in the country that has not had local control. Congress was trying to run the airport as if it were an extension of their parking lot assignment."
PUBLICATION: Transport Europe
DATE: July 18, 1997
SECTION: No. 75
DATELINE: Europe
The publication Transport Europe reports that members of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), a group with 36 member countries, met in Strasbourg on July 2 and 3 and agreed to reduce the level of noise emissions from aircraft by the year 2002, and resolved to adopt a formal Recommendation on the matter by December 31. Meanwhile, express delivery airlines voiced concern about regulations limited to Europe and called for an international agreement.
According to the article, the agreement would limit flights by the noisiest aircraft starting on April 1, 1999, in the context of ICAO standards (International Civil Aviation Organization). The agreement would essentially ban airlines from these countries from operating sub-standard aircraft. In an ECAC statement issued July 4, the group said there may be some provision for exemptions over a transitional period, the article says.
The article reports that express delivery airlines, represented by the EEO (European Express Organization), said an agreement limited to Europe would adversely affect the ability of the airline industry to compete. The EEO also pointed out in a statement that although the "hushkit" that some aircraft are equipped with to reduce noise emissions is not as expensive as a new, quieter aircraft, it still requires an investment of two million ECU per airplane. Express airlines fear that the ECAC agreement could force them to purchase new airplanes in order to keep their access to the European market, when they may have already invested in hushkits for older planes in order to meet ICAO standards. They called for an international agreement on the issue.
The article goes on to say that the ECAC agreement / declaration points out that "European Union Member States would not be able to implement the ECAC proposals without explicit Community legislation." Currently, European Community ministers are considering a proposal to amend the 1992 Directive concerning the progressive phasing out of the noisiest aircraft by 2001. Other legislative proposals that resulted from the European Community Green Paper on noise last year are also being studied.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 17, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Hugo Martin
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Peter Graves, actor and activist; Marvin Braude, former City Councillor; Noah Modisett, San Pedro resident
The Los Angeles Times reports that Los Angeles' City Council is putting off enforcement on an ordinance that would ban gas-fueled leaf blowers. Police will attempt to decide how to enforce the ordinance during the six months, which will also help to make gardeners who oppose the ordinance adapt.
According to the article, the delay is six months in order to compromise between residents, who wanted an immediate ban, and landscapers who wanted a year to adapt to the rule.
The article reports that the ordinance has been in effect for two weeks, and will mean up to a $1,000 fine for repeat (three-time or more) violators. Operation of blowers within 500 feet of homes will be considered a violation.
The article notes that the ordinance came out of a ten-year debate. On the day the ordinance became law, its main proponent retired; another council member began encouraging the other members to consider a one-year delay on enforcement, saying the law seemed racist in its wording which suggested that landscapers were too lazy to rake.
The articles says that issues that are unclear about enforcement include: who gets the ticket if a gardener using a blower is doing work for a homeowner, how to keep track of previous warnings, when equipment should be confiscated.
The article notes that the grace period is also designed in part to allow manufacturers to develop quieter, less polluting blowers.
The article goes on to say that a group of 150 Latino and Asian gardeners attended the hearing in support of an enforcement delay. Also, many elderly residents attended in favor of immediate enforcement. Some from both sides agreed that the compromise was fair.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: July 18, 1997
SECTION: Scottsdale Community; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Alexa Haussler
DATELINE: Scottsdale, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Pat Lamer, president, ADW neighborhood association
The Arizona Republic reports that the city of Scottsdale, Arizona has agreed to begin work in September on a 10-foot wall to protect residents from traffic and construction noise from Goldwater Boulevard and the construction of the Scottsdale Waterfront Project, which includes a future shopping center. The residents have lobbied the city for a new wall for almost two years, and the city appropriated money for the project last year, but the project hadn't gone forward.
The article reports that there already is a 6-foot, cement block wall separating the road and the homes, but it was built mostly for looks more than a decade ago, according to Pat Lamer, president of the ADW neighborhood association, a group representing about 130 homeowners. He said that the wall doesn't take care of the noise he and his neighbors are experiencing. Last year, the Scottsdale City Council approved spending about $370,000 to improve or rebuild the wall, but nothing happened. But last month, after lobbying by residents, the city finally focused on the issue when Scottsdale Mayor Sam Campana and city staff members visited the neighborhood. Campana admitted that the project "got lost or forgotten," but said the city should honor the agreement.
According to the article, city Project Manager Bill Peifer said that the sound level in the area averages about 61 decibels now. (By comparison, normal conversation is about 58 decibels, Peifer said.) Peifer added that the city is not required under state guidelines to build a sound wall, but city officials want to work with the residents. He said the project could either improve the existing wall, or tear it down and build a better one, but no decision either way has been made yet. The residents have worked with the Scottsdale Cultural Council to get local artist Kevin Berry to help design the wall, Peifer said.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 13, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 16; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Laura Chick, Los Angeles City Councillor
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Laura Chick, a Los Angeles City Councillor, regarding the controversy over noise from the PA system at Los Angeles's Franklin Fields baseball field:
Over the last few weeks, many community members were concerned that Franklin Fields, home to baseball, softball and the Encino Velodrome, might temporarily lose its public address system, due to a history of noise violations ("Homeowners Shut Down Little League PA System," June 18).
Although I do not have jurisdiction over the baseball fields because they are located on federal land administered by the Army Corps of Engineers, my office proactively organized a community meeting where all of the parties involved came together and worked on ways to ensure that everyone could be a good neighbor. I am happy to report that at this meeting, a very sensible and responsible agreement was reached that allows for the Franklin Field Assn. to use amplification within an agreed-upon decibel range and during certain hours. In addition, the neighbors and association members agreed to keep an open line of communication, ensuring that amplification will continue to be used responsibly.
This agreement is a win / win situation for all parties and ensures that our community's children will continue to have a safe, fun place to play and that neighbors are able to enjoy their homes in peace.
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: July 13, 1997
SECTION: Pacific; Pg. 4; Planet Northwest
BYLINE: Kimberly Marlowe and Paul Schmid
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Heinz Leistner, member, Sound Rights
The Seattle Times reports that there are few places to escape the noise that fills our lives. Reporters went in search of quiet places around Seattle, and found several: the Meditation Room at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, the sensory deprivation tank at The Comfort Zone in the Pike Place Market, the Metro tunnel on Sunday morning, and underwater at Wynoochee Lake.
The article says that the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has had a Meditation Room for 20 years. It's an oasis of quiet in the midst of chaos and business, the article reports. It has no TV screens or loudspeakers, and those seeking spiritual assistance or simply the sounds of silence are welcome.
The reporters discovered that it is definately quiet in the sensory deprivation tank at The Comfort Zone in the Pike Place Market. To use the tank, a person is suspended in the dark a float tank in 150 gallons of water, far away from reality. The article says that after a few minutes of claustrophobia, all sense of time slips away in the peaceful environment.
The article reports that the Metro tunnel between Pioneer Square and the Convention Center is normally one of the city's busiest spots, except early on Sunday morning. No cars run overhead, no maintenance crews are at work, and no buses or escalators run.
Finally, the article reporters explored the quiet underwater at Wynoochee Lake in Grays Harbor County. But even here, you might hear the sound of a conversation, the article says. Ward Bekins, owner of Seattle's Maverick Diving & Salvage, spent much of a recent workday chatting to a client while below sea level, the article reports.
The article also printed the following quotes on noise and quiet: "When I can shut the motor off and hear porpoises exhale . . . now, that's quiet." -- Heinz Leistner, avid sailor and member of Sound Rights, a Seattle group promoting a quieter world "There were these condos out on a peninsula, five miles from a major road. Absolutely no traffic noise or waves to be heard. The bad news was that on a windless day you could hear the proverbial pin drop upstairs. It's weird, but sometimes in order to be quiet, you need more noise." -- Noise detective Jerry Lilly of JGL Acoustics in Bellevue
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 13, 1997
SECTION: Opinion; Part M; Page 4; Letters Desk
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: William McNairn, Palos Verdes Estates resident; Jeff Drobman, Westlake Village resident
The Los Angeles Times printed the following letters-to-the-editor from Los Angeles area residents regarding the new ban on gasoline-powered leaf blowers:
To the editor:
Once again, in caving in on the matter of the leaf blower ban (July 8), the Los Angeles City Council has demonstrated its lack of leadership and resolve. As a source of blown contaminants and of noise and air pollution, there is no question that leaf blowers are a widespread annoyance to the council's constituents all over the city.
Instead of standing by the hard-fought effort finally achieved to do something about these dirt-blowing horrors, the council has, with its customary civic bravery, put off action and bowed instead to the perpetrators of the problem. With this approach, problems will never be solved, merely stacked up for future equivocation.
William McNairn, Palos Verdes Estates
To the editor:
Whatever happened to the good old broom and the rake? The issue should be how much more time would it take to use these simple and environmentally correct implements than to "sweep" with a leaf blower. I maintain that most tasks could be swept away as readily with the former as with the latter.
While sympathy abounds for the gardeners, has anyone considered the harm done to their hearing, and to their lungs and eyes, from the exhaust of gasoline-powered leaf blowers?
Jeff Drobman, Westlake Village
To the editor:
My gardener, a gentleman from Mexico who has been with me for a long time, changed to an electric blower and a 100-foot extension cord on July 1 in order to comply with the new regulations. He plugs it into my Christmas lights outlet in front and my barbecue outlet in back with my permission and complete concurrence. He did my yard in the usual length of time and just as neatly on his last visit, July 3.
Norman Henry, Northridge
To the editor:
Noise pollution is not the most serious problem with gas-powered leaf blowers. It is air pollution. A 3.5 horsepower gas mower or leaf blower can emit the same amount of volatile organic compounds (key precursors to smog) in an hour as a new car driven 340 miles.
Bill Boyarsky's (July 7) inference that this act was passed because a few Westsiders didn't like the noise levels shows his ignorance about what these blowers are doing to our air quality and is an insult to former Councilman Marvin Braude's attempts to save L.A.'s environment.
Brett Walker, Marina del Rey
To the editor:
Before Braude, we had a happy gardener--a cigarette in one hand, a leaf blower in the other.
Eleanor Sweet, Tarzana
PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: July 17, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 5B
BYLINE: Carolyn Bermingham
DATELINE: Blasdell, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ronald Sporyz, George Lee, Village Trustees
The Buffalo News reports that the Blasdell (New York) Village Board decided Wednesday to postpone action on a proposed noise ordinance because the board was split on the issue 2-2 in the absence of Mayor Ernest Jewett.
According to the article, the proposed ordinance was supported by Trustees Ronald Sporyz and George Lee, who hoped it would pass in order to address loud music and other noise over the summer months. However, Trustee Kathleen Cole questioned the willingness of the Town of Hamburg Police Department's willingness to enforce the proposed ordinance, and said she would vote against it "until we come up with a clear-cut law." The village currently has no noise ordinance, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: July 17, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 5B
BYLINE: Jay Rey
DATELINE: Buffalo, New York
The Buffalo News reports that officials with the Town of Cheektowaga, New York and Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) have agreed to investigate ways to provide some noise relief for residents living near the Greater Buffalo International Airport.
According to the article, the idea of finding funds to help soundproof homes and other buildings most affected by jet noise recently was raised by Cheektowaga Supervisor Dennis Gabryszak. But the idea needed the support of NFTA, and last week, NFTA Executive Director Richard Swist told Gabryszak that the authority would consider whether noise relief is warranted and whether there is federal grant money available for soundproofing. to help residents install airtight windows or insulate their homes, for example.
The idea of providing noise relief for homes isn't new, the article reports. In 1990, Cheektowaga Supervisor Frank Swiatek and the Town Board asked the NFTA to conduct a noise study for residents living near the airport, but a study never materialized. In the past several months, Supervisor Gabryszak has been pursuing the issue, inquiring about possible grant money from the Federal Aviation Administration through the office of Rep. Jack Quinn (R-Hamburg). After a story about noise issues in the Buffalo News last month, Gabryszak said he has received numerous calls and letters from residents asking him to continue to look into the matter.
Meanwhile, Swist of the NFTA offered to meet with town officials to explain noise-relief measures already underway, including federal laws requiring airplanes to have quieter engines within the next few years, the article reports. Gabryszak said that aircraft noise is not a major problem for residents, but is a quality-of-life issue that he believes is worth pursuing right now.
PUBLICATION: St. Petersburg Times
DATE: July 15, 1997
SECTION: North Pinellas Times; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Deborah O'Neil
DATELINE: Oldsmar, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dave Wilson, resident
The St. Petersburg Times reports that residents in Oldsmar, Florida who live along the new State Road 580 want a noise barrier built to shield them from traffic noise. The new highway runs as close as 20 feet to some people's homes at the end of what were previously dead-end, wooded streets. Meanwhile, officials say a noise barrier would be too expensive for the neighborhood, but they are considering other options such as landscaping.
According to the article, residents lobbied for a noise barrier before the highway was finished. In April 1996, resident Dave Wilson wrote in a letter to the city, "This road without a barrier wall is unsafe for the children in the neighborhood. Also, the road is so close that it is a high probability that if a vehicle left the road out of control that it would crash into one of our homes." However, when state Department of Transportation officials analyzed the residents' request for a noise barrier a year ago, they decided that a continuous wall would not be possible because of plans to open two former dead-end streets, Oakwood Boulevard and Chestnut Street, and connect them to the highway. They also concluded that a wall would cost $30,217 per property, for a total cost of $150,000.
The article goes on to say that in June of this year, city officials asked state Sen. Jack Latvala (R-Palm Harbor) and Rep. Sandy Safley (R-Clearwater) to hold a public meeting with residents and the Florida Department of Transportation. However, the article reports, Friday a meeting was held without inviting residents. Attending the meeting were Sen. Latvala, DOT District Director John Temple, City Manager Bruce Haddock, City Councillor Jeff Sandler, and Assistant Public Works Director Robert Cyr. Rep. Safley did not attend the meeting. Sen. Latvala said Monday that the general consensus at the meeting was that something needs to be done. City Councillor Sandler said it appeared that a wall would be too expensive, but "DOT understands we have to do something to help these people." Leo Folsom, a spokesperson for DOT, later said that the agency agreed to consider buffers such as landscaping or fencing.
Meanwhile, resident Dave Wilson said he was surprised to learn that a meeting had been held without residents, and was disappointed that he did not get to talk to officials about the dangers the road poses to residents. Wilson said, "It should have been a public meeting, at least one where we could hear what was going on." He added that DOT's cost estimate for the noise barrier is "absurd," and that landscaping will not solve the problem. "It's not the view of the road primarily, it's the noise from the road, the safety from the road," Wilson said. "They aren't going to wipe this away with a couple of plants."
PUBLICATION: The Patriot Ledger
DATE: July 17, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 17C
BYLINE: John Madden
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Richard Neely, Milton Selectman; Claudia Clifford, Milton's representative to Massport's citizens advisory group and chair of Milton's airplane-noise committee; State Rep. Brian Joyce (D-Milton); State Sen. W. Paul White (D-Boston)
The Patriot Ledger reports that last fall, a new flight path was approved for Boston's Logan International Airport, designed to give residents in Milton and Quincy relief from airplane noise. However, local officials said this week that pilots consistently ignore the flight path during off-peak travel times, taking planes over Milton. The comments came at a meeting Tuesday between state and local officials from several South Shore towns, officials from Massport, and officials from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The meeting was called to discuss Massport's expansion plan for the airport, which includes the addition of a 5,000-foot runway, but local officials expressed frustration about continuing airplane noise and the lack of communication with Massport and the FAA.
The article reports that with the old flight path, jets taking off from the airport's Runway 27 would often turn over Milton once they reached an altitude of 3,000 feet. However, the new flight path calls for planes to fly over Franklin Park before turning. According to Milton Selectman Richard Neely, there has been "no effort" to enforce the new flight path during off-peak times when the weather is clear. Neely added that Milton officials will not be willing to support expansion plans of the airport until they see the new flight path route being enforced. Massport currently does not have a definitive timetable for its $18 million expansion, but the agency will need support from the cities and towns once it moves forward, the article reports.
The article says that Tuesday's meeting was organized by Claudia Clifford, Milton's representative to Massport's citizens advisory group and chair of Milton's airplane-noise committee, and state Rep. Brian Joyce (D-Milton). Joyce said he wanted to get Massport and the FAA to "abide by what they've already agreed to." Clifford said involving local legislators from the South Shore will give the area some leverage to ensure their needs are addressed.
At Tuesday's meeting, representatives from Milton, Braintree, and Dorchester gave Massport officials a list of recommendations to control noise levels. According to Clifford, the same recommendations were issued five years ago, but Massport never issued a written response. The recommendations include hiring an independent aviation consultant to study alternative runway approaches and making the development of regional airports a priority, the article says. Officials with Massport and the FAA said they would respond to the recommendations in writing by Sept. 1.
Meanwhile, Betty Desrosiers, Massport's director of aviation planning, said Massport and the FAA have been working on solving aircraft noise problems. For example, Desrosiers said Massport had recently appointed former state senator Jane Swift to oversee regional-airport development in order to take pressure off the overburdened Logan Airport.
PUBLICATION: The Capital
DATE: July 13, 1997
SECTION: Front; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Christopher Munsey
DATELINE: Annapolis, Maryland area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dick Barton, Len Pimental, residents; State Sen. John Astle
The Capital reports that the South River, near Annapolis, Maryland, has become a battleground over restrictions on powerboats. Residents living in the area want a quieter life, and powerboaters want open waters for their fast boats. Last month, two events focused attention on the issues: a state hearing on boat noise regulations, and the death of a man thrown from a speeding high-performance boat. State officials are considering speed limits on the South River and two other rivers, the article says.
The article reports that residents see powerboaters as irresponsible and reckless. Dick Barton, a resident on South River, said, "I'm not against their boats, I'm against them going like a bat out of hell past our docks. You're seeing more of these boats ... more noise, more speed and more racing. It all keeps increasing." Another South River resident, Len Pimental, said, "If you're doing that kind of speed, how in the hell are you going to stop? We have canoeists and crabbers out here, and they're vulnerable."
Noise issues have become a controversial issue again this summer, the article reports. Last summer, a law sponsored by state Sen. John Astle set temporary boat noise limits at 90 decibels for all state waters. This August, those regulations are scheduled to become permanent, and after a petition was signed by dozens of residents protesting one provision of the regulations, the Department of Natural Resources held a hearing in June. Residents dislike the provision that allows powerboaters who are affiliated with a boating association to test their engines four times a week, for a half-hour at a time, without complying with the noise limit. Meanwhile, powerboaters don't like the provision that the noise test for violations be conducted with the boat's engine at idle and the muffler system deactivated. The public comment period on the regulations ended Tuesday, and the secretary of the Department of Natural Resources now will make recommendations to the State Boat Act Advisory Committee, the article reports.
The article says that boat speeds will also become an issue later this year. State officials currently are seeking public comment on new speed limits for the South, Severn, and Magothy rivers.
In addition to noise limits safety concerns have also been raised about powerboats, the article says, especially this summer after a man was killed in a high-speed boating accident. In June, Mark Linton was killed when the boat he was in, traveling at an estimated 70 mph, hit a wake generated by a cabin cruiser on the Patapsco River, which made the boat go airborne and threw him from it. Mike Schachnuk, president of the Chesapeake Bay Power Boat Association, said a high-performance boat is usually equipped with engines of several hundred horsepower or greater, and can sometimes reach speeds of 100 mph or faster. Chief Warrant Officer Brian Zane, commander of Coast Guard Station Annapolis, said that "go fast" boats aren't any more dangerous than other powerboats, but at high speeds, an error can create worse consequences. Major Tammy Broll, chief of Field Operations for Natural Resources Police, agreed with that assessment.
Frank Beachley, president of National Marine Underwriters, an Annapolis-based boat insurance firm, confirmed that assessment as well, the article reports. He said high-performance powerboaters pay more for insurance, not because they are involved in more accidents, but because when there is an accident, the cost of the damage is greater.
The article says that some boaters worry about the lack of training requirements for older boaters. Boaters born after July 1, 1972 are required to take a safe boating course before operating a powerboat, but for anyone older, there are no training requirements.
Meanwhile, some Maryland powerboaters continue to say that the state waters belong to all citizens, not just people who live along the shore. Gary D., a high-performance powerboater, said boating at fast speeds demands concentration and an ability to read the waves. "It takes a lot of concentration, and you have to watch the water all the time ... but it's fun," he said. Powerboater Todd Harper owns a boat that can top 100 mph, but he goes slow until he reaches the mouth of the river out of consideration for shoreline residents. Harper said, "I like racing that boat like nothing else. That's what I work for."
PUBLICATION: The Record
DATE: July 15, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. L03
BYLINE: Monsy Alvarado
DATELINE: West Paterson, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Anne Gilmore, resident; Rep. William Pascrell, Jr. (D-Paterson)
The Record reports that noise barriers are being built along Route 80 in West Paterson, New Jersey, in a project expected to be completed in June 1998. But at least one resident who lives just outside of the area where the noise barriers will stop, wants the state to extend noise barriers to her area.
According to the article, three rust-colored concrete noise barriers, from 14 to 24 feet high, will be built along the eastbound side in West Paterson from east of the Morris Canal to Squirrelwood Road, then from west of Madison Avenue in Paterson to Lakeview Avenue. On the westbound side, the barrier will run from Mary Avenue to the Passaic River in West Paterson. Officials from the state Department of Transportation said the barriers will muffle traffic noise by about 10 decibels. This translates into a one-half reduction of traffic noise for residents immediately adjacent to the highway, and a one-quarter reduction for those two blocks away, the article reports. In an attempt to make the barriers more attractive, they will be chiseled in areas to depict the Great Falls, the bridge above the falls, and a powerhouse.
The article goes on to say that Rep. William Pascrell Jr. (D-Paterson), state Sen. John Girgenti (D-Hawthorne), and officials of the Department of Transportation (DOT) were in West Paterson on Monday afternoon to tour the noise barrier sites. The lawmakers acknowledged that the project would not help all the residents affected by traffic noise, but they said the barriers were a step in the right direction.
Meanwhile, resident Anne Gilmore purchased a home along Route 80 two years ago on Brophy Lane, believing that the state was going to build a noise barrier in her area. In March, Gilmore was surprised to learn that there were no plans to extend the barrier to her area. Gilmore said, "As soon as they started digging, they told me it would go from Woodrow Avenue east to Squirrelwood Road exit. I live west of Woodrow Avenue. You are talking about a strip in West Paterson affected by this, why would you leave off a few people?" According to the article, Gilmore approached the lawmakers and DOT officials Monday during their tour and told them the noise makes it impossible for her to hold a conversation in her back yard and to sleep at night. Gilmore said, "The condition exists for us all. We should all have the same right, and the money should be distributed equally." Officials said that a noise barrier was not built behind Gilmore's home because funding was not available, and because the property is located by the Morris Canal and has been designated freshwater wetlands by the state Department of Environmental Protection. However, Rep. Pascrell told Gilmore he would ask the DOT to look into the matter and consider whether the noise barrier could be extended.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel
DATE: July 13, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Karla Schuster
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ellen Lohr, president, Boca Raton Airport Action Group (BRAAG)
The Sun-Sentinel reports that two unlikely groups have joined forces to oppose the expansion of the Boca Raton (Florida) Airport: homeowners and pilots of small planes. The newly formed Boca Raton Aviation Club, a group of small-plane pilots, wants to lease some of vacant land at the airport to create a pilots' cooperative that would offer lower gas and storage prices. Both the pilots and the homeowners want to curb expansion that they fear will increase jet traffic at the busy airport.
According to the article, Glen Cohen, a pilot and chair of the new aviation club, said, "The airport has forgotten about us; we're the little guys and we feel like nobody is listening to us." The group was formed as an alternative to the Boca Raton Pilots' Association, which has members who are jet pilots and small-plane pilots. The new club wants the airport authority to lease about 15 acres of land to the club to create a pilots' cooperative that would offer gas and storage at lower prices than those at the airport's only maintenance operator, Boca Aviation. Members of the club said there should be an alternative at the airport, and have proposed a self-service fuel pump for members, in which fuel would cost about $1.75 per gallon, compared to Boca Aviation's $2.34 per gallon. Marty Kent, vice chair of the new flying club, said, "I don't have a problem with anyone making a profit, but we feel we're being left out of all the discussions about the airport's growth and we want a voice." Cohen said he will make his proposal to the authority at its meeting on Wednesday.
The land that the new club wants currently is under lease to Boca Aviation, which is planning a $2.5 million expansion. However, Stuart Jet Center, another maintenance operator that wants to lease the land, recently filed a federal complaint charging airport officials with rejecting its bid in order to preserve Boca Aviation's monopoly. A spokesperson for the Federal Aviation Administration, Kathleen Bergin, said the agency will investigate the complaint, "but could not and would not halt construction" during the inquiry.
Meanwhile, Ellen Lohr, president of the Boca Raton Airport Action Group (BRAAG), a new coalition of 14 homeowners' associations organized to fight noise and expansion at the airport, said she hoped the complaint would give the pilots' cooperative idea a chance, the article reports. Lohr added, "We feel Boca Aviation hasn't been a good neighbor and I think another maintenance operator will bring more jets, so a pilots' cooperative for small planes just seems like a lot more people-friendly."
However, the article says, according to Airport Manager Nelson Rhodes, there simply isn't any land left for a pilots' cooperative. The airport has already earmarked 15 for expansion and 5 acres for a new training and office center. "Anybody can ask the authority to consider something and they will make the decisions, but our plans are pretty firm," Rhodes said. airport Airport officials, however, have sought to improve their image and relationship with the surrounding residents. They've created a new noise advisory committee aimed at giving residents a regular forum to air complaints.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: July 13, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 11
BYLINE: Stephanie Zimmerman
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ronald Wietecha, Park Ridge Mayor; Wally Douthwaite, Des Plaines City Manager; Suburban O'Hare Commission
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the new "Fly Quiet" program at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport isn't working, according to officials from some suburbs. The voluntary program was launched June 17 in an attempt to get pilots and air traffic controllers to undertake routes and procedures that will help mitigate jet noise. The program included diverting nighttime flights to unpopulated areas and quieting engine tests on the runways.
According to the article, Park Ridge Mayor Ronald Wietecha said there are more planes flying over the suburb than ever before. He added that the city is getting 6 to 12 written or telephone complaints a day, which is "more citizen complaints. . .than in all my six years as mayor of this town." Wietecha said low-flying, noisy planes flew over his home at 6:33, 6:37, and about 6:40 a.m. Friday, even though the noise reduction program is supposed to be in effect between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The city's Fourth of July concert in Hodges Park also was spoiled by jet noise, Wietecha said. "We're suffering more than ever before," Wietecha said. "If they don't do something soon, they're going to see Park Ridge residents picketing the airport and driving their cars to the access roads and abandoning them there." The suburbs of Des Plaines and Elmhurst also report continuing problems with noise, the article says. According to Wally Douthwaite, Des Plaines City Manager, his city has been getting 3 to 4 jet noise complaints a day.
However, Dennis Cullton, Chicago Aviation Department spokesperson, dismissed the criticism as politically motivated. "This is the type of reaction I would expect from the mayor of Park Ridge and maybe some of the other members of the Suburban O'Hare Commission who don't want to make progress in improving the quality of life of some of our suburban neighbors," Culloton said. Culloton went on to say that on certain days, there has been more air traffic over Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Norridge, and parts of Chicago because of seasonal wind patterns that require takeoffs to go in that direction. But, he maintained, on other days, such as Friday, takeoffs were mostly headed toward Elk Grove Village, North Lake, and unincorporated Cook County. Culloton also said the noise reduction program is being monitored to identify areas for improvement, and a meeting took place Friday between the Aviation Department and air traffic controllers to identify quieter routes.
The article concludes that residents are encouraged to log noise complaints with the city at 800-435-9569.
PUBLICATION: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: July 14, 1997
SECTION: Aukesha Pg. 1
BYLINE: Sam Martino
DATELINE: Eagle, Wisconsin
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Don Wilton, Town chair
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that officials in Eagle, Wisconsin have lifted a ban on sporting clay shooting at the McMiller Sports Center after they discovered they made a mistake earlier this week in establishing the prohibition. According to town chair Don Wilton, officials made the mistake Monday when they rejected a Department of Natural Resources request for a year extension on a conditional use permit to operate the range. Town officials later realized they could not legally initiate a ban before the current permit, which was agreed to last year by officials, expires July 27. Wilton said officials would ban the shooting clay range again, if necessary, once the current permit expires.
The article reports that the ban was initiated at the request of neighbors, who were disturbed about gunfire noise from the sporting clay range. Under the ban, the Town Board had agreed to let Wern Inc., the private operator that leases the range from the state, to continue two shooting competitions today and Sunday, after which all other sporting clay shoots were banned until Wern and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) came up with a plan to reduce gunfire noise. The DNR had failed to keep a promise made in writing last July to assemble a citizen advisory committee and a department task force to plan for noise abatement measures and the future operation of the range. Donald Tills, a land management supervisor from DNR, appeared Monday before the Town Board and said that a reorganization at the agency had delayed the committee appointments, but a citizen advisory committee would be named at a July 24 meeting.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: July 13, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Stephen Fehr
DATELINE: Washington, D.C.
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mike Metcalf, Marita Heep, Don MacGlashan, Evalynn Dickey, Sherwin Landfield, residents and activists
The Washington Post reports that a new terminal at the National Airport in Washington, D.C. will open in two weeks, and many Washington, Maryland, and Virginia residents who live near the airport's flight path are worried that the new terminal will lead to an increase in flights that and will make the intolerable noise problem even worse. However, airport officials insist that the federal regulations in place that limit the number of flights from National will prohibit any increase. Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other U.S. Congress members are considering legislation that could lead to more flights to and from National.
The article reports that the new 1.1 million-square-foot terminal, part of a $1 billion renovation at National, will allow the airport to handle 19 million passengers annually, about 3 million more than now use the airport. Many of the residents concerned that the new terminal will eventually mean more flights and noise have been part of an anti-noise movement that has lobbied against the airport for years. The article says that about 19,000 people live near National's flight path.
Two recent converts to the anti-noise cause are Mike Metcalf and Marita Heep, who turn up the television in their Southwest Washington living room to drown out the jet noise, the article reports. They said that since the outside of the glass-walled terminal was completed last fall, the jet noise has been reflecting off the building and across the river into their town house. Heep, a high school teacher, wears earplugs when she grades papers, the article says. Metcalf bought a sound meter to take decibel readings of the jets. Metcalf, a defense intelligence analyst, said, "It's like war on peoplet. In a few weeks, those jets at the gates are going to be pointed right at us, and it's going to be constantly, noticeably louder." Don MacGlashan, a Chevy Chase resident, said the constant jet noise rattles windows and "intrudes on our sensibilities." He added, "The new terminal may be a marvelous structure and an impressive showcase, but once you have this incredible new facility, there will be a great deal of pressure to take advantage of this and increase the number of flights and bring in larger aircraft." Arlington resident Evalynn Dickey was so angry about what she thought were planes straying from National's flight path that she hired someone to videotape them, the article reports.
The article goes on to say that airport and airline officials insist that there are no plans to raise the number of flights at the airport. National now has 44 gates and three runways, and those numbers will be the same after the new terminal opens, airport officials said. Richard Dei Tos Jr., a spokesperson for the airlines at National, said, "There's no physical room at National for bigger aircraft. We'd have to do more major changes." He added that the taxiways at the airport are not designed for large numbers of wide-body planes, and if a 767 comes into a gate, a smaller plane would have to use the adjacent gates.
In addition, the article reports, the number and distance of flights is restricted at National, a condition under which Congress transferred control of National and Dulles International airports from the federal government to a regional authority in 1987. The flight restrictions are part of federal policy to reduce noise and congestion at airports in Washington, Chicago and New York. National is permitted to have 37 jet flights an hour from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., many of those being the noisiest jets such as the Boeing 727. At other times, the article reports, only the quietest jets -- such as the Boeing 757 and MD-80 -- are allowed because of nighttime noise standards. Airport officials said that by 2000, only the quietest aircraft will be flying at National, which should cut noise considerably. The article notes that airlines compete for the limited number of takeoffs and landings by purchasing "slots" at the airport for as much as $2 million apiece, a system that favors established carriers and makes it difficult for newer airlines to enter the market. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), said, "Obviously the pressure [to add flights] will increase because of the attractiveness of the new terminal. But we have an ironclad agreement there will be no expansion of gates, no expansion of flights, no change in the nighttime curfew and no change in the perimeter rule." The perimeter rule, the article says, limits the distance traveled by nonstop flights to and from National to 1,250 miles, which helps to promote Dulles Airport as the region's long-distance airport..
According to the article, some members of Congress may try to change the restrictions at National. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), among others, is considering proposing legislation that could lead to more flights to and from National, the article says. His potential action could be supported by a recent report from the General Accounting Office that concluded that flight restrictions on at National could lead to higher fares there than at most other airports. In addition, the perimeter rule at National prevents America West, the second-largest airline started after deregulation, from serving National with nonstop flights from its Phoenix hub. McCain, who is up for reelection next year, has vowed to "bring home the bacon" to help a home state company, in the words of an airport authority board member. A spokesperson for McCain said he is seeking ways to "fine tune" the slot system to balance the concerns of airlines such as America West and concerns of local officials. James Wilding, general manager of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs National and Dulles, said that if the distance rule were eliminated, airlines at National probably would cut service to small Northeastern cities in favor of longer flights, because carriers make more money on the longer flights.
The article says that McCain's interest and the General Accounting Office report anger local officials, who say they developed a $2 billion renovation program at National and Dulles on the understanding that the rules wouldn't change and that an increase in flights in the region would occur at Dulles and Baltimore-Washington International airports. Betty Ann Krahnke, a Montgomery County Council member who chairs a regional airport noise abatement committee, said, "We get tired of having to deal with this issue over and over. We thought we had a promise. We're not trying to stop growth, we're trying to put it where we planned for it -- at Dulles and BWI."
In addition, officials and anti-noise activists are watching efforts by the Federal Aviation Administration to redesign Washington's airspace, the article reports. FAA officials maintain that air safety could be threatened if something is not done about the crowded skies over Washington, and are considering building a regional radar center that would control air traffic at the area's major airports. Route changes could lead to more flights and noise in some areas, the article says. Sherwin Landfield, an Arlington resident and a leader in the noise fight, sums up all the problems by saying, "The solution to any of these problems is political. After all, National exists for the convenience of Congress, and some members are always trying to relax the limitations on activity there. We have to work hard just to keep things from getting worse."
PUBLICATION: Indianapolis Star
DATE: July 13, 1997
SECTION: Business; Pg. E01
BYLINE: Mary Francis
DATELINE: Indianapolis, Indiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mark Waterfill, Beth Chambers, residents
The Indianapolis Star reports that in response to residents' complaints about jet noise from the Indianapolis International Airport, the Indianapolis Airport Authority has proposed a plan to soundproof homes in certain areas or offer to buy the homes from residents and re-sell them. The airport's proposal is an attempt to preserve neighborhoods to a greater degree than has been done in the past, airport officials said.
The article reports that the Indianapolis Airport has grown into a huge hub for air cargo airlines, which schedule many nighttime takeoffs. The airport authority for years has bought homes too close to its runways and demolished them, hoping commercial or industrial development would result. This approach has been criticized, however, for taking millions of dollars in property from the tax rolls without generating much economic development. The airport's new proposal, it is hoped, will leave neighborhoods more intact and minimize the effect on the tax base. Melanie DePoy, environment and safety director for BAA Indianapolis, the firm that runs the airport, said, "We began searching for ways to provide mitigation, but not remove additional homes from the tax rolls . . . we're beginning to look at alternatives to buying and tearing down."
According to the article, the airport has proposed three new programs, none of which will become official until after a public hearing process and approval by the Federal Aviation Administration. Plans are for two of the programs, soundproofing and purchase assurance, to be offered to about 359 homes, mostly in southeastern Hendricks County. These homeowners can choose to have their homes soundproofed or sell them to the airport. The residents who choose soundproofing can live in their homes for a trial period after the soundproofing, and then decide to sell if the jet noise is still too loud. Homes bought by the airport will be re-sold, the article says.
The third new program, according to the article, is a sales assistance plan for about 959 homeowners in Decatur Township and those further west in Hendricks County who can't find buyers willing to pay the appraised value of their property. Under the program, if homeowners sell their homes for less than the appraised value, the airport will pay the difference up to 5% of the appraised value.
In addition, the airport proposes to continue their guaranteed purchase program, through which homes are purchased and torn down. Under the most recent proposal, only 132 homes will be eligible for this program, the article says. By comparison, about 800 homes have been purchased and torn down since 1987 under the program.
The reaction of many has been positive to the airport's proposed programs. Jerry Holifield, Plainfield Schools Superintendent, said the airport's new attitude about preserving neighborhoods is a relief. "It will help the town and the school corporation by leaving the homes there . . . the worst thing to do would be to tear them down. The airport has been listening," Holifield said. In addition, residents in Sycamore Estates earlier this year filed a lawsuit against the airport authority over jet noise, but withdrew the suit after the authority announced the new program, saying their concerns were satisfied. Beth Chambers, one of the residents involved in the lawsuit who has lived in the neighborhood for 10 years, said, "I would've never dreamed the airport would grow the way it did . . . after they got the postal contract and after FedEx moved in, there was a huge explosion of airplanes." Chambers said her family plans to sell their home to the airport. "We're an open window-type household . . . we try to do stuff outside, go out and sit on the deck. But then, if it gets real busy, we give up and go back in," she said. Mark Waterfill, another resident, said he already had tried to sell his home, but gave up after two years of trying. His family also plans to sell to the airport.
The article goes on to say that the airport authority's noise mitigation efforts for years have been directed at land in Decatur Township, and a small area in the township is targeted for the guaranteed purchase program this time as well. Decatur Township Assessor Charles Coleman said when the airport bought homes in the early 90s, it put a big stress on the township's tax base. Over about 30 years, Coleman said, the airport purchased 480 parcels in the township, taking a total assessed value of $3.8 million off the township tax rolls. Coleman added that airport officials had promised to develop the properties to replace the lost tax base, but it took a long time for development to catch up. However, the township is finally seeing some relief, Coleman said, with several new developments that will replace the value of the lost homes. The article notes that in much of the Hendricks County area, redevelopment won't be an issue because the areas will remain residential.
The article mentions that about 80% of the funding for purchasing homes and soundproofing comes from the federal government. Soundproofing costs can range from $3,000 to $25,000 per house, the article reports. However, the new sales assistance program will be funded by local funds that could reach $3 million. The local money is raised through fees to airlines, according to DePoy of BAA, but most airlines are supportive of the efforts because they don't want to be asked to change their operations, which is more likely if noise mitigation efforts don't work.
Public meetings about the new proposals are scheduled in the next two weeks, the article reports, and airport officials are encouraging residents to attend. DePoy said the airport also hopes to set up a soundproofed house that will let residents see how well the soundproofing measures work.
PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: July 19, 1997
SECTION: Denver & The West; Pg. B-02
BYLINE: Steve Garnaas
DATELINE: Denver, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Marty Flaum, Adams County Commissioner
The Denver Post reports that Denver officials have said they hope a new study of aircraft noise at Denver International Airport will help to eliminate a federal ban on funding imposed in 1994 because of aircraft noise. Eliminating the ban is the first step in paving the way for a controversial sixth runway at the airport, the article says.
The article reports that residents have complained loudly about aircraft noise since the airport opened in February 1995. Most of the complaints have come from Adams County, but residents of Douglas, Elbert, and other counties have also complained. The City of Denver will pay for most of the new noise study, and the counties of Douglas, Arapahoe, Weld, Boulder, Elbert, Jefferson, and Larimer already have agreed to cooperate in the project. However, Adams County officials are refusing to cooperate, the article says. Adams County Commissioner Marty Flaum said that the noise issue has already been studied to death, and that the city should focus on steps to alleviate the problem. Flaum said, "We are encouraging that language in the (federal law) remain strong in opposition to the sixth runway until the noise problems are resolved. Until there's a solution in place that works and we can see it's effective, we want the prohibition in that language."
According to the article, the noise study is being backed by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, and Denver officials are hoping the study will show that aircraft noise is no longer a major problem and help overturn the federal funding ban. Andrew Hudson, press secretary to Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, said, "The ban prevents the city from competing for federal funds. We're the only airport in the country banned from competition." Sean Conway, a spokesperson for Sen. Allard, said the senator wants to see the results of the noise study before deciding whether to support lifting the runway funding ban. However, U.S. Rep. Joel Hefley said he is afraid the study will be used to lift the ban before the noise problem is solved, the article says. Hefley said it is important to solve the jet noise problem first before lifting the ban.
The article notes that the proposed 16,000-foot, $60-million runway originally was scheduled to be built before the airport opened, but was eliminated to save money.
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: July 16, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A15
BYLINE: Benjamin Pimentel
DATELINE: San Jose, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lenora Porcella, chair, Citizens Against Airport Pollution
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the group Citizens Against Airport Pollution filed a lawsuit Monday in Santa Clara Superior Court against the San Jose (California) International Airport, the City of San Jose, and the San Jose City Council over an expansion plan for the airport. The group argues that the project would cause traffic gridlock and increased air and noise pollution, and that city officials did not adequately consider the potential environmental impacts. Members of the citizens group said they are not against a bigger airport, but they would like to see a scaled-back expansion plan.
According to the article, the airport's expansion plan, approved by the city council in June, calls for a third passenger terminal, a second full-length runway, and a bigger fuel storage facility, said Cary Greene, a planner for the San Jose Airport Department. The expansion plan would add 18 gates to the airport's current 31 gates. The airport currently serves 10 million passengers per year, Greene said, and the expansion would allow it to serve 18 million passengers by 2010.
But Lenora Porcella, chair of Citizens Against Airport Pollution, said the South Bay already is reeling from congestion and the plan would make it worse, the article reports. Porcella said the Guadalupe Washington Neighborhood, a predominantly Latino community near the airport, would bear the brunt of the noise and air pollution from the expansion. She added that the lawsuit may be amended to include civil rights violations charges against city officials. The citizens group argues that a scaled-back expansion plan would create fewer problems for neighborhoods near the airport, and advocates for a less ambitious plan that would allow the airport to serve 12 million passengers a year, but would not require a new terminal.
In response to the lawsuit, San Jose Assistant City Attorney Bill Hughes said the environmental impacts of the expansion were thoroughly reviewed, and rejected the idea of a scaled-back expansion.
PUBLICATION: Airports
DATE: July 15, 1997
SECTION: Vol. 14, No. 28; Pg. 282
DATELINE: Amsterdam, Netherlands
The publication Airports reports that officials at the Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, Netherlands announced new restrictions on nighttime flights Friday. The new rules, which still must be approved by the government, call for a ban on flights of DC-10s and Boeing 747-100s, -200s, -300s, and SPs between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. starting August 1. Flights which are scheduled before 11 p.m., but are delayed, will also be prohibited, the article says. Airport officials said the ban is necessary to comply with the Netherlands' legally defined noise limits, but cargo airlines operating at the airport are furious about the proposed restrictions.
The article reports that Martinair and the cargo handling company Aero Groundservices are considering legal action in response to the proposed restrictions, and El Al is thinking about shifting its operations to the Bierset Airport in Liege, Belgium. KLM officials (which jointly controls Martinair with Nedlloyd) said the new ban also would affect three weekly freighter services operated on its behalf by the U.S. carrier Atlas Air. The article says that officials from Martinair claim the ban is unfair because it excludes the airline's three Chapter 3 Boeing 747 aircraft (which are newer, quieter planes). KLM officials said they were prepared to submit a counter-proposal to the government that would allow flights from Chapter 3 planes.
The article points out that the new restrictions will affect frieght and charter operations. The airport handled about 1.3 million tons of cargo in 1996, and is expected to lose about 30,000 tons in the second half of this year due to the night ban. However, the article says, the tonnage is expected to rise again in 1998. Airport officials said that if the ban is not imposed now, the airport would have to shut down starting in September for failure to meet the country's noise regulations.
Previous week: July 6, 1997
Next week: July 20, 1997
Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
Industrial/Manufacturing
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Lawsuits
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
Regulation
Residential and Community Noise
Snowmobile and ATV Noise
Research and Studies
Technological Solutions to Noise
Transportation Related Noise
Violence and Noise
Watercraft Noise
Workplace Noise
Chronological Index
Geographical Index