PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: September 18, 1999
SECTION: Tempe/Ahwatukee Foothills Community; Pg. Ev1
BYLINE: by Betty Beard
DATELINE: Guadalupe, Arizona
The Arizona Republic reports that noise from celebrations in the once-isolated Hispanic-Yaqui community of Guadalupe, Arizona has been bothering residents of an expanding Tempe. Noise and diminished property values are the concerns of Tempe residents, and even some residents of Guadalupe itself. Police acknowledge that the community is celebratory by nature, but enforce limits such as an 11:30 cut-off time for outdoor music.
The article reports that noise from celebrations in the Hispanic-Yaqui community of Guadalupe, Arizona has been bothering residents of Tempe. Small houses and the expense of renting commercial facilities lead many citizens to hold parties outside their homes. The community used to be relatively isolated, but as Tempe has expanded their celebrations have begun to irritate residents of Tempe.
The article notes that festivities at the recent Mexican Independence Day -- attended by thousands of people -- were cut short when a band played past the 11:30 cut-off time. About six people called the Guadalupe police about the noise, including both Tempe and Guadalupe residents. Police usually tell noisy citizens to quiet down, but acknowledge that many annual celebrations are loud by nature.
The article concludes, noting that residents of both communities are affected by diminished property values. A local noise ordinance was initiated three years ago, but was temporarily abandoned after the regulation of family gatherings proved to be difficult.
PUBLICATION: Gloucestershire Echo
DATE: September 18, 1999
SECTION: Environment: Pollution, Pg.8
BYLINE: Davina Walters
DATELINE: Cheltenham, U.K.
The Gloucestershire Echo prints a letter to the editor from a Cheltenham, U.K. resident which criticizes the tendency of many to ignore noise as a real form of pollution. She says that noise pollution is just as bad as any other kind of pollution. She responds to a recent letter to the editor which said that noise from Staverton Airport is not annoying.
"Madam - I would like to reply to the letters in favour of Staverton Airport (Letters, September 11), which argued that plane noise was not intrusive.
But first there is a general point, one which is too readily overlooked, because it suits the noise merchants to do so.
Noise, whether on land, sea or air, is a form of pollution, more insidious but no less dangerous than oil spills and explosions.
It is just more easy to ignore. I feel it is pointless to express a "preference" for nuisance from the air over that from the roads, or neighbours, because one is just as offensive and often as unnecessary as the other.
I also feel that there is no comparison between Brize Norton and Staverton and it is up to the people near that airport to monitor performance, frequency, low flying and noise just as it is up to us to do something about Staverton.
Letters to the Echo let off steam but those noisy little nuisances are still up there every day between 9am and tea-time and nothing will change until positive action is taken."
PUBLICATION: The Tampa Tribune
DATE: September 18, 1999
SECTION: South Tampa, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Kathy Steele and Orval Jackson
DATELINE: Tampa, Florida
The Tampa Tribune reports that Tampa, Florida's International Airport held a public workshop and discussed "a new runway, a larger terminal, more parking, light rail, and noise abatement programs." Those projects are part of the long-term plan to accommodate 25 million passengers by 2020, nearly doubling the current number. Community and Airport Authority members created the plan together, and hope for FAA approval within 1.5 years. A separate noise abatement plan, which will include an engine-testing structure and soundproofing of area homes, will be considered by separately by the FAA after an additional public hearing later this year.
The article reports that seven Tampa, Florida residents attended a public workshop designed to inform the public of expansion plans at Tampa International Airport through 2020. This workshop was the third in a series of three, and discussed "a new runway, a larger terminal, more parking, light rail, and noise abatement programs" that are part of the long-term plan to accommodate 25 million passengers by 2020, nearly doubling the current number.
The article goes on, noting that the process has included the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, a community-based committee, and several civic associations. The plan will now go on to the FAA for approval, which could take up to 1.5 years. Also, a separate noise abatement plan will go to the FAA after an additional public hearing later this year; the FAA could kick in money for noise-related programs. About 10 people each month complain about noise from aircraft.
The article notes that one of the noise-reduction strategies includes the construction of a $3-4 million three-walled engine-testing structure which will quiet engine maintenance checks. Another aspect will include the evaluation of up to a dozen area homes for possible soundproofing using federal money.
PUBLICATION: Anchorage Daily News
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: Nation, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Elizabeth Manning
DATELINE: Anchorage, Alaska
The Anchorage Daily News reports that a man in Anchorage, Alaska has been charged with disorderly conduct after a neighbor complained about the noise from his bug zapper. The owner also sells bug zappers, and notes that bugs must be zapped throughout the night to be effectively controlled. Members of the local Assembly say that while the charge may be legitimate, it should have been settled without the government. According to city officials, sound-absorbing panels installed around the zapper reduces noise to acceptable levels.
The article reports that a man in Anchorage, Alaska has been charged with disorderly conduct after a neighbor complained about the noise from his bug zapper. The neighbor said that the zapper woke her at night, and asked that the bug zapper be turned off between 10 PM and 6 AM; the owner refused. The owner also sells bug zappers, and notes that bugs must be zapped throughout the night to be effectively controlled.
The article notes that the neighbor, who is also a lawyer, convinced the city prosecutor to charge the man with disorderly conduct. Members of the local Assembly say that while the charge may be legitimate, it should have been settled without the government. One assemblymen asked "Why are we pursuing something like this... when we're cutting... bus routes because of budget cuts?" The owner of the zapper claims that the charge went through because his neighbor is friends with someone at the prosecutor's office.
The article notes that the city prosecutor initially turned the case down, but accepted it since the zapper continued to be used after its owner clearly knew it irritated another resident. According to the local noise ordinance, one cannot "knowingly generate loud noise in a private place with the intent to disturb others or in reckless disregard of the peace and privacy of others after having been informed that the loud noise is disturbing the peace and privacy of others not in the same place." According to city officials, sound-absorbing panels installed around the zapper reduces noise to acceptable levels.
PUBLICATION: Chattanooga Times
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: Metro/Region; Pg. B1
BYLINE: by Jamie Hancock
DATELINE: Lookout Mountain, Georgia
The Chattanooga Times reports that an 18-room estate in Lookout Mountain, Georgia was rezoned as a family/business conference district which permits "business functions, educational retreats and social gatherings" such as weddings. Partly as a result of the rezoning, the Council is considering a noise ordinance. Residents believe the rezoning will increase traffic, noise, and commerce in the area.
The article reports that an 18-room estate in Lookout Mountain, Georgia was rezoned as a family/business conference district which permits "business functions, educational retreats and social gatherings." The estate had originally asked for a commercial district, but the Council approved a more restrictive rezoning. Still, the estate is pleased that it will still be able to host weddings and similar events.
The article notes that partly as a result of the rezoning request, the Council is considering a noise ordinance to prohibit "unreasonably loud and disturbing" noises and limit the volume of amplified sound. Council members will make exceptions for traditional events such as the Fourth of July.
The article concludes, noting that residents believe the rezoning will increase traffic, noise, and commerce in the area. People are also concerned that the estate will encourage "quickie weddings" that "tear at the heart" of the community.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 9
BYLINE: Deborah Kadin
DATELINE: Naperville, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that turbine mufflers -- designed to reduce noise from a gas-to-energy plant at Naperville, Illinois' landfill -- have created no noticeable reduction. According to residents, no noticeable reduction has occurred. After the county learned from the muffler manufacturers that noise is only reduced 1/3 of the reported amount, they decided to call in a sound engineer to decide if anything else can be done.
The article reports that turbine mufflers -- designed to reduce noise from a gas-to-energy plant at Naperville, Illinois' landfill -- have created no noticeable reduction. The County has installed three sets of mufflers over the last year, but residents have noticed no improvement. Even the muffler's manufacturer said that the devices reduce noise by only about 1/3 of the amount expected.
The article notes that the noise comes from three turbines, two of which have been operation since 1996 and one which was installed last year. The county plans to call in sound engineers to determine if anything else can be done. The plant operators will not be required to pay for any more improvements, since the plant already meets state and national standards.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: Forum Pg.10a
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
The Courier-Journal reports that the Louisville, Kentucky Board of Aldermen adopted a tougher new noise ordinance that will carry $1,000 fines and 60-day jail terms. Violators will include those with loud dogs, car stereos, loud garbage collection, and loud bars. Police plan to buy several $600 noise meters to assist in enforcement.
The article reports that the Louisville, Kentucky Board of Aldermen adopted a tougher new noise ordinance. In 60 days, fines of up to $1,000 and jail terms of up to 60 days could be applied to violators, after appropriate warnings. The ordinance comes in response to resident complaints about loud music from bars. Police plan to buy several $600 noise meters to assist in enforcement.
The article notes that although loud bars will be subject to the new ordinance, so will owners of dogs who bark more than 15 minutes in an hour, motorists who unnecessarily gun their engines or make their stereos heard over a block away. Garbage can not be collected between 10 PM and 6 AM in a noisy fashion, and any sound that registers over 45 decibels on an adjoining property will be considered a violation.
PUBLICATION: The Evening Post
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Johnson Ann-Marie
DATELINE: Wellington, New Zealand
The Evening Post reports that WestPac Trust stadium in Wellington, New Zealand is losing the chance to host major performers because of a rule that limits night performances to six each year. The six are already booked, owing to several unusual opportunities to book world-class acts, and stadium officials say that any other promoters who are turned down because of the rule may be reluctant to try again next year. They claimed that the city will no longer be known as a world-class venue, and the community will lose millions when people who normally travel there to see concerts stop coming.
The article notes that the rule was instituted in response to residents' concerns about noise. Residents seem open to alteration if residents concerns over concert duration and noise levels are considered. The stadium hosts events from pop music to opera.
PUBLICATION: Las Vegas Review-Journal
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: B; Pg. 9B
BYLINE: Christine Dorsey
DATELINE: Washington DC
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that Nevada senators added a rider to an Interior spending bill that would delay implementation of new noise limits in Grand Canyon National Park. The senators say that air tour operators only want time to refute the methods used by the Park Service: methods they say are flawed. Environmentalists consider the rider a simple delay tactic, to be used to find other ways to reject the limits. In developing the limits, the Park Service is trying to comply with a 1987 congressional mandate to restore natural quiet to the park.
The article reports that Nevada senators added a rider to a $14.1 billion Interior spending bill that would delay implementation of new noise limits in Grand Canyon National Park. The amendment would require three month between the National Park Service's report and implementation of the new standards. The report will justify the science and peer review process used to establish the standards. The standards are designed to quiet noise from the air tour industry.
The article continues, noting that the senators say that air tour operators only want time to refute the methods used by the Park Service: methods they say are flawed. Tour operators claim that standards should be based on the ability of people to notice the planes, which they say would raise the limits because of naturally-loud noise from the Colorado River. They say currently proposed limits will "shut [all tour operators] down."
The article goes on to note that environmentalists consider the rider a simple delay tactic. They worry that the delay will be used to find other ways to reject the limits. They believe that the park should be virtually free of non-natural noise.
The article concludes, noting that the Park Service is trying to comply with a 1987 congressional mandate to restore natural quiet to the park. The service wants to split the park into two sound zones; the outer rim, where tourists tend to go, would have a higher limit while the more isolated interior would have a lower one.
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: Sports; Pg. 15D
BYLINE: by D'arcy Egan
DATELINE: Cleveland, Ohio
The Plain Dealer reports reports on several of Cleveland's upcoming sporting events, including a large boat show on the lake. The show will include courtesy engine-noise tests.
The article reports on several of Cleveland's upcoming sporting events, including a large boat show on the lake. The show will include courtesy engine-noise tests which will allow boaters to determine whether their boats are higher than the new 2000 noise limits.
The article goes on to say that the tests will allow boaters to determine whether their boats are higher than the new noise limits, which will take effect on January 1, 2000. Boat noise must be under 75 decibels as measured from shore, or 90 decibels measures in a stationary test.
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: Business; Pg. 1C
BYLINE: by Alan Achkar
DATELINE: Cleveland, Ohio
The Plain Dealer reports that Continental Airlines has replaced all of its older, noisier jets at Cleveland, Ohio's Hopkins International Airport with newer, quieter ones. The article notes that the airline decided to replace its older jets because of new noise regulations, but also because they expect to save $100 million each year in maintenance costs on the 103 aircraft they expect to replace nationwide. Local politicians are pleased with the step, although they worry that increased traffic after the 2002 completion of a new runway will keep the noise problem from getting better
The article reports that Continental Airlines has replaced all of its older, noisier jets at Cleveland, Ohio's Hopkins International Airport with newer, quieter ones. Federal regulations require all airlines to either eliminate the older jets, or have them retrofitted with noise-reducing devices. The newer jets are a quieter option than the retrofits.
The article notes that the airline decided to replace its older jets because of noise issues but also because they expect to save $100 million each year in maintenance costs. The airline will have spent $4.6 billion on replacing planes at Cleveland's airport and elsewhere once they replace all 103 aircraft slated for replacement. Continental controls about 55% of the flights out of Cleveland's airport.
The article continues, saying that local politicians are pleased with the step, although they worry that increased traffic after the 2002 completion of a new runway at the airport will keep the noise problem from getting better. The airport also plans to alter flight paths and runway usage to help reduce noise.
PUBLICATION: The Press-Enterprise
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: Local; Pg. B04
BYLINE: Thomas Buckley
DATELINE: Lake Elsinore, California
The Press-Enterprise reports that 140 residents near the proposed site of a new $34 million raceway project in Lake Elsinore, California met with builders to express their concerns over noise. Residents are worried about the noise as well as additional pollution and traffic. Builders believe that a 75-foot berm around the racetrack will negate noise problems, and point out that the project would bring 2,000 jobs and many tax dollars to the community. The council won't decide on the project for several months.
The article reports that 140 residents near the proposed site of a new $34 million raceway project in Lake Elsinore, California met with builders to express their concerns over noise. The project may include "a race track, drag strip, golf course, housing, hotel and shopping center." The final city council vote is still months away.
The article notes that residents are worried about the noise as well as additional pollution and traffic. A resident points out that fireworks can be heard up to six miles away because of the canyon in which the community is located, and worries that a racetrack six times closer would be even more troublesome. Homeowners worry that they will be unable to sell their houses. A city councilman also noted that the community does not have the money to provide police and fire protection to the new facility.
The article goes on to say that the builders believe that a 75-foot berm around the racetrack will negate noise problems. They also point out that the project would bring 2,000 jobs and many tax dollars to the community.
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: B Section, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Tabatha Barham
DATELINE: Sarasota, Florida
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports that 24 residents met with officials from Bon Secours-Venice Hospital near Sarasota, Florida to discuss ways that noise from the hospital could be reduced. The hospital's air conditioners and cooling towers make noise all the time, and 6 AM testing of emergency generators also causes disturbances. The hospital plans to take steps towards reducing the noise including a fence around the air conditioner and late-morning testing of the generators.
The article reports that 24 residents met with officials from Bon Secours-Venice Hospital near Sarasota, Florida to discuss ways that noise from the hospital could be reduced. The hospital's air conditioners and cooling towers make noise all the time, and 6 AM testing of emergency generators also causes disturbances.
The article continues, noting that the hospital plans to take steps towards reducing the noise that will cost $40,000. The plans include a fence around the air conditioning unit, and the reorientation of the generators' exhaust stacks. Also, the generators will be tested later in the morning. The hospital has hired an acoustics engineer to help them reduce noise from the cooling towers.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Stella M. Chbavez
DATELINE: West Boca, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports that the "bottom line" of a recent public meeting in West Boca, Florida on the subject of noise walls along U.S. 441 was that the walls could not be built. Many residents want the sound walls, some say that their property values will be hurt by the walls. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) officials said that their study's results -- which calculated a cost of $57,000 per home protected, and a reduction of less than five decibels at most of those homes most affected -- do not justify sound walls. Local politicians told residents at the meeting not to give up, and said that "this is not over."
The article reports that the "bottom line" of a recent public meeting in West Boca, Florida on the subject of noise walls along U.S. 441 was that the walls could not be built. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) officials said that their study's results -- which calculated a cost of $57,000 per home protected, and a reduction of less than five decibels at most of those homes most affected -- do not justify sound walls.
The article continues, noting that a list of 21 standards for justification of a soundwall includes stipulations that require a cost of less than $30,000 per home affected; homes are considered "affected" if they experience more than 67 decibels. In addition, the walls must result in a minimum of a 5 decibel noise reduction. FDOT officials said that neither of those conditions are met by the currently proposed soundwalls.
The article notes that state politicians are optimistic that FDOT will find a way to pay for the walls. They note that one reason that the walls would not be effective is the fact that FDOT owns land . They also note that the road is scheduled for widening next year, which may nudge noise levels to a point that would more strongly justify the noise walls. They told residents at the meeting not to give up, and said that "this is not over."
The article also notes that some residents don't want the noise walls because they fear their ugliness would result in reduced property values.
PUBLICATION: Telegraph Herald
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: Opinion; Pg. a 4
BYLINE: Telegraph Herald Editorial
DATELINE: Dubuque, Iowa
The Telegraph Herald reports that city council members in Dubuque, Iowa recently took a ride in big rigs to hear the noise caused by "jake brakes." The council members reported that the brakes are only noisy when not maintained properly. Instead of the proposed ban on the brakes, a noise ordinance was passed to ticket truckers who did not maintain the brakes properly.
The article reports that city council members in Dubuque, Iowa recently took a ride in big rigs to hear for themselves the noise caused by auxiliary engine brakes, or "jake brakes." The council members reported that the brakes are only noisy when not maintained properly.
The article continues, noting that the council subsequently voted not to ban jake brakes as was originally planned. Instead, a noise ordinance was passed to ticket truckers who did not maintain the brakes properly. Brakes that can be hard 100 yards away will be considered a violation. The brakes are designed to avert potentially dangerous situations, and members judged that they should not be banned.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: September 17, 1999
SECTION: Trib West; Pg. 1; Zone: D
BYLINE: by David Young
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that residents and politicians in DuPage county, Illinois near Chicago's O'Hare International Airport are debating the question of how to handle a doubling of air traffic at O'Hare in the next twenty years: expand the airport, or build a third regional airport. Viewpoints of regional politicians center on issues from local safety concerns, to regional air-capacity concerns, to national infrastructure concerns. Those who want a new airport are less concerned with noise -- which was the central concern for many years -- and more worried about dangerously-crowded skies and runways.
The article reports that residents and politicians in DuPage county, Illinois near Chicago's O'Hare International Airport are debating the question of how to handle a doubling of air traffic at O'Hare in the next twenty years: expand the airport, or build a third regional airport. Members of the DuPage County Mayors and Managers conference are pushing for long-range, depoliticized strategy; still, members don't agree on what should be done. Viewpoints of regional politicians center on issues from local safety concerns, to regional air-capacity concerns, to national infrastructure concerns.
The article notes that communities closest to the airport favor a new airport, while those farther away are more undecided. Those who want a new airport are less concerned with noise -- which was the central concern for many years -- and more worried about dangerously-crowded skies and runways; the last plane crash in the county were in 1961. "Today's quieter jets have taken some of the edge off the noise issue."
PUBLICATION: Bath Chronicle
DATE: September 16, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg.5
BYLINE: Andrew Johnson
DATELINE: Bath, UK
The Bath Chronicle reports that a bus depot in Bath, UK is upsetting residents with nighttime noise and light. The company did not consider the potential disturbance that could be caused by the lights before they put them in, as they were required to do. Planning officials say the site is not the best for the depot -- which includes an all-night maintenance building -- but claim that the depot is a benefit to the whole community. They admit that the lights are bothersome, but that some noise is inevitable due to the necessary maintenance building.
The article reports that a bus depot in Bath, UK is upsetting residents with nighttime noise and light. Complaints have been directed to local councillors, who are demanding action from local planning officials.
The article continues, noting that the company claims it has not received any 'direct' resident complaints.
The article notes that the company did not consider the potential disturbance that could be caused by the lights before they put them in, as they were required to do. Planning officials say the site is not the best for the depot -- which includes an all-night maintenance building -- but claim that the depot is a benefit to the whole community. They admit that the lights are bothersome, but that some noise is inevitable due to the necessary maintenance building. They say that a compromise is in order
PUBLICATION: The Cincinnati Enquirer
DATE: September 16, 1999
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B03
BYLINE: Kevin Aldridge
DATELINE: Mason, Ohio
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that Mason, Ohio recently revised their noise ordinance to include noise that occurs during the day. After residents complained about the daytime noise, a new amendment includes daytime noise from car stereos. Fines could exceed $100. Noise "plainly audible" fifty feet from a car is considered a violation. Some council members were concerned that the law over-regulated noise.
The article reports that Mason, Ohio recently revised their noise ordinance to include noise that occurs during the day. Formerly, the ordinance only covered "loud, unnecessary or unusual noise that disturbs others within the city" between 10 PM and 7 AM. After residents complained about the daytime noise, the change was made. The change targeted car stereos in particular.
The article also notes that the ordinance will be placed under traffic codes, allowing minors -- who were difficult to charge when the violation was a criminal code -- to be charged with a misdemeanor. The fines could exceed $100. Noise "plainly audible" fifty feet from a car is considered a violation. Police will post signs warning the public of the new ordinance in an effort to reduce violations.
The article noted that some council members were concerned that the law was over-regulating, and worried that youths were unfairly targeted. Some also felt that 50 feet was an arbitrary measure, and that decibel limits should be used instead.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: September 16, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. N8
BYLINE: Jesse Hiestand
DATELINE: San Fernando Valley, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lance Paris of the Lake Balboa Neighborhood Association.
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that Los Angeles' Van Nuys Airport is applying for a permit that would allow it to continue operating above state-mandated noise levels. Noise critics want conditions to be imposed on the permit such as flight path restrictions for helicopters and a commitment to phasing out -- not just restricting -- noisy Stage 2 jets. Airport officials claim that they have already taken steps to reducing noise, and will continue to without "state-imposed conditions".
The article reports that Los Angeles' Van Nuys Airport is applying for a permit that would allow it to continue operating above state-mandated noise levels. Even noise critics say the permit will be passed, but want conditions to be imposed on the permit. A public hearing will provide the judge with testimony and evidence with which to establish any conditions.
The article goes on, noting that the permit was renewed in 1992, and would need to be renewed again in 2002. Residents want flight path restrictions for helicopters and a commitment to phasing out -- not just restricting -- noisy Stage 2 jets.
The article notes that airport officials claim that they are already committed to reducing noise, and that further "state-imposed conditions" are not needed to push them. Soundproofing of homes near the airport is already underway, and noise monitors have been installed.
PUBLICATION: Daily News
DATE: September 16, 1999
SECTION: Suburban; Pg. 2
BYLINE: by James Harney
DATELINE: New York City
The Daily News reports that Delta Air Lines will use new planes in their shuttle service between Boston, New York, and Washington. The new planes are twelve times quieter than the old planes, and should reduce noise for Queens residents.
The article reports that Delta Air Lines will use 16 new, Stage 3 planes in their shuttle service between Boston, New York City, and Washington DC. The new planes replace older Stage 2 jets with twelve times the noise impact.
The article notes that Queens residents, who have tolerated substantial jet noise for years, should benefit from the quieter planes.
PUBLICATION: The Gazette
DATE: September 16, 1999
SECTION: News; A8
BYLINE: Darren Becker
DATELINE: Cote St. Luc, Quebec
The Gazette reports that at a public hearing in Cote St. Luc, Quebec regarding railway noise, dozens of residents learned about a class action suit that they may be able to join. The suit, instigated by a man in a nearby community, will try to force the railways to compensate residents for the noise and reduce noise and pollution. Currently, the man is asking for $25,000 in damages. A similar case was recently won against CN, ruling that the rail company must reduce noise.
The article reports that at a public hearing in Cote St. Luc, Quebec regarding noise from the Metropolitan Transport Agency and the St. Lawrence & Hudson Railways, dozens of residents learned about a class action suit that they may be able to join. A lawyer who already represents a resident from a nearby community informed the audience of the suit he plans to file. The suit will try to force the railways to compensate residents for the noise, in addition to reducing noise and pollution around their rail yards.
The article notes that the original litigant is seeking $25,000 in damages caused by noise from an existing high-speed commuter train. The residents at the hearing, who were already upset by existing train noise, are worried about a similar high-speed train planned for their communities. One resident recently had her home devalued by $74,000.
The article goes on to say that community committees will be established in the near future to gather evidence, including video documentation of the disturbances that the trains produce. A similar case was recently won against CN by the Ontario-based Citizens of Oakville Stop-CN-in-Their-Tracks Committee; the victory did not award damages, but required CN to reduce noise.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: September 16, 1999
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Stephanie Reitz
DATELINE: Bolton, Connecticut
The Hartford Courant reports that a rumble strip installed in the center of Route 6 in Bolton, Connecticut is causing irritating noise for residents. Cars and trucks tend to ride the strip all along its length, and residents claim that the rumble strip -- while a good idea - is causing too much noise and is not the answer.
The article reports that a rumble strip installed in the center of Route 6 in Bolton, Connecticut is causing irritating noise for residents. After serious accidents along the busy two-lane highway in recent years, the Department of Transportation (DOT) decided to try installing a center rumble strip to warn drivers that they are nearing the center line. The strip is the first one in the state placed in the center of a road, and was added after officials visited similar ones in Massachusetts and Maryland.
The article notes that cars and trucks tend to ride the strip all along its length, and residents think this may be due to the "curiosity" factor. The strip was installed as part of a larger safety project, which also included lane widening and a traffic signal. Residents claim that the rumble strip -- while a good idea - is causing too much noise and is not the answer.
PUBLICATION: The Northern Echo
DATE: September 16, 1999
SECTION: Pg. 6
DATELINE: North Yorkshire, U.K.
The Northern Echo reports that the government in North Yorkshire, U.K. has agreed to study the possibility of resurfacing a particularly noisy concrete bypass. Normally resurfacing would be considered only after seven years, but the bypass may be eligible earlier if it is deemed to be in a "particularly sensitive location."
The article reports that at the urgings of residents and a local politician, the government in North Yorkshire, U.K. has agreed to study the possibility of resurfacing a particularly noisy bypass. The bypass is currently concrete.
The article goes on, noting that the bypass would normally be eligible for resurfacing in another seven years. It may be eligible earlier if it can be demonstrated that the area is in a "particularly sensitive location."
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: September 16, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Chuck Mcginness
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Palm Beach Post reports that near Boca Raton, Florida, residents and officials can't agree on the subject of noise walls. On the turnpike, residents want noise walls but the state claims that not enough residents are affected by traffic noise. On State Route 7, the state plans to erect noise walls despite protests from many residents over the walls' appearance. The double standard is caused by different sources of funding.
The article reports that near Boca Raton, Florida, residents and officials can't agree on the subject of noise walls. On the Florida Turnpike, residents want the 16-foot-high noise walls as part of a $20 million road-widening project, but the state claims that not enough residents are affected by traffic noise. On State Route 7, the state plans to erect noise walls as part of a $66 million road widening project, despite protests from many residents.
The article notes that not enough people will be affected by the walls to justify the cost to build them: $1.5 million per mile. One resident from a nearby retirement community said that all 3,000 of the residents there would benefit, although the state only calculates 15. The Department of Transportation has agreed to do a recount and hold a subsequent public hearing explaining their results.
The article goes on to say that although noise on the two roads are comparable, different funding sources for the two projects determine different noise standards. Most of the money for the Route 7 project comes from the federal government, which requires noise walls in areas where a certain number of homes are subjected to over 67 decibels of noise. The turnpike project is receiving no federal funding and thus is not subject to the 67 decibel limit.
The article notes that residents on State Route 7 don't want the walls because they say their property value will go down. They claim the walls are ugly, and worry that graffiti will soon cover the walls. Instead, they want 8-foot walls atop 8-foot earthen berms, but the DOT says that may prove too costly.
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot
DATE: September 16, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. B10
DATELINE: Virginia Beach
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Stella Hoopes, David Hatfield, Barbara E. Brown, Robert Gohr
The Virginian-Pilot prints several letters to the editor that label past writers -- who complained about jet noise from Virginia Beach's Oceana Naval Base -- as whiny. They discuss the fact that the base was here before developments, and question whether the tourists could ever be considered as important as the Navy.
"Wherever those jets go, developers are sure to follow
Who's more important,
tourists or Navy folk?
I have been following all the letters for and against the jet noise at Oceana, but David Brashear's letter ("Move jet training to an unpopulated area," Sept. 10) takes the cake.
The men and women in the Navy who fight for our country are much more important than the almighty tourist dollar. In case you forget, they spend money here, too - all year long.
And what if Navy officials were to move training to an unpopulated area? This area was once unpopulated. Are they to keep moving training each time an area becomes populated?
Our city leaders are seeing to it that not a single patch of land goes undeveloped in Virginia Beach. I hope that undeveloped property around Oceana stays that way forever. One day it may be the only undeveloped land in Virginia Beach.
Stella Hoopes
Virginia Beach
A quiz for neighbors
of noisy NAS Oceana
To the many Virginia Beach residents complaining about the jet noise from NAS Oceana, I have a few questions:
Didn't you notice the road signs to the "master jet base" while you were driving around looking for your dream home?
Didn't the property listing have a line or two with the noise and crash-zone designators?
Didn't the property listing actually advertise its proximity and convenience to NAS Oceana?
If the answer is "yes" to one or more of these questions, buy yourself a set of earplugs and an amplifier for your home entertainment center, and stop your whining. Most people do a little bit of checking into the surrounding area before making a home move.
I have lived in the Midwest . . . and didn't build on a flood plain.
I have lived in California . . . and didn't build on a cliff.
I now live in Norfolk . . . and wouldn't build next to a naval air station.
David Hatfield
Norfolk
Don't blame Oceana;
blame yourself, city
I have lived in the Great Neck area of Virginia Beach for 31 years, and I'm sick of reading letters lambasting Oceana for its noise. When I first moved here, Oceana was in the country. There were no Hilltop shopping centers, no mass housing, no Lynnhaven Mall, no fast-food places, no schools (except for the old Linkhorn Park Elementary School) - no nothing near Oceana, except for the Oceanfront.
City Council, in its usual uninformed and reckless wisdom, deemed, over the past 31 years, that all kinds of development were needed on the empty parcels of land surrounding Oceana, against the advice of naval officials.
Those who opted to buy houses near Oceana chose to buy in its noise zone. If you need to blame someone for your bad decision, blame yourself first and then blame City Council and the city for allowing this kind of development in the first place.
But do not blame Oceana. It was here long before there were shopping centers, houses and schools, and it is the innocent bystander.
Barbara E. Brown
Virginia Beach
Jet- noise whining
is the worst noise
I'm tired of the never-ending letters whining about the noise from the Oceana jets. One gets the impression that The Pilot is doing everything it can to keep the pot of discontent boiling by regularly printing Navy-go-home letters, usually under "cute" banners such as " 'Roar of freedom' not compatible with 'burbs, beach."
Further, the validity of the complaints leaves much to be desired. "New jets will make two to four times as much noise. " Really? The Cavalier Hotel is used as a "marker" by the jets. I'll bet that many FA-18 pilots who recently moved to Oceana don't even know where the Cavalier is.
As to tourists, talking with them on the beach or boardwalk gives the impression that they enjoy seeing the jets.
Bottom line: The jets are here and they will continue to fly and make noise. I respectfully suggest, as have others, that those who can't accept that fact move to a quieter location.
Incidentally, I live not too far off the end of Oceana's runway 05 and have yet to loose a minute's sleep because of the jets.
Robert Gohr
Virginia Beach"
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: September 16, 1999
SECTION: Trib West; Pg. 6; Zone: D
BYLINE: Hal Dardick.
DATELINE: Montgomery, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that a new noise ordinance passed in Montgomery, Illinois will levy fines from $50 to $500 for noises over 60 decibels during the day and over 55 decibels at night. Lawn equipment will be exempt during the day and emergency vehicles will be exempt at all times. Complaints have been increasing in Montgomery in recently years, tending to center around live bands and car stereos.
The article reports that a new noise ordinance passed in Montgomery, Illinois will levy fines from $50 to $500 for noises over certain decibel limits. Between 7 AM and 10 PM, the limit is 60 decibels at property lines. At night, the limit is 55 decibels. Police will enforce the new limits -- set similarly to other local noise ordinances in the region -- using new decibel meters.
The article notes that noise complaints have been increasing in frequency for at least the last three year; this year, complaints were totaled at 105 through August. Complaints typically center around live bands or loud car stereos. Exemptions for the new ordinance will include lawn and snow-moving equipment "between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Sunday." Also, emergency vehicles and equipment, and community events will always be exempt.
PUBLICATION: Anchorage Daily News
DATE: September 15, 1999
SECTION: Metro, Pg. 9B
DATELINE: West Anchorage, Alaska
The Anchorage Daily News prints an opinion from an Anchorage, Alaska resident who believes that a local group fighting expansion at Anchorage International Airport is wrong. He notes their affiliation with the Alaska Center for the Environment and the National Wildlife Federation, and says that concern over "a few acres of crummy bog that is of no value except to some Canada geese and an occasional moose" is overblown. The writer says that the group -- which centers on noise although its primary agenda is environmental -- should recognize the commercial importance of the airport.
"TO HEAR the environmentalists tell it, the peace and tranquility of the Turnagain neighborhood in West Anchorage is about to destroyed by the unbearable noise of aircraft thundering overhead.
That's the dire message -- or one of them, anyway -- in the latest of the Turnagain "action plan" alerts left on doorsteps all over Turnagain by a group, it is now conceded, that is in partnership with the Alaska Center for the Environment and the National Wildlife Federation.
They don't want the airport to expand its operating space by taking over a few acres of crummy bog that is of no value except to some Canada geese and an occasional moose straying off the Coastal Trail.
And they're trying to make their point -- such as it is -- by dredging up the fear of too much noise from aircraft operating off the north-south runway.
They aren't aware, apparently, that this noise issue was one of the loud and whiny complaints years ago when the north-south runway was first proposed. Residents of a little subdivision at the south end of the new runway raised holy hoopla and tried to block the construction of what has become, obviously, a vital part of Anchorage's commercial life.
And they obviously aren't aware that there is much more noise over the homes of Turnagain from incoming floatplanes heading for a landing on Lake Hood and Lake Spenard than there ever is from the big jets taking off to the north over Cook Inlet.
The recent Labor Day weekend was a perfect example of the busy general aviation traffic over Turnagain.
And there are no complaints about that, by the way. Most of the residents of Turnagain, like those of all of Anchorage, recognize that aircraft operating on floats, wheels or skis are a major part of what life up here is all about. Many Turnagain homeowners are aircraft owners and operators themselves.
They don't need the Alaska Center for the Environment or the National Wildlife Federation (with headquarters, by the way, in noisy Washington, D.C.) to tell them the value of Anchorage International Airport -- and how critical it is that it continue to grow to meet demands of cargo, passenger, and recreational flying.
At issue is a request to the Corps of Engineers to approve an application by the airport to utilize a boggy area near the north-south runway, and to mitigate that by assuring permanent wetlands status to portions of the Klatt Bog in South Anchorage.
Without fear of being pushed around by these special interest greenie outfits, the Corps should approve the airport plans forthwith."
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: September 15, 1999
SECTION: Glendale/Peoria Community; Pg. 1
BYLINE: by Jeffry Nelson
DATELINE: Glendale, Arizona
The Arizona Republic reports that residents living near a Glendale, Arizona counter-top company are being annoyed by the noise from a 40-foot dust-collecting tower. The company counters with a claim that they have already voluntarily built a wall around the tower. Residents, however, say that the wall simply makes the sound reverberate more strongly. The company's noise studies assert that noise levels from residents' cooling systems are louder than noise from the plant. The city is planning a separate two-month investigation into the noise.
The article reports that residents living near a Glendale, Arizona counter top company are being annoyed by the noise from a dust-collecting tower. They say that the company's dust collector is obnoxious, and claims the company should never have been permitted to build in the nearby industrial park. The collector runs constantly, six days a week.
The article notes that the company counters with a claim that they have already voluntarily built a wall around the tower. Residents, however, say that the wall simply makes the sound reverberate more strongly. Despite that fact, the company's noise studies assert that noise levels from residents' cooling systems are louder than noise from the plant. The city is planning a separate two-month investigation into the noise.
The article concludes, saying that residents want the cooling stack moved to the other end of the building and enclosed in a soundproof structure.
PUBLICATION: Asbury Park Press
DATE: September 15, 1999
SECTION: A, Pg. 16, Your Views
BYLINE: Donald T. DiFrancesco
DATELINE: Union, New Jersey
The Asbury Park Press prints several letters to the editor, including one from a Union, New Jersey politician who asks for support of a live test of ocean routing for aircraft. Ocean routing is intended to reduce noise over communities, and the writer says that New Jersey residents should unite in supporting a policy that could benefit them all.
"Ocean routing needs a test
As the Press' recent editorial on aircraft noise pointed out, a noise remediation plan known as ocean routing has drawn the proverbial line in the sand between northern and southern counties in our state, a fact that can only encourage the continued obstinace of the Federal Aviation Administration to resolve this pressing issue on behalf of all New Jersey residents.
"Ocean routing does make sense," as the editorial stated, and it makes sense for all of New Jersey. That is why I support a live test of an ocean routing plan that would divert planes leaving Newark International Airport over the ocean. That is why I introduced a resolution in the Senate, SR-71, that calls on the FAA to institute a six-month test of an ocean routing flight plan that would reduce current aircraft noise levels for thousands of residents in central New Jersey.
Unfortunately, the resolution has met with a great deal of opposition from governing bodies and individuals who contend their community or county will be negatively impacted. It is simply not the case. Ocean routing is not a radical idea. Its viability as a safe option -- one that would reduce noise, not simply redistribute it -- has been reinforced by a vast body of evidence, including a recent report conducted by the New Jersey Institute of Technology.
The FAA has seemingly dismissed the evidence, shielding itself behind outdated computer models and studies, threats of even more flight delays and the collective opposition of the airline industry. Unfortunately, their inaction on the issue has only served to fuel the lingering misperceptions.
Now is not the time for New Jersey to be divided over an issue that impacts a significant number of residents. All of New Jersey, from the grass-roots level to the congressional level, from Ocean County to Bergen County, needs to send a message to the FAA that aircraft noise relief is overdue and that all possible solutions, particularly ocean routing, deserve a fair trial. The environmental and aesthetic improvements that quieter skies would bring would benefit our state. "
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal
DATE: September 15, 1999
SECTION: News Pg.03b
BYLINE: Rick Mcdonough
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
The Courier-Journal reports that a new noise ordinance in Louisville, Kentucky will forbid noises of over 45 decibels as measured from a neighboring property. Fines could reach $1000, and may be accompanied by a 60 day jail term. The ordinance was drafted in response to complaints about noise from loud music at nightclubs.
The Courier-Journal reports that a new noise ordinance in Louisville, Kentucky will forbid noises of over 45 decibels as measured from a neighboring property. The fines, which will be enforced by at least one new staff member, will reach $1000 and may be accompanied by 60 days in jail. Officials will use new noise monitors to measure noise levels.
The article notes that the ordinance was proposed because of consistent complaints made by residents about noise from local nightclubs. The ordinance will also cover dogs who bark for than 15 minutes in an hour, motorists who crank their car stereos to loud, and garbage collection before 6 am. Police officers will be asked to enforce the ordinance, especially as it applies to motorists.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: September 15, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Lee Condon
DATELINE: Studio City, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that residents of Studio City, California are upset over a deal that the city of Burbank cut with the Burbank Airport. The deal approves the airport's expansion plan in exchange for a ban on takeoffs over Burbank. Studio City officials say that a ban that was previously instituted on eastern takeoffs was due to the proximity of the terminal to the runway; expansion and renovation would eliminate that reason as justification for the ban. In addition, the deal would allow the Airport to forego a night-flight curfew and would also allow the addition of two gates to the existing fourteen in phase two of construction.
The article reports that residents of Studio City, California are upset over a deal that the city of Burbank cut with the Burbank Airport. Burbank approved the airport's expansion plan in exchange for a ban on eastern takeoffs, which would place noise burdens disproportionately on other communities. Studio City has now turned to U.S. Representatives, and several of those representatives wrote a joint letter to the FAA asking it to reject Burbank's ban.
The article goes on, noting that Burbank does not experience any less noise than many Los Angeles communities. Studio City officials believe Burbank has abused its membership in the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority. They say that a ban that was previously instituted on eastern takeoffs was due to the proximity of the terminal to the runway; expansion and renovation would eliminate that reason as justification for the ban.
The article also notes that the deal would allow the Airport to forego a night-flight curfew, which has been asked for by residents for years. It would also allow the addition of two gates to the existing fourteen in phase two of construction. Studio City had previously felt like a partner in the fight against jet noise that Burbank has championed over the last four years.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: September 15, 1999
SECTION: Business, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Dave Mcnary
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that a new study shows that growth at Los Angeles' Van Nuys Airport has stimulated the local economy. Residents say the study did not take noise-induced property value reduction. The airport is asking for the renewal of variances which allow it to exceed noise standards, and already has plans to spend $15 million to soundproof 150 homes and 900 apartments that are affected by aircraft noise.
The article reports that a new study shows that growth at Los Angeles' Van Nuys Airport has stimulated the local economy. While numbers of aircraft at the airport have dropped, an 8% increase in the number of corporate jets coming in has helped to generate "$1.23 billion in economic activity last year, up 30 percent from 1991, and supported more than 10,000 jobs."
The article also talks to residents, who say that the study did not take noise-induced property value reduction. One resident noted that although the study showed a healthy demand for business at the airport that would allow the elimination of noisy Stage 2 jets without hardship, Stage 2 jets already stationed at the airport will stay.
The article notes that the airport is asking for the renewal of variances which allow it to exceed noise standards. The Airport already has plans to spend $15 million to soundproof 150 homes and 900 apartments that are affected by aircraft noise.
PUBLICATION: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: September 15, 1999
SECTION: Ozaukee Washington Pg. 3
BYLINE: Jeanette Hurt
DATELINE: Cedarburg, Wisconsin
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that the Common Council of Cedarburg, Wisconsin is giving Amcast Automotive its last chance to comply with the local noise ordinance before prosecution.
The article reports that that the Common Council of Cedarburg, Wisconsin is giving Amcast Automotive its last chance to comply with the local noise ordinance. It has been more than a year since residents first accused the plant of violating the ordinance. The city will send two warning letters over thirty days; if the problem has not been rectified by then, the city attorney will prosecute.
PUBLICATION: Newsday
DATE: September 15, 1999
SECTION: News; Page A29
BYLINE: by Michael Arena
DATELINE: New York City
Newsday reports that Delta Air Lines plans to add 18 Stage 3 jets to its shuttle service from LaGuardia Airport to Washington D.C. and Boston. The new jets will help reduce noise levels, will reduce fuel needs by one-third, and reduce required maintenance. 86% of all aircraft subject to the federal law are already quiet enough: due to mufflering equipment or a quieter design. The FAA says that more than twice the number of passengers that flew in 1975 will fly this year, but the number of residents who will be affected by similar noise levels will drop by over ten times.
The article reports that Delta Air Lines plans to add 18 Stage 3 jets to its shuttle service from LaGuardia Airport to Washington D.C. and Boston. A federal law that requires quieter jets by 2000 is part of the reason behind the project, but the airline could have continued using noisier jets that have been somewhat 'mufflered' to meet the standards. Other reasons for the switch include a fuel savings of one-third, and the reduced maintenance required on newer aircraft.
The article notes that another reason for the switch may be USAir's intention to introduce flights that compete with Delta's shuttle service; USAir will be using similar, quiet aircraft on those new routes.
The article notes that 86% of all aircraft subject to the federal law are already quiet enough: either due to mufflering equipment or an inherently quieter design. The FAA says that although more than twice the number of passengers that flew in 1975 will be flying this year, the number of residents who will be affected by similar levels of noise will be reduce by over ten times.
PUBLICATION: San Antonio Express-News
DATE: September 15, 1999
SECTION: Sun - Northwest; Pg. 1H
BYLINE: Chuck Mccollough
DATELINE: San Antonio, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bill Sullivan, president of Oak Park- Northwood Neighborhood Association
The San Antonio Express-News reports that a current noise compatibility study around San Antonio International Airport in Texas has residents hoping for relief from aircraft noise. Local organizations believe that alternating takeoff patterns and faster climbing are among the cheapest, easiest, ways to reduce noise immediately. A 5-house pilot soundproofing project will help determine whether the federal government will fund up to 80% of a soundproofing initiative at the airport.
The article reports that a current noise compatibility study around San Antonio International Airport in Texas has residents hoping for relief from aircraft noise. The study is scheduled to be finished by 2000, and will include noise mitigation suggestions such as faster climbing, takeoff patterns that spread noise around more evenly, immediate turns upon takeoff that take planes over non-residential areas, banning night flights, and the purchase or soundproofing of homes most affected by noise.
The article notes that the effectiveness of a 5-house pilot soundproofing project will help determine whether the federal government will fund up to 80% of a soundproofing initiative at the airport. Soundproofing costs between $1200 and $1500 per house. Houses are selected from lists submitted by local homeowners associations.
The article goes on to say that local organizations are urging the airport to catch up with most other major airports around the country in regards to noise mitigation. They believe that alternating takeoff patterns and faster climbing are among the cheapest, easiest, ways to reduce noise immediately.
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot
DATE: September 15, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. B10
BYLINE: by Scott E. Smith
DATELINE: Virginia Beach
The Virginian-Pilot prints a letter from a Navy pilot who objects to recent letters that complained about jet noise from Virginia Beach's Oceana Naval Base. He says that the "cavalier attitude and sarcasm" of the letters was shocking. He suggests that her admitted desire to "discuss the merits of The Poisonwood Bible while eating quiche" in a comfortable, upper-income home is trivial next to the importance of the military's role in Kosovo and in protecting our country.
"I am a Navy FA-18 pilot deployed on the USS Theodore Roosevelt. My wife has been sending news clippings from your paper about the sudden awareness of jet aircraft noise around NAS Oceana. I was especially shocked by the cavalier attitude and sarcasm of Kerry Dougherty's column "Quiet, please: Roaring Hornets and the sound of insomnia" (Perspectives, Aug. 21).
I recently purchased a home in Virginia Beach five miles south of NAS Oceana. This column is certainly not the welcome I had hoped for.
Ms. Dougherty complained that her book club could not "discuss the merits of The Poisonwood Bible while eating quiche" in a comfortable, upper-income home. While Ms. Dougherty and her friends were having to endure pauses in conversation and the "sound of insomnia," the Kosovar Albanians were having to endure the sounds of gunfire next door. Instead of the quiche falling, it was their roofs. The U.S. and NATO "sound of freedom" helped end the bloodshed and tearing apart of families (and book clubs), including the "sound of freedom" from NAS Oceana-based FA-18 Hornets.
Oh, by the way, those Hornets were being flown and maintained by men and women who recently moved to Virginia. They uprooted their families and deployed for six months while their loved ones unpacked boxes and adjusted to life without a father (or mother) in a new home.
All departing traffic climbing outbound from NAS Oceana flies directly over my house , making "incessant, ear-splitting, head-ringing, nerve-jarring and conversation-stopping" noise. My family and I live with the inconvenience because we believe naval aviation is a key element of our national defense and peacekeeping worldwide, and we like the neighborhood. Noise abatement is an issue for civilian and Navy leaders in this community to manage, and every indication is that our leaders are aggressively doing just that. I suspect most residents also choosing to live near NAS Oceana over the years, including your book club hostess, also expected to endure jet noise.
The Hornets are here, and they will continue to train for the next Kosovo and to protect America, because that is what our elected officials have ordered. We don't want sympathy, just a welcome.
Ms. Dougherty should use her influence to support the military in this community. In America, and certainly Virginia Beach, we've got it pretty good, even with jet noise."
PUBLICATION: Air Transport Intelligence
DATE: September 14, 1999
BYLINE: Graham Dunn
DATELINE: Washington D.C.
Air Transport Intelligence reports that the FAA has asked Congress to hold off on filing an official complaint against the European Union (EU) and its recent legislation that bans new planes from using hushkits to meet noise limits after May 2000. The EU is eager for U.S. participation in the development of new noise standards, and may be willing to withdraw their legislation if a proposed standard is being developed to otherwise address their concerns about noise. The anti-hushkit legislation -- as it now stands -- would prevent the addition of noisy, hush-kitted planes to European fleets after May 2000.
The article reports that the FAA has asked Congress to hold off on filing an official complaint against the European Union (EU) and its recent legislation that bans new planes from using hushkits to meet noise limits after May 2000. The FAA says that the EU may withdraw the legislation itself if the current process to develop the next generation of international noise standards continues to go well. The new standards are to be presented to the ICAO council by 2001 as part of the "Joint Declaration."
The article notes that the anti-hushkit legislation would prevent the addition of noisy, hush-kitted planes to European fleets. If the U.S. decides to initiate "retaliatory action", the first step would likely be an official complaint filed with either the "ICAO or the World Trade Organisation." While the FAA hasn't ruled out such action, it believes that now isn't the time. The EU is eager for U.S. participation in the new standards, and may be willing to withdraw their legislation if a proposed standard is being developed to otherwise address their concerns about noise.
PUBLICATION: Anchorage Daily News
DATE: September 14, 1999
SECTION: Metro, Pg. 8B
BYLINE: Dan Gleason
DATELINE: Anchorage, Alaska
The Anchorage Daily News prints an article written by a resident who is worried about a requested 10-year permit that would allow the Anchorage International Airport to fill most of the wetlands remaining on its land. Officials say competition requires growth, and critics worry about negative impacts to the environment and the community. The author urges the withdrawal of the permit request, and the drafting of an Environmental Impact Statement, which is not currently planned.
The article is written by a resident who is worried about a requested 10-year permit that would allow the Anchorage International Airport to fill most of the wetlands remaining on its land. Airport officials claim that without massive expansion, the airport's competitive edge in the North Pacific cargo industry will be lost. Critics worry that habitat will be destroyed or polluted, neighborhoods will be encroached upon through traffic and noise, and the airport will leave the community anyway as soon as it becomes too large.
The article notes that the permit, to be reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers will allow 240 acres of wetlands to be filled for any construction project that the airport wishes to do, even if the projects could be located on existing land. Although the community's land use plan calls for buffering between industrial and residential land, the airport is not bound by those rules.
The author urges the withdrawal of the permit request, since filling wetlands should not be required in the immediate future anyway. An Environmental Impact Statement, which is not currently planned, would provide more information to the airport and critics alike about the potential impact.
PUBLICATION: Birmingham Evening Mail
DATE: September 14, 1999
SECTION: Pg. 6
BYLINE: Sue Smith
DATELINE: Worcestershire, U.K.
The Birmingham Evening Mail reports that residents in Worcestershire, U.K. oppose the proposed lifting of a rule at the local police's firing range that would allow outsiders to train there. Officials say that training with other area officers is important for public safetey, but critics don't want noise to increase.
The article reports that residents in Worcestershire, U.K. oppose the proposed lifting of a rule at the local police's firing range that would allow outsiders to train there. Although residents have complained to the local council, the firing range itself has received no complaints. Officials at the range say it's important for officers to train with those from nearby areas to increase their effectiveness when working together. Critics worry that opening the range to outsiders will increase the already bothersome noise.
The article continues, noting that the indoor range cost 2 million pounds to construct in 1992, and is considered one of the best in England. There are only six others. Currently, 238 training days are designated each year, up from 70 in 1985.
PUBLICATION: Capital
DATE: September 14, 1999
SECTION: Arundel; Pg. C1
BYLINE: by Kevin Kaley
DATELINE: Annapolis, Maryland
The Capital reports on a new noise ordinance in Annapolis, Maryland. It applies to amplified music, shouting, and loud vehicles. A noise will be considered a violation if it can be heard fifty feet from the source.
The article reports on several City Council happenings in Annapolis, Maryland, including the passage of a nuisance ordinance. The ordinance included restrictions on "noise of sufficient loudness, character and duration which may unreasonably interfere with the proper enjoyment of property or with any lawful business or activity."
The article notes that the ordinance will apply to "amplified music, yelling, shouting and rude remarks in public, and frequent, repetitive sounds from engines or motor vehicles." A noise will be considered a violation if it can be heard fifty feet from the source.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: September 14, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Lee Condon
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that a deal reached between Burbank, California and its resident airport is being challenged by legislators to the West. Los Angeles legislators say their constituents would get an unfair share of aircraft noise under a ban on eastern takeoffs, but proponents say mountains, runway length, and air-traffic patterns make eastern takeoffs unsafe.
The article reports that a deal reached between Burbank, California and its resident airport is being challenged by legislators to the West. The deal calls for a ban on Eastern takeoffs, which would keep the skies quiet over Glendale and Burbank communities. Los Angeles legislators say their constituents would get an unfair share of the noise under the ban. Deal proponents say that Eastern takeoffs are simply unsafe. The Los Angeles politicians are asking the FAA to kill the deal, which has come after years of legal battles between Burbank and the Airport.
The article continues, noting that there is a current ban on eastern takeoffs in place, but that ban is due to the fact that the existing terminal is dangerously close to the eastern runway. Expansion that would be approved under the deal would place the new terminal a safe distance away from the runway. However, the facts that the San Gabriel mountains are to the East, the runway is 800 feet shorter than the other runway, and eastern takeoffs place airplanes in the flight paths from Los Angeles' airport make eastern takeoffs unsafe. A proponent of the deal says "Share the noise sounds like a great bumper sticker slogan. But the question is whether it's really, share the risk."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: September 14, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that three Los Angeles congressmen have written the FAA, asking them to kill a deal between Burbank and its airport. The congressmen claim that a ban on eastern takeoffs -- presented as part of the deal -- is unfair since the ban would direct most air traffic over Western communities and almost none over Burbank and Glendale.
The article notes that although a ban on eastern takeoffs has been in place since 1986, it could soon be removed since the expansion plan calls for relocating the terminal at a safer distance from the runway. However, two local pilots groups said that factors including the mountains and LAX air traffic to the East, as well as a shorter runway mean that Eastern takeoffs will still be unsafe, even after the terminal is moved. Los Angeles politicians dismiss these safety issues as a cover for a politically-motivated ban designed to get long-resistant Burbank to approve an airport expansion plan.
The article notes that the $300 million expansion plan will receive final approval from the Burbank City Council after two more public hearings. It would immediately allow a new 14-gate terminal; expansion to 16-gates will be approved only if the FAA agrees to a mandatory curfew, and a 19-gate terminal would be allowed only if noise would be reduced to less than 65 decibels per day in all residential areas. Proponents of the plan say the ban is only one piece of a complex proposal: most of which should be just what noise opponents want. In addition to the Los Angeles legislators, the Air Transport Association opposes the plan; their gripes are based on the proposition that the terminal be closed between 11 PM and 6 AM.
Previous week: September 5, 1999
Next week: September 19, 1999
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