PUBLICATION: EIU ViewsWire
DATE: June 5, 1997
DATELINE: Europe
EIU ViewsWire printed a summary of a report in European Voice, a weekly newspaper of The Economist Group covering the European Union, which says that Europe is finalizing moves to impose tougher restrictions on noisy airplanes. The European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) is expected to adopt a non-binding recommendation in July committing its member countries not to add any new aircraft to their fleets after 2002 which do not meet the quieter "Chapter 3" noise standards. According to the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the recommendation will eventually form the basis of binding European Union legislation.
The article reports that under the expected recommendation, older, noisier "Chapter 2" planes that have been newly hush-kitted would be allowed after 2002. But the rule would only apply to airlines registered within the European Union and any other European countries that committed themselves to the new standards. American, African, and South East Asian air carriers would not be affected by the new constraint, which raises the issue of how much regional agreements can achieve in an international industry such as aviation. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) failed to negotiate tighter noise limits recently, partly due to resistance from the U.S. European Commission officials say their desire to act unilaterally is a result of the failure of ICAO to set limits. The article says one U.S. official said, "If they want to do something, they should do something about the way the ICAO works rather than setting tighter standards unilaterally." The AEA, however, has insisted that progress over the medium term is possible only if Europe pushes ahead on its own.
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot
DATE: June 4, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. B2
DATELINE: Elizabeth City, Virginia
The Virginian-Pilot reports that the Elizabeth City, Virginia City Council has unanimously passed a stronger noise ordinance addressed at loud car stereos.
According to the article, the new noise ordinance will be effective immediately. The ordinance makes it illegal to play any "device for reproducing sound" loud enough to be heard from more than 75 feet. The ordinance was formulated in response to frequent complaints about loud car stereos in public parking lots and on neighborhood streets. Elizabeth City's earlier noise ordinance was focused primarily on the decibel levels of outdoor concerts, the article reports.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: June 3, 1997
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A14
DATELINE: Stafford, Connecticut
The Hartford Courant printed an editorial in which the recent move by the board of selectmen in Stafford, Connecticut to consider a noise ordinance for car stereos is applauded. The editorial advises the board of selectmen to act quickly to approve the ordinance, and advises townspeople to support the proposal at public hearings.
The editorial says that intrusively loud car stereos damage people's perception of the community just like dirty streets and rundown buildings. To improve the quality of life in the town, officials have already planted trees, campaigned for cleanups, torn down deteriorating buildings, and restored the Holt fountain, the editorial points out. A noise ordinance would be another positive step in this direction, the editorial advocates. The ordinance would also promote safety, the editorial says, because drivers who play their radios too loud cannot hear approaching rescue vehicles.
The editorial maintains that using existing laws that fine people for creating a public disturbance may not work for noise disturbances. A better idea is to determine what noise level for car stereos constitutes a public disturbance. The editorial says that officers can then determine which car stereos are actually violating the ordinance.
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer
DATE: June 5, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Steve Luttner
DATELINE: Medina, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dennis Hanwell, Police Chief
The Plain Dealer reports that Medina, Ohio Police Chief Dennis Hanwell has asked the city council to amend the existing noise ordinance to allow police to use their own discretion in issuing citations for noise generated by car stereos in parking lots. City Councillor Pam Miller said she expects council to approve the amendment, the article says.
According to the article, Hanwell said he recently distributed surveys to Medina businesses that asked merchants how they could be better served by the police. A large number of the returned surveys, he said, indicated that loud music coming from parked cars was a problem. Hanwell said, "A number of the businesses were complaining that in the parking lots the radios were loud, the windows were shaking and they thought it was intimidating to their customers."
Medina already has a law that prohibits "unreasonable sound amplifying devices," the article reports. However, the current law requires that a citizen file a complaint about loud noise before police can act. Under Hanwell's proposal, police would have the ability to issue citations generated by cars in parking lots without a citizen complaint. The existing ordinance stipulates that citations can be issued if the noise is audible 60 feet from the device producing the sound, but Hanwell said noise from car stereos can often be heard from 200 feet away. The article says that under the current ordinance, a first violation of the law is a minor misdemeanor that carries a maximum fine of $100, and subsequent citations are a fourth-degree misdemeanor that can result in a $250 fine and 30 days in jail.
The article concludes that the amendment to the noise ordinance has been referred to the Medina City Council's Special Legislation Committee.
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot
DATE: June 4, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Toni Guagenti
DATELINE: Virginia Beach, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Tim Weber, resident
The Virginian-Pilot reports that part of the Kempsville Road that links Virginia Beach, Virginia to Chesapeake is set to be widened from two lanes to six lanes, and noise barriers to protect residential neighborhoods from the increased traffic noise likely will accompany the project.
According to the article, a 4.67-mile stretch of the road will be widened in a project slated to begin in early 1999. The Virginia Department of Transportation has proposed a series of sound walls to accompany the project, in keeping with federal regulations. The walls are proposed in west Kempsville and in Chesapeake's Greenbrier area to protect four subdivisions from the noise. According to the article, John Herzke, an engineer at the Virginia Beach Department of Public Works, said the 8 to 10 foot high sound walls proposed for Kempsville would be the first to be made of concrete and to be used near residential areas outside interstate areas. The proposed walls would be be placed near: the Alexandria subdivision at the Beach to protect about 50 properties at a cost of about $50,000; at Tallwood Estates in Chesapeake to protect two homes at a cost of $ 37,000; at Kemp Crossing in Chesapeake to protect 15 homes at a cost of $258,000; and at Kemp Woods in Chesapeake to protect three homes at a cost of $55,000. The federal government is expected to pay for 80 percent of the project, the state 18 percent, and the cities 2 percent.
The article reports that residential, commercial, and industrial development has brought a rise in traffic volume on Kempsville Road over the past few years. In 1996, the article says, more than 25,300 vehicles traveled the stretch daily, and that number is expected to jump to 70,000 vehicles a day by 2015. When the road widening is finished sometime in 2001, the article goes on, the road will be a major thoroughfare between Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.
The article says tht according to officials, no residents have yet opposed the noise barriers' construction. Officials added that they will try to make sure the barriers don't impinge on the neighborhoods' aesthetics. Herzke said they were going to try to make the walls look nice with landscaping. But, he added, in some areas there wouldn't be much space between the sidewalks and the sound walls. Virginia Beach Councillor Louisa Strayhorn, whose borough includes the area, said she would recommend that the stretch be landscaped with trees and that the walls have ivy growing on them, the article reports.
At least one resident, Tim Weber, who lives on John Brown Lane in Alexandria, is welcoming the sound walls, the article says. Weber said the noise is already "awful" with just two lanes. He added that last December he put thicker windows in his house to cut down on the traffic noise.
Meanwhile, the project is moving forward as the Virginia Beach City Council gave its approval Tuesday to the Virginia Department of Transportation to widen its portion of the road. The Council's recommendation now goes to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, which has to approve the project and release the funds for rights-of-way acquisition, the article reports. It will take at least 18 months for construction to begin. Chesapeake already approved its part of the project in March, ignoring residents' protests. Residents claimed that the city gave them little notice of the project and had voted in 1994 to limit the road to a maximum of four lanes.
PUBLICATION: St. Petersburg Times
DATE: June 6, 1997
SECTION: Floridian; Action; Pg. 2D
BYLINE: Nancy Paradis
DATELINE: St. Petersburg, Florida
The St. Petersburg Times printed a letter from a resident asking a columnist whether there is a noise ordinance in St. Petersburg, Florida. The resident, W. Bytautas, has a neighbor who plays the drums and the noise is unbearable. The resident asks the columnist how to get action on this problem. The columnist responds by saying there is a noise ordinance in St. Petersburg, but the code compliance officers do not get involved in residential disturbances. The columnist advises calling the police.
According to the columnist's response, Chapter 11 of the St. Petersburg city code addresses the issue of the limits on noise levels. However, according to Sally Eichler of St. Petersburg's codes compliance assistance division, her office gets involved in noise disturbances only when the noise is from a commercial establishment and is continuous and predictable. Eichlar said residential noise problems are more likely to occur when her office is closed.
But, the columnist says, even though the codes compliance officers are unlikely to get involved in a residential case, a community police officer will be able to investigate such a complaint. Lilla Davis, public information officer of the St. Petersburg Police Department, said that visits by an officer to the noise-maker usually solves the problem, but if necessary, decibel readings can also be taken. Davis added that this rarely happens, however.
The columnist advises the resident to call the non-emergency police number: 893-7780 in the resident's area. In other areas, residents should call their city or county police department or Codes Compliance Assistance Divisions.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: June 3, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 2; Metro Desk
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Robert Fried, resident
The Los Angeles Times reports that several Los Angeles residents in the Marina del Rey neighborhood claim that there has been increasing numbers of airplanes flying over their homes from Los Angeles International Airport.
According to the article, residents have witnessed planes -- which never used to pass over them -- turning right. One man said "I can take a 7 iron and hit golf balls over the planes from the shoreline." It wasn't clear why the man knew so much about golf. Airport officials say that flight paths have not officials changed, and promised to check on the problem with the Federal Aviation Administration.
PUBLICATION: Chapel Hill Herald
DATE: June 1, 1997
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 4;
BYLINE: Peter Aitken, Chapel Hill resident
DATELINE: Chapel Hill, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Peter Aitken, Chapel Hill resident
The Chapel Hill Herald printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Peter Aitken, a Chapel Hill resident, regarding noise from the University of North Carolina's Horace Williams Airport:
Horace Williams Airport may or may not pose a safety concern -- I cannot judge -- but it most certainly is a noise problem.
Although I live about two miles from the airport, I am regularly disturbed by low-flying planes going to or coming from Horace Williams. Recently my wife and I were awakened at 5:40 a.m. on a Saturday by an airplane, which had me seriously considering the purchase of a heat-seeking missile!
Not all occurrences are as bad, but several times each week airport-related noise disturbs our sleep, interrupts a conversation, drowns out a radio or TV show, or simply violates our peace and quiet. How many hundreds or thousands of town residents suffer similar or worse disturbances? All this for the convenience of a small number of airport users who cannot be bothered with the 25-minute drive to RDU airport.
As for UNC's claim that Horace Williams is required for the functioning of the university and medical center, I am amazed that such a blatantly nonsensical argument can be advanced by supposedly intelligent people. Our neighbor Duke University has somehow managed to achieve a reputation and level of quality that if anything eclipses UNC's, all without the supposed benefits of a nearby airport.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: June 2, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Metro Desk
BYLINE: John Canalis
DATELINE: Orange County, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Eddie Rose, Laguna Niguel City Councillor; Jim Potts, Tustin City Councillor; Wayne Baglin, Laguna Beach City Councillor; Ann Cristoph, landscape architect and former Laguna Beach City Councillor
The Los Angeles Times reports that although the City of Laguna Niguel, California recently rejected a proposal to regulate leaf-blowers, ten other cities in Orange County have imposed regulations, and one city has banned leaf-blowers. The article outlines how the regulations have been passed or rejected in some of the cities, and provides a list of which cities have regulations currently.
The article reports that the recent proposal in Laguna Niguel to ban gas-powered leaf blowers had the support of only one out of five city councillors -- Councillor Eddie Rose. Rose had not anticipated that other councillors would not support his proposal. After all, he said, leaf blowers "pollute, they are noisy, and they don't accomplish anything. All they do is blow leaves from one place to another.... They're a hoax." However, the other councillors listened to and agreed with landscapers and gardeners who said the costs to residents and the city of lawn care would go up if they were forced to use rakes and hoses. Rose said, "What happened was a very well-orchestrated and well-organized opposition by the landscape maintenance companies. They put out a lot of scare tactics saying the homeowners association fees would be raised." City Councillor Mimi Krogius Walters, however, argued that the existing noise ordinance was enough to regulate the devices and that there is little public interest in a ban. Walters also disliked the fact that banning leaf blowers would cost the city more than $200,000 a year in additional labor.
In a similar move, the City of Cypress in 1996 considered tightening restrictions on blowers, but dropped the idea after officials decided that doing so would drive up city maintenance costs by $39,000 a year.
Though leaf blowers are loud and kick up dust and trash, the article says, many officials believe leaf blowers are less labor-intensive than raking a lawn and cheaper than hosing down a driveway in a drought-prone region where the cost of water is high.
The City of Tustin struggled with the issue in 1995, the article reports, and passed time restrictions on leaf blowers. The machines are banned from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and from 5 p.m. Saturday to 9 a.m. Sunday. City Councillor Jim Potts, who voted for the ordinance, said some of the responsibility should fall to manufacturers -- they should make quieter machines, he believes.
Laguna Beach is the only Orange County city where leaf blowers are banned, the article reports. The machines were banned in 1993 after residents complained. But noise, according to City Councillor Wayne Baglin, was only one of the issues in Laguna Beach. Baglin said people were also concerned that the machines were blowing up dust and feces and contaminating the air, as well as redistributing the litter to others' properties. Baglin said the ordinance has been successful and does not appear to be an economic hardship, the article reports. However, Councillor Wayne Peterson, the only Laguna Beach official to oppose the ban, said he felt the ordinance was an over-reaction, and some residents, especially seniors, have been hurt by the rise in gardening rates. Ann Cristoph, a landscape architect and former Laguna Beach City Councillor who voted for the ban, countered that if the result of the ban is a healthier environment, the added money and time are worth it. She said, "A lot more people are doing business from home, and they're listening to this all day. It was an endless noise problem.... You should be able to live in your home in peace and quiet."
The article also printed the following list of Orange County cities that have banned or restricted the hours of use of leaf blowers.
PUBLICATION: Airports
DATE: June 3, 1997
SECTION: Vol. 14, No. 22; Pg. 227
DATELINE: U.S.
The publication Airports printed the following notices from the Federal Aviation Administration listed in the Federal Register:
May 29: Issued a proposed final policy on Part 150 approval and funding of noise mitigation measures. Comments are due June 27, and the policy, if not changed, will be effective Jan. 1, 1998.
Proposed to rule and invited public comment on the application to use the revenue from a passenger facility charge (PFC) at Dubois-Jefferson County Airport, Dubois, Pa. Comments are due June 30, and FAA will approve or disapprove the application in whole or in part by Aug. 12. For more information, contact L.W. Walsh, Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3911 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 1, Camp Hill, Pa. 17011; telephone 717-730-2831.
Proposed to rule and invited public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Erie Municipal Airport, Erie, Pa.
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: June 2, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A11
BYLINE: Maria Alicia Gaura
DATELINE: San Jose, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lenora Porcella, spokesperson, Citizens Against Airport Pollution
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that an ambitious plan that could more than double air traffic at the San Jose (California) International Airport will go before the City Council tomorrow night. The article reports that the hearing is expected to draw residents who are fighting the expansion, saying the increased air traffic sill produce more noise and paralyze traffic in the area. The council could vote on the issue tomorrow night, but it expected to postpone the vote for at least another week because of the controversy.
According to the article, critics of the airport expansion say that under Federal Aviation Administration rules, local government has almost no control over the use of airport facilities once they're built. Lenora Porcella, spokesperson for Citizens Against Airport Pollution, said, "We have to be very judicious about capital improvements, because the only decision we get to make is the decision of what to build."
The article goes on to say that Ralph Tonseth, the airport's director of aviation, said the airport contributes significantly to the local and state economy, and with the airport expansion, will contribute even more. He said the expansion "will allow us to keep our competitive edge, and serve the high-tech businesses that use us as their gateway to the world." Tonseth added that some problems are unavoidable. "Of course there are a ton of impacts [to any expansion]," he said. "And some of them -- such as noise, air quality and traffic -- you can't mitigate. But that's part of the package."
The article reports that plans for expanding San Jose International have been in the development stage for almost a decade. Three different development proposals are being considered by the council. The first, and most ambitious, would allow the airport to serve 17.6 million passengers a year, up from 10 million, and to increase air cargo tonnage from 81,237 tons to 315,000 tons by 2010. In addition, it would lengthen two of the airport's three runways to 11,000 feet, build a third terminal, and remodel one terminal, resulting in 49 air carrier gates, the article says. The is is plan favored by the city's Airport Commission. The second development proposal, and the alternative recommended by the city's planning commission, would allow facilities for as many as 13.1 million passengers and 283,000 tons of air cargo annually, and would extend one runway to 8,900 feet, extend another to 11,000 feet, build a new terminal, remodel another, and provide 37 gates. The third option would extend one runway to 11,000 feet, replace one terminal, and provide 35 gates. Air traffic would be limited to about 12.4 million passengers and cargo would be limited to about 167,000 tons -- about half the projected demand, the article reports.
The article also says that about 30 years ago, the city began to prepare for a bigger airport by buying and demolishing homes, businesses, and even an elementary school that lay in the airport's main flight path. This project cost $90 million and cleared 120 acres and 800 buildings in an area southwest of the airport.
The public hearing on the three proposals is set for 7 p.m. tomorrow at San Jose City Hall.
PUBLICATION: Aviation Daily
DATE: June 4, 1997
SECTION: Europe; Vol. 328, No. 46; Pg. 393
DATELINE: Brussels, Belgium
Aviation Daily reports that charter airlines and other operators using noisy aircraft are complaining about new nighttime regulations at Brussels Airport International.
According to the article, the new rules were drawn up by Belgian Transport Minister Michel Daerden, after years of noise complaints and a lawsuit launched last summer against airport authorities. The noisier, Chapter 2 aircraft are now banned at the airport between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., which extends by one hour a previous but loosely enforced curfew. Currently, the article says only two daily Sobelair 737-200s and three Sabena weekend flights are affected by the restrictions at an airport that sees 850 aircraft movements per week
The article goes on to say that the Belgian Association of Tour Operators (ABTO) said the restrictions "pose serious logistical problems" for its members. However, the article reports that the restrictions will have very little impact on airport operations, and on noise relief. In response to ABTO's complaint, the government said that ABTO members can use nearby regional airports if they object to the rules.
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call
DATE: June 5, 1997
SECTION: Local/Region, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Christine Schiavo
DATELINE: Cetronia, Pennsylvania
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Gary Ward, Richard Jarrett, residents
The Morning Call reports that a new roller coaster in Cetronia, Pennsylvania is driving residents crazy. The 200-foot tall roller coaster, called "Steel Force," is located at Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom and is billed as the tallest, fastest coaster in the East. The roller coaster went up only after a long fight by residents, and eventual agreements on noise limitations by the company. Now, about a dozen residents who live nearby have invited South Whitehall commissioners to come to their homes and backyards to hear the noise. The commissioners plan to accept the invitation, and they want officials from Dorney Park officials to do the same.
The article reports that Dorney officials and an acoustical engineer hired by the park maintained in township meetings in 1996 that the steel roller coaster would add no new noise to the neighborhood. When commissioners approved the roller coaster in February 1996, they set up conditions for operation that prohibit loud, repetitive noise. Dorney Park officials agreed as a stipulation of the permit that noise from the ride would not hit 57 decibels at the nearest residence. Park officials said they used polyurethane wheels on the coaster to live up to the agreement, so that there would be no metal rubbing against metal on the coaster.
Steel Force opened last week to rave reviews from roller coaster enthusiasts, the article reports. The ride reportedly cost $12 million to build.
Residents, however, say the park isn't living up to its promise to control the clacking of the chain that pulls cars up the roller coaster's hill. Gary Ward, a Walnut Street resident, said, "This thing is really, really loud. Intrusively loud." Richard Jarrett, another Walnut Street resident, said no one expects the park to take the ride down, but residents want to be able to barbecue, garden, and sit on their porches without hearing every clack of the roller coaster. "I can hear it in front of my house, in back of my house and inside my house. I can't get away from it," Jarrett said.
The article goes on to say that the conditions listed in the 1996 agreement between the park and commissioners is as binding as a contract. Township solicitor Blake Marles said he would expect Dorney Park to reduce the noise level if commissioners find that it violates the agreement. If Dorney Park does not comply, the township and the residents could take them to court, the article reports.
PUBLICATION: The Patriot Ledger
DATE: June 2, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 09C
BYLINE: Ray McEachern
DATELINE: Quincy, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Carol and Paul Reynolds, residents
The Patriot Ledger reports that residents in the Marina Bay area of Quincy, Massachusetts who complained last summer about noise from the WaterWorks seaside club may have a quieter summer this year due to new noise barriers at the club. License board Chair Joseph Shea said tests show the noise barriers are successfully blocking the loud music from the club. Shea said license officials will review the noise test results at a 10 a.m. meeting tomorrow, and because the noise problem is being curbed, the board also may vote on requests by the club owner to raise the patron capacity from to 1,250 to 1,600 and extend the 11 p.m. live music curfew until 1 a.m.
According to the article, Shea said the city has conducted tests since the club's May 12 opening, and has found that the new noise barriers are working. Shea said the city would continue to test decibel levels all summer and hold the club to "a strict community noise standard." The license board voted in February turn down a request for the installation of a swimming pool at WaterWorks, but postponed a decision on increased capacity and later music hours until June 27 in order to allow for noise testing after the club opened for the season.
The article reports that the changes WaterWorks has made to mitigate noise include improvements to amplifying equipment and the construction of a 30-foot-high metal wall behind the stage. WaterWorks proprietor Ed Kane said efforts to contain the sound will cost his firm more than $40,000. Kane said his tests, the city tests, and the advisory committee all agree the noise problem is being corrected.
However, the article goes on to say, some residents aren't ready to agree that the problem is fixed. Resident Carol Reynolds said she believes the club has kept the music volume down while the testing was underway. But License Board Chair Shea said his own visits to the club, including one on Memorial Day, have convinced him that the bands were not easing up when they performed.
PUBLICATION: Airports
DATE: June 3, 1997
SECTION: Vol. 14, No. 22; Pg. 219
DATELINE: U.S.
The publication Airports reports that the Federal Aviation Administration last week issued a "proposed final policy" on Part 150 approval and funding of noise mitigation measures. The policy says the FAA will not approve or fund noise mitigation measures for new noncompatible development after Jan. 1, 1998.
The article reports that in a policy published in the May 28 Federal Register, the FAA said it will approve under Part 150 only remedial noise mitigation measures for existing noncompatible development, and only preventive noise mitigation measures in areas of potential new noncompatible development. The FAA had earlier issued a proposed policy in March 1995 that aimed to increase the incentives for airport operators to prevent the development of new noncompatible land uses around airports. Although the new policy takes effect Jan. 1, 1998, the FAA is calling it a "proposed final policy" because the agency is seeking further comment by June 27 on the impact of the policy's limitations on passenger facility charge (PFC) eligibility, the article reports. By contrast, the March 1995 proposed policy "was more generic in its discussion of funding and did not specifically cite PFC eligibility," according to an FAA official.
The article goes on to say that the FAA acknowledged that adopting a policy of approving preventive measures while disapproving remedial ones sometimes will result in "gray areas which will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis." For example, the FAA has said, "minor development on vacant lots within an existing residential neighborhood, which clearly is not extensive new noncompatible development, may for practical purposes need to be treated with the same remedial measure applied to the rest of the neighborhood." Another example, according to the agency, would be a remedial situation in which noise from an airport's operation has significantly increased, resulting in new areas that were compatible with initial conditions becoming noncompatible, the article says.
The article concludes by saying that noise mitigation would continue to be eligible for AIP and PFC funds if approved as mitigation measures in an FAA environmental document for an airport development project.
For more information, contact William Albee, Policy and Regulatory Division, Office of Environment and Energy, at 202-267-3553, fax 202-267-5594 or e-mail Walbee@mail.hq.faa.gov. Or, contact Ellis Ohnstad, Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division, Office of Airport Planning and Programming, at 202-267-3831, fax 202-267-5302.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: June 5, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Eliot Kleinberg
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ellen Lohr, Vice Chair, Boca Raton Airport Action Group
The Palm Beach Post reports that the Boca Raton (Florida) Airport Authority Wednesday created a noise advisory committee to study noise issues at the Boca Raton Airport. Although the authority created slots for six residents on the panel, including three residents from the Boca Raton Airport Action Group, the residents from the citizens group would not be permitted to represent the group on the panel. This move has angered the citizens group, which first raised the noise complaints.
According to the article, officials from the airport authority said they did not want representatives of the citizens group on the panel, because they did not want to politicize the panel. Ellen Lohr, Vice Chair of the group, said her group's efforts spurred the authority and the city into action. Authority Chair Phillip Modder agreed that the group brought noise issues to the forefront, which was an important accomplishment for the group.
The article reports that other members of the committee would include one operator each of light aircraft, charter jets, corporate jets, and helicopters, and one representative from the business community, the city's development or zoning departments, and Boca Aviation, the private air operator at the airport. Other members, who would not be able to vote, would include an independent chair, possibly a professor from Florida Atlantic University, which is next to the airport, and one representative each from the authority, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Florida Department of Transportation. The article says that the new panel may hold its first meeting within two weeks.
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune
DATE: June 4, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Laurie Blake
DATELINE: Minneapolis / St. Paul, Minnesota
The Star Tribune reports that airport officials of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport gave their initial support Tuesday to a plan to lengthen one runway temporarily and another permanently to allow Northwest Airlines to provide new non-stop flights between the Twin Cities and Hong Kong. A committee of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) said it would reserve a final decision on the issue until receiving input about the noise impacts of the decision from Minneapolis, Richfield, and Bloomington. However, the committee told Northwest Airlines it could have a decision by July.
According to the article, Northwest officials were hoping for an even quicker decision in order to begin offering the service this year. Jennifer Sayre, director of state affairs for Northwest, said Hong Kong market opportunities are opening up fast, and "we are under an extreme time crunch to make the decision." The airline's decision is dependent on getting the longer runway, because the heavily-loaded, long-distance flights need more space to take off.
The article reports that only last year, the airport's Runway 4-22 was lengthened to 11,000 feet to accommodate Northwest's overseas flights to Tokyo and Osaka, Japan. Now, Northwest, which provides most of the airline service to the Twin Cities, is saying it needs a 12,000-foot runway to make flights viable to the more distant Hong Kong. The extra 1,000 feet would allow the planes to carry 50 to 60 more passengers, the article reports. The Hong Kong flights could initially use Runway 4-22, but it is scheduled for reconstruction next year, which would interrupt the airline's service. Nigel Finney, deputy executive director of planning for MAC, said one possibility is that Runway 4-22 could be rebuilt, lengthened to 12,000 feet, and be back in use by 1999 or 2000 at a cost of about $7 million. But because that plan would interrupt the service, the more favored proposal is to extend the airport's southern parallel runway by 1,300 feet at a cost of about $8.5 million. Extending the southern runway would send the Hong Kong air traffic over south Minneapolis, while extending the other runway would send it over Richfield and Bloomington. The article goes on to say that Northwest now expects to use the longer runway for only three or four departures per week.
The amount of noise the Hong Kong flights would add residential areas is unclear, the article reports. But Airports Commissioner Joe Gasper, who represents Minneapolis and Richfield, was annoyed that Northwest was requesting a longer runway so soon after the last extension. Gasper said the discussions for extending Runway 4-22 went on for 16 years, and there was never talk of extending the runway to 12,000 feet. But Finney said the MAC has always been in the position of responding to airline requests and making major investments because of such requests.
Meanwhile, Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton told the MAC in writing that a decision on the runway extension should be postponed until Minneapolis can analyze the potential effects. Commissioner Steve Cramer, of Minneapolis, said he agreed that there should be no final decision without community input. Cramer went on to remind the MAC committee that Richfield's concern about last year's extension of Runway 4-22 was that it put the point of landing and takeoff so much closer to the community, the article reports. Commissioner John Himle of Bloomington said that community concerns should be weighed, but he believes the noise impacts of this proposal are minimal. He said Minneapolis officials have criticized Northwest in the past for moving international flights to Detroit, and they shouldn't drag their feet on the decision and lose the opportunity for service to Hong Kong. Himle added, "I think we need to be cognizant that these kind of marketplace decisions may not wait for MAC."
PUBLICATION: Morning Star
DATE: June 5, 1997
SECTION: Local/Regional; Pg. 2B
BYLINE: Aaron Hoover
DATELINE: Wilmington, North Carolina
The Morning Star reports that the New Hanover County school board in Wilmington, North Carolina will reconsider whether to build a wall to shield neighbors who have complained about a noisy air handler at the new Holly Tree Elementary School, set to open this year. The board earlier removed the issue from its agenda after one board member said she didn't believe the board should spend the money on a wall. However, the board has now agreed to discuss the issue at its June 17 meeting.
According to the article, residents near the school have complained that the air handling unit is located 70 feet from one home, and creates noise that disturbs residents of nine homes. School board members asked Assistant Superintendent Bill Hance, who oversees planning, operations, and technology, why the air handler was located so close to homes in the 3000 block of Kirby Smith Drive, the article reports. Hance said the decision may have been based on the topography of the site, but he wasn't working for county schools when the school was designed. Hance also said that the cost of building a wall to deaden the sound might be lower than the $33,000 bid quoted by the school's current contractor if the job were bid out.
The article also says that the wall issue earlier was removed from the school board's agenda -- along with residents' request to move a trash bin -- when Vice Chairman Janice Cavenaugh said she objected to spending the money on a wall because the school already had overruns due to drainage work.
PUBLICATION: Universal News Services
DATE: June 6, 1997
SECTION: General and City News
DATELINE: The United Kingdom
Universal News Services printed a press release from the United Kingdom's Department of Transport regarding a speech in which the Minister for Transport, Dr. Gavin Strang, urged top European airline executives to "think green." The press release says Strang's speech is a signal of the new government's commitment to environmentally friendly aviation policies.
According to the press release, Strang spoke at the annual conference of the Association of European Airlines (AEA) in Edinburgh, Scotland. Strang said that the future of the aviation industry and the future of the environment are inextricably linked. He said, "The aviation industry has done well in recent years, but it cannot rest on its laurels. As more and more people travel, it is vital that ever greater efforts are made to protect the environment. But this is not just a UK or European problem. People everywhere are demanding ever more clean and efficient transport and the aviation industry can be no exception. We must make every effort to persuade other countries to support the introduction of measures worldwide which are technologically achievable, economically feasible and environmentally beneficial. If there is no action now and problems are stored up for the future, the cost of remedy is likely to be very much higher."
Strang drew particular attention in his speec to the problems caused by aircraft noise and emissions, the press release says. Strang said, "The benefits of scrapping older, noisier aircraft must not be eroded by the use of modified planes which only just reach the required standards. But noise is not the only problem. Aircraft emmisions amount to 2%-3% of all carbon dioxide and about the same amount of nitrogen oxides. This is a worldwide problem, but if global solutions cannot easily be achieved, we may have to start looking closer to home. On both noise and emissions, we may have to get things moving through action at regional level, through the EU or in Europe more widely."
PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: June 5, 1997
SECTION: Denver & The West; Pg. B-01
BYLINE: Angela Cortez
DATELINE: Arapahoe County, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Leslie Schluter, resident and member of a citizen's group that monitors Centennial Airport; Greg Arbon, Walnut Hill subdivision resident
The Denver Post reports that airport officials in Arapahoe County, Colorado are hoping to change standards at the Centennial Airport to allow heavier planes to land there. The proposal is an attempt to attract a new type of corporate jet that is popular with executives. Some residents who live near the airport, however, are afraid that changing the weight standards will open the door to air traffic from older, noisier jets as well.
According to the article, the current limit for planes at Centennial Airport is 75,000 pounds "maximum gross takeoff weight." The proposed change would limit planes to 75,000 pounds "maximum operating weight." This change would allow the airport to handle a new generation of quieter planes without making any changes to the asphalt at the airport. However, it would also allow the airport to handle other, larger jets that cause more noise, such as the Boeing 737-200, BAC 111s, and DC-9s. The new, quieter corporate jets, manufactured by Gulfstream and Global Express, have a high maximum gross takeoff weight (94,000 pounds) because they are designed to make global flights. However, according to Don Crandall, executive director of Centennial Airport, the planes usually operate at less than 75,000 pounds because they usually don't fly with full tanks. Crandall added that the airport's two "fixed base operators," which service all planes at the airport, want to be able to sell fuel for the jets, the article reports. Crandall said with the proposed weight limit changes, the 50,000-pound airplanes could fly into the airport with 5,000 pounds of fuel, take on another 20,000 pounds, and still be within the weight limit.
However, the article reports, some residents are opposing the proposed change because they believe it would allow older jets to land and fill the air with jet noise. Leslie Schluter, a local resident and member of a citizen's group that monitors Centennial, said, "If the change and definition is adopted, Centennial Airport would have to accommodate significantly heavier and noisier jets. And whenever you raise the ceiling, you increase in number as well. If they were to say those airplanes (the newer jets) can come in, but nobody else, that would be OK. The concern is if the airport changes its weight limit, it does it not for just one aircraft, but for all aircraft that can operate within the weight limit." Another resident, Greg Arbon of the Walnut Hill subdivision, said he has watched Centennial grow considerably since 1970, and the proposed change is just another step toward full-blown cargo or charter service at the airport.
Airport director Crandall said that citizens' fears are unfounded, because the airport also prohibits any planes with more than 30 seats, the article reports. Crandall explained that most of the older, large jets have more the 30 seats and would not be allowed to land at the airport. The only exception to that rule, he said, is a small number of large jets used by professional sports teams and professional entertainers. Crandall already can allow planes like that to land on a case-by-case basis, and in the past two months, larger planes carrying the Detroit Red Wings pro hockey team and the rock band Metallica both landed at Centennial.
Resident Schluter, also an attorney, questioned how airport officials will know whether jets are landing within the weight limit, the article reports. "It's not like there is a giant scale out there," she said. Crandall said in response that pilots have a "commitment to comply" with the airport's rules. He added, "These are professionals. They live in a world of integrity that far exceeds the rest of the world."
The article says that a public hearing on the matter is scheduled for 4 p.m. on June 19 at the Holiday Inn, 7770 S. Peoria St. The aiport authority will hold a board meeting the same day at 3 p.m. in the airport's control tower.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: June 1, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Carla Hall
DATELINE: Santa Monica, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jeff Gilbert, Pam Todd, Lou Anne Neill, residents
The Los Angeles Times reports the Santa Monica (California) Planning Commission last week voted to recommend that the City Council allow a new theater, and the expansion of a popular restaurant, in the Ocean Park neighborhood. Commissioners promised some noise relief to upset residents, in the form of noise level measurements and noise insulation.
The article reports that the restaurant recently had extra seating -- which was being used in violation of the its seating limit -- removed by city officials. Loyal restaurant lovers protested in greated numbers at recent public meetings, while residents tried to prove that the expansion would worsen existing noise and traffic problems such as noise from events and event clean-up at museum space in the future theater space. Residents said they paid well for their property and wanted it protected from noise.
The article notes that restaurant supporters said "Nothing that replaces [the restaurant] will be any better." Rockenwagner said he wants to accomodate his neighbors, but he also does not want to relocate.
The article says that theater operators seemed confused that a neighborhood would oppose a theater. Representatives said that they are not about making noise, they are about doing what they love to do and entertaining residents.
The article also says that the history of noise complaints in the area have shown that there have been violations, but many residents have also complained excessively.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: June 7, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 2B
BYLINE: Eliot Kleinberg
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Palm Beach Post reports that police in Boca Raton, Florida busted ice cream vendor Brian Calvert on May 30 for failing to have a permit to sell ice cream in the city, and playing music to draw customers, thereby violating the city noise ordinance.
The article reports that City Commissioner Steven Abrams said the noise ordinance was probably too broad if it was "preventing little kids from buying ice creams during their summer vacation." Code enforcement officials and police supervisors could not be reached for comment Friday. The owner of the ice cream company, Joe Orandello of Broadway Joe's Ice Cream, said, "I'm so disgusted. I've never heard of it in my 29 years in the business."
According to the article, the police report said that Calvert had pulled his ice cream truck into the 1000 block of Southwest First Street when police received an anonymous noise complaint. Calvert was given a notice to appear in court, the article says. Orandello's company is based in Davie, but he expanded into Palm Beach County last month. He said a city employee told him his permit in Davie was enough. He also said that he obtained licenses Thursday from the city and county. Orandello added that if necessary, he would put bells on the truck instead of having it play music.
PUBLICATION: St. Petersburg Times
DATE: June 4, 1997
SECTION: Neighborhood Times; Pg. 10
BYLINE: Susan Eastman
DATELINE: Gulfport, Florida
The St. Petersburg Times reports that Gulfport, Florida resident and St. Petersburg Beach City Clerk Pamala Prell was cited, fined, fingerprinted, booked, bailed out, and brought to court over noise from her barking Doberman pinscher.
According to the article, neighbors who live near Prell on Eighth Avenue in Gulfport said her Doberman pinscher has a habit of continuously barking at anything that moves. On March 28 and 29, neighbors complained twice to the Gulfport Police Department about Prell's dog. Officer Robert Vincent determined that the dog's barking was a nuisance, and he planned to issue Prell a citation. However, the officer couldn't reach Prell to give her the citation. He left telephone messages and posted three notes on her car, but when Prell called back, the officer was not on duty. Vincent then sent the citation by certified mail to Prell, but After determining that the dog's barking was a nuisance, Officer Robert Vincent planned to give Prell a she did not pick up the mail. Subsequently, the article reports, a notice to appear in court was issued on April 9 saying that Prell had to pay a fine of $30 and appear in court on April 25 to answer to the citation. When Prell did not appear in court, an arrest warrant was issued. On May 3, Prell walked into the St. Petersburg Beach Police Department to turn herself in. The article says Prell was arrested, booked, and fingerprinted, and after she paid the $60 bail, she was released. On May 30, she pleaded no contest to a violation of Gulfport's noise ordinance and was fined $30, the article reports. The money was taken from the $60 bail she had paid earlier to the St. Petersburg Beach Police Department.
Meanwhile, the neighbors say they are satisfied with the police department's action, and have not heard the barking dog lately, the article reports.
PUBLICATION: The Orlando Sentinel
DATE: June 1, 1997
SECTION: Seminole Extra; Pg. K1
BYLINE: Elaine Backhaus
DATELINE: Sanford, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Sanford Airport Noise Abatement Committee
The Orlando Sentinel reports that more people complained in April about noise from airplanes flying in and out of the Orlando Sanford (Florida) Airport than in any previous month. But airport officials who decided to test the noise from aircraft over homes in Chase Grove, said the aircraft noise isn't any louder than other everyday neighborhood noises measured on the same day.
According to the article, Jack Dow, director of operations at the airport, measured the decibel levels of airplanes as well as other sounds in the in the Sanford neighborhood. His test showed that the jets created about as much or less noise than a bus, motorcycle, or hedge trimmer, according to Dow. Sounds that measured higher than the lowest recorded jet levels, according to Dow, were rolling thunder, a bus at a curbside, a dump truck, a motorcycle, and a hedge trimmer.
The article reports that the Sanford Airport Noise Abatement Committee is taking a look at the noise measurements. The group was formed to find ways to limit noise brought by growth of the airport, and to report its findings to the Sanford Airport Authority.
The article says that pilots were asked earlier this year to approach the airport at slightly higher altitudes at reduced power settings, and to fly over Lake Monroe instead of residential neighborhoods before landing from the west at the airport. The airport authority also plans to update a 6-year-old airport noise study in order to include the international charter flights that began arriving a year ago, the article reports. In the interim, the authority is recording complaints about noise. In April, there were 194 complaints, the most recorded in any month.
Jack Dow's noise measurements were as follows:
Britannia aircraft 767; 77 decibels; altitude not available AirTours aircraft 767; 79 decibels; 1,137 feet (altitude) Britannia aircraft 767; 85 decibels; 1,185 feet Caledonia aircraft DC-10; 88 decibels; 1,172 feet Comair aircraft C-172; 74 decibels; 977 feet Auto traffic on wet street; 59-61 decibels Rolling thunder; 62-65 decibels Rolling thunder; 77-80 decibels Buses at curbside; 76-78 decibels Muted cracking thunder; 76-80 decibels Dump truck; 82-89 decibels Motorcycle; 82-92 decibels Hedge trimmer; 85-90 decibels Sharp cracking thunder; 97 decibels
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: June 5, 1997
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Eric Danton
DATELINE: Stafford, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Wendy Hopkins, resident
The Hartford Courant reports that the board of selectmen in Stafford, Connecticut decided Wednesday to pursue passage of a town noise ordinance. The decision was prompted by a letter from a resident, signed also by about 30 other people, complaining about the noise levels of car stereo systems.
According to the article, the letter was written by Center Street resident Wendy Hopkins. She said blaring car stereos have become an increasing problem over the past few years. Hopkins added that the noise was very disruptive, and it's to the point where something has to be done.
The selectmen directed the town attorney to draft a proposed ordinance to stipulate that music clearly audible outside a vehicle is too loud, the article reports. First Selectman John Julian said the ordinance would have to be carefully worded to distinguish between such noisemakers as loudspeakers for political campaigns and what he called "nuisance noise," according to the article. Selectman Bruce Dutton was concerned that the ordinance would be just another law that wouldn't get enforced. But Julian said he thought the ordinance would be easy to enforce
The article goes on to say that several Connecticut towns have established noise ordinances, including Southington. In addition, in New Britain, police officers now cite motorists for creating a public disturbance if they refuse to turn down their stereos. Julian said he would review the Southington and New Britain ordinances.
The article concludes that if the board of selectmen approves the ordinance, it will be put before voters at a town meeting later this year.
PUBLICATION: AP Worldstream
DATE: June 2, 1997
SECTION: International news
BYLINE: Kozo Mizoguchi
DATELINE: Tokyo, Japan
AP Worldstream reports that workers began building an off-shore runway in southwestern Japan on Monday for U.S. military planes whose landings and takeoffs create too much noise in residential areas.
The article reports that the U.S. and Japan have had mutual security agreements since the end of World War II that allow U.S. forces and equipment to be based in Japan. Currently, more than 47,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed in Japan, the article says. The current landing facility for U.S. Marine aircraft is located near a coastal residential area in Iwakuni, 710 kilometers (440 miles), southwest of Tokyo, the article reports. However, residents in Iwakuni have been complaining about noise from the military aircraft since the 1960s. The new 2,440-meter (8,052-foot) airstrip is being built on reclaimed land just east of the present U.S. Marine runway at Iwakuni, and is scheduled to be completed in 2005, the article says. The Japanese government is spending 160 billion yen ($1.38 billion) for the new airstrip.
The article goes on to say that 200 Japanese and American officials attended a ceremony Sunday commemorating the start of construction for the new runway. The project also will include a docking facility for American warships, the article says. Meanwhile, activists who want U.S. forces in Japan reduced also held a small, peaceful rally in Iwakuni on Sunday.
The article also says that only about 2,800 of the 20,000 U.S. Marine personnel stationed in Japan are located in Iwakuni, with the rest stationed on Japan's southernmost main island of Okinawa. U.S. forces have long been unpopular in Okinawa, the article reports, and this year the city of Iwakuni agreed to eventually become the new home of a U.S. airborne refueling unit now based in Okinawa.
PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: June 7, 1997
SECTION: Denver & The West; Pg. B-01
BYLINE: Steve Garnaas
DATELINE: Denver, Colorado area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jerri James, Vantage Estates resident; Tim Morgan, Van Aire resident; Marty Flaum, Adams County Commissioner
The Denver Post reports that twenty-two residents living near the Denver International Airport have filed suit in Adams County District Court suing the city of Denver and Adams County for allowing what they claim is excessive noise. The residents all live 2 to 6 miles north of the airport's north-south runways in the rural subdivisions of Van Aire, Vantage Estates, and Lake Estates. The lawsuits allege that the city of Denver, as the owner and operator of the airport, "caused the flight of aircraft over the plaintiffs' property, thereby creating high levels of noise, pollution, and vibrations on plaintiffs' property."
According to the article, Vantage Estates resident Jerri James said, "We have too much noise and too many direct fights over the top of our homes. They devalued our homes and the enjoyment of our homes." Tim Morgan, a resident of Van Aire, said, "Right now, especially on hot days, you can't even have a conversation when a 727 flies barely 1,000 above us. Everything stops when that happens."
The article reports that both the city of Denver and Adams County were named as co-defendants in the lawsuits because the two governments originally both had a noise abatement agreement in 1988. However, Adams County Commissioner Marty Flaum has been an outspoken critic of the way Denver has handled noise abatement for the Adams County residents, the article says. Flaum said Friday that in 90 to 120 days, the county will be ready to legally become a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Denver over the noise abatement issue. "The people know we are helping them," Flaum said. "Adams County is not in violation of that agreement. Denver is in violation of the agreement. We are party to the contract in that we agreed to do the land deal with Denver. That's it." Flaum added that he understands the frustration of the residents, and he sees no better remedy for the situation than the airport buying out the residents' properties.
The article goes on to say that the 1988 noise abatement agreement between the city and the county stipulated that the city would pay a $500,000 fine for each noise violation that exceeds the imposed limit by 2 decibels. The abatement agreement is an attempt to eliminate the noisier and older "Stage 2" aircraft that are still being used by the airlines, particularly the discount carriers. The major carriers are converting to the newer and quieter "Stage 3" jets, the article reports.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: June 7, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Vicki Hyman
DATELINE: Kenner, Louisiana
The Times-Picayune reports that the Kenner (Louisiana) City Council has sponsored a study which has recommended that the council could better control noise and protect the value of property near New Orleans International Airport by creating a strict zoning review process of airport development. The City Council's emergency land-use committee will discuss the draft study at a meeting Monday at 4 p.m.
According to the article, the council commissioned the study last year in conjunction with a moratorium on new major construction at the airport (set to expire Aug. 31). The study was undertaken by City Planning Director Bill McWilliams, along with Sal Anzelmo, an attorney retained by the city for airport matters, and Nick Baroni, an aviation consultant and former city councillor. The article reports that the airport currently has no zoning, and the only control the city can exert over development is through the granting of building permits. The new study has recommended that airport property by zoned as a heavy industrial district and that the airport be designated as a conditional use in that district. In addition, the study suggests a list of criteria that airport projects such as runways, taxiways, or terminals would have to meet to receive conditional-use approval. If projects significantly lowered property values in the area or did not provide measures to prevent excess noise and vibration, they would not be approved. The airport's master plan includes plans for the construction of an 8,000-foot runway in the swamps of St. Charles Parish, and a conversion of an east-west taxiway into a runway for private aircraft.
According to the article, the study also addressed land uses in the primarily residential property around the airport that is part of the airport's ongoing noise-mitigation buyout program. The Federal Aviation Administration has mandated that most of the residential property between the airport and the Mississippi River be turned back into commercial district. The study recommended that the property in the area zoned light industrial or special industrial be expanded to include conditional uses of cold storage warehouses, barge terminals, wharfs, and railway yards.
The article also says that New Orleans Aviation Board Chair Revius Ortique Jr. said Friday he had not received a copy of the study, and declined to comment on it until he has read it.
Previous week: May 25, 1997
Next week: June 8, 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