PUBLICATION: FNS Daybook
DATE: September 18, 1997
SECTION: Federal Agencies and Departments
DATELINE: Washington, D.C.
FNS Daybook reports that the Federal Aviation Administration's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee will meet today to discuss noise certification issues.
According to the notice the meeting agenda will include progress reports from the FAR/JAR Harmonization Working Group for Propeller-Driven Small Airplanes and the FAR/ JAR Harmonization Working Group for Subsonic Transport Airplanes. In addition, a concept paper from the FAR/JAR Harmonization Working Group for Helicopters will be presented.
The notice says that attendance is open to the interested public, but seating may be limited to the space available. Citizens must make arrangements in advance to present oral statements at the meeting. Citizens may present statements to the committee at any time. The location of the meeting is: General Aviation Manufacturers Association, 1400 K Street NW, Washington, DC; for more information, contact Angela Anderson, 202-267-9681.
PUBLICATION: AFX News
DATE: September 17, 1997
SECTION: Company News; Financings; Company News; Regulatory Actions
DATELINE: Amsterdam, Netherlands
AFX News reports that according to the publication Het Financieele Dagblad, the Dutch economic institute NEI has released a study that concludes that compensating residents who live near Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport for noise pollution would be cheaper than building a new airport.
According to the article, the study estimates that the total costs of compensating for noise pollution would be about 490 million NFL annually, if Schiphol air traffic levels were at 60 million passengers and 3 million tons of freight per year. The article reports the study also concluded that if residents could choose between selling their homes or receiving financial compensation for noise pollution, and if a tax of about 8 NFL per airport passenger were levied to pay for the compensation costs, Schiphol would get the room it needs to grow further. The study used the U.S.'s Atlanta airport policy as an example, the article says.
The article goes on to say that the study is one of a number of studies that were carried out in connection with the current debate on the future of the aviation industry in the Netherlands. Many of the studies will be presented at a conference in Rotterdam today and tomorrow, the article notes. The cabinet is expected to make a decision on future Dutch aviation infrastructure this year, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: AFX News
DATE: September 17, 1997
SECTION: Company News; Regulatory Actions; Government; Government Changes, Cabinet Lists
DATELINE: Bonn, Germany
AFX News reports Germany's federal cabinet has approved a collection of proposals from the transportation and environment ministries that aim to reduce aircraft emissions and noise, according to a joint statement from the ministries. The statement also said that aircraft noise and emissions reduction would be encouraged through financial incentives -- for example, the tax break for the use of jet fuel could be eliminated, and taxes on aircraft take-offs and landings could be restructured.
But the article goes on to say that according to a spokesperson for the transport ministry, if all the policies were implemented, Germany's airline industry could suffer. "If we did something like abolish the tax break for the use of jet fuel, no foreign airline would ever use our airports," the spokesperson said.
The ministries' statement also noted that between 1995 and 1998, the government and the airline industry will each spend 600 million DM on research and development to reduce aircraft emissions and noise.
PUBLICATION: Bangor Daily News
DATE: September 17, 1997
BYLINE: Roxanne Moore Saucier
DATELINE: Bangor, Maine
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Nannette and Clergue Jones, Gary Watson, residents
The Bangor Daily News reports that City Councillors on Bangor, Maine's municipal operations committee heard complaints from three residents Tuesday about leaf blower noise in their neighborhood, and decided to contact the noise offender rather than re-write the noise ordinance at this point.
The article reports that three residents of Garland Street, Nannette and Clergue Jones and Gary Watson, complained about the frequent use of leaf blowers at Brookings-Smith funeral home on Center and Garland streets. Clergue Jones told the committee that the funeral home uses leaf blowers several times per week, for 45 to 90 minutes at a time. Jones said he called a company and found out that a leaf blower emits 70 decibels, which according to a city code would be equivalent to a locomotive 100 feet away, the article says.
Leaf blowers are not covered under Bangor's noise ordinance, the article reports. According to City Solicitor Erik Stumpfel, ordinances cover boom boxes and vehicles, but not snow blowers or yard maintenance equipment. Jones pointed out that Bar Harbor (Maine) has an ordinance limiting noise to 55 decibels during daylight hours, and Los Angeles has passed a noise ordinance on gas-powered leaf blowers.
The article goes on to say that City Councillors said they were sympathetic with the residents' concerns, but said they had not heard that leaf blowers were a problem in other parts of the city. Mayor Patricia Blanchette said, "I think we can somehow work through this and find a solution." Committee members asked Code Enforcement Officer Dan Wellington to contact the funeral home and see what could be worked out, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: Business Wire
DATE: September 17, 1997
DATELINE: Nassau, Bahamas
Business Wire released a press release from Bombadier, a manufacturer of personal watercraft, that says all models of their Sea Doo watercraft and jet boats will have the D-Sea-Bel Noise Reduction System by model-year 1999.
The noise reduction technology was installed this year on the GTX(b) RFI(a) model, the press release says. The D-Sea-Bel System uses sound reduction technology proven in the automotive industry to lower noise emissions, according to the press release. The system uses a new muffler and noise suppression system combined with composite parts to dampen engine noise levels at all speeds. The muffler and intake ports are wrapped with acoustical insulation and synthetic casing, the press release notes. In addition, the system uses a Hemholtz Resonator that is customized to the engine and suppresses specific low frequency sounds. The resonator utilizes several tubes of different lengths attached to the exhaust pipe, through which sound waves enter and then cancel certain incoming sound waves. The pump is mounted on a rubber housing, the press release explains, which also will reduce high frequency noise. All the company's 1998 models also feature re-routed exhaust ports from the rear of the boat to within the pump cavity, which creates a natural noise suppression effect, the company says.
The press release also says that the noise reduction system has been tested, and results show that the Sound Pressure Level on the new GTX RFI is 50% lower than that of the 1997 GTX model with the 800 Series Rotax marine engine. (Data is based on the industry standard ICOMIA twenty-five meter standard pass-by test results, the press release notes).
The GTX RFI also features a Rotax Fuel Injection system that reduces hydrocarbon exhaust emissions by more than 25% and improves fuel economy by 15%, according to the press release.
For more information from Bombardier, contact: Ken Grimes (404-877-1829) or Jim Tsokanos (404-877-1824), Ketchum Public Relations, Atlanta; or Bill Stone (407-722-4000), Bombardier Marine Products Division, Melbourne, Florida.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: September 17, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Darrell Satzman
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joel Wachs, City Councillor; Don Schultz, president, Van Nuys Homeowners Association
The Los Angeles Times reports that the Los Angeles City Council will develop an ordinance to limit noisy jets at Van Nuys Airport, and to extend a nighttime curfew, now that the Federal Aviation Administration has authorized the plan.
The article reports that the existing nighttime curfew will begin at 10 p.m. instead of 11 p.m., and will still extend to 7 a.m. Also, no additional noisy Stage-2 jets will be allowed to use the airport as a base. Finally, helicopters will begin being covered by the curfew. The ordinance is being pushed quickly, to provide long-awaited relief for residents.
The article notes that Don Schultz, president of the Van Nuys Homeowners Association, praised the action. He said it was a good start, though he wants further extension of the curfew on weekends and holidays.
PUBLICATION: M2 Presswire
DATE: September 17, 1997
DATELINE: United Kingdom
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Angela Eagle, Environment Minister; Tessa Jowell, Minister for Public Health
M2 Presswire reports that Great Britain's Environment Minister Angela Eagle announced today that the government will invest about 600,000 Pounds into research of the links between health and environmental noise. The research will take three years, and will be run jointly by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Health. The former department also will conduct separate studies regarding the incidences of noise disturbances and attitudes towards noise, so that changes in the country's "noise climate" can be traced. These Noise Attitude and Incidence surveys are expected to be completed by the end of 1998, building upon two surveys that took place in the early 1990s.
The article reports that Eagle, speaking at a National Society for Clean Air seminar, said that noise pollution is a quality of life issue. She pointed out that a survey conducted in 1991 found that one in three people said environmental noise affected their home life negatively to some extent. Eagle spoke about the importance of tracking trends in the noise climate and people's responses to it, especially in the face of rising complaints about neighbor noise and road traffic in Britain. Although experts are concerned about the possible health effects of noise, there is yet no clear-cut evidence to prove or disprove direct long-term effects, Eagle said, which is why this research is so important.
The article goes on to say that according to Tessa Jowell, Minister for Public Health, people's lives around the country are being ruined by noise. When people can't sleep or enjoy peace in their homes, their health may suffer, Jowell said. The evidence from the research will help guide government action on noise issues, she added.
The article also notes that the two departments sponsored a working group of international experts in May 1997 that focused on the health effects of environmental noise. The group concluded that noise can cause annoyance and sleep disturbance in some people, and recommended further research work.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: September 17, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Sumanthi Reddy
DATELINE: Cumberland, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Matthew and Genevieve Lizak, residents
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that the Cumberland, Rhode Island Town Council will vote tonight on a proposed noise control ordinance that would allow noise-sensitive zones to be established in areas in which residents show that noise is hazardous to their health. The proposal was brought by two residents who say the noise in their neighborhood is bad for their health. Several city officials, however, believe the ordinance is not a good idea and will not pass.
The article explains that the proposed ordinance would allow residents to ask for a clearly posted sign that identifies the neighborhood as a noise-sensitive one. Residents requesting a sign would need at least three verified certificates from medical experts saying the noise was a health hazard to them, and the noise-sensitive zone would expire after three months unless the council issued a renewal after notifying neighbors.
According to the article, Matthew and Genevieve Lizak, who brought the proposal for the ordinance to the Town Council, want the area around their house designated a noise-sensitive area. The Lizaks have lived at their home on East Barrows Street for 47 years, in the last two or three years, the neighborhood has become too noisy, they say. The Lizaks have called the police 75 to 100 times over the last two or three years about everything from loud music "shaking" their windows to cars parked in front of their house to drinking parties on the street, firecrackers, vandalism, and littering. Matthew Lizak said, "During the summer, you leave your windows open, but you can't get any peace and quiet over here. The kids come here and they have their boom boxes and dirt bikes and skateboards. And they're on the ramp with their skateboards until 1, 2 in the morning." The article explains that the Lizaks have heart conditions, and Matthew had quadruple bypass surgery in June. The noise is hazardous to their health because of their medical conditions, they say, and they have letters from five doctors stating that they need an ordinance to protect them. The Lizaks took their problem to the Ordinance Subcommittee of the Town Council a few times, the article reports, after which subcommittee members agreed to draft an ordinance and let the full Council vote on it.
But Lorraine Hynes, chair of the subcommittee, said members unanimously agreed not to recommend the ordinance to the Council. The article says according to Hynes, subcommittee members contacted 14 nearby communities and found that none has a similar ordinance. In addition, Hynes said Police Chief Anthony Silva did not support the ordinance and thought it would be impossible to enforce. Yesterday, Silva said he would give his opinion at today's meeting. Hynes also questioned whether the ordinance would be legal, how the size of the zone would be determined, and how police would decide what constituted a nuisance. In addition, the article reports, the ordinance would restrict an entire neighborhood, Hynes pointed out. "One individual has asked to put this legislation forward," Hynes said. "I don't feel the Town of Cumberland should be putting forward an ordinance that is tailored for one specific individual." Town Council President David Chenevert said he would vote against the ordinance tonight because "it's a complete infringement on the rights of the neighbors," and "it's [not] in the best interest of the town." He added that there already is an ordinance in place that regulates the decibel levels of noise that should address the problem.
PUBLICATION: The Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: September 17, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. 2C
DATELINE: Warwick, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: U.S. Representative Joseph McNamara; SONIC, an anti-noise group
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that 120 people attended an airport noise meeting in Warwick, Rhode Island last night to complain about jet noise from aircraft flying out of T.F. Green State Airport. The meeting was organized by U.S. Representative Joseph McNamara.
According to the article, one-third of the planes flying out of the airport are of the noisiest, Stage 2 variety, giving residents plenty to complain about. People said they are deprived of sleep and the enjoyment of their homes and backyards and demanded that the state Airport Corporation do something about it, the article reports. One resident said he was awakened at 2:38 a.m. recently by a jet, and demanded that the corporation start enforcing its voluntary curfew on flights between midnight and 6 a.m. Another resident questioned why a person driving a car with a broken exhaust system could be ticketed, while the pilot of a Stage 2 jet could awaken an entire city without being penalized, the article says. Residents who attended the meeting also complained that the corporation build a new terminal at T.F. Green instead of Quonset State Airport, in North Kingstown, and did so without a referendum.
In response to residents' complaints, Mayor Lincoln Chafee told the citizens to be patient and said the Airport Corporation and the state were caught unprepared for the success of the new terminal. Now, however, the officials are working to put noise controls in place, he said. Wayne Schuster, director of planning and development for the Airport Corporation, said flight routes over Cowesett would not be shifted to other neighborhoods in order to satisfy an anti-noise group, SONIC, recently formed in Cowesett. Schuster also told the audience that the jet noise would become significantly quieter in December 1999, when the last of the Stage 2 jets will be retired, but added that the corporation is pursuing measures to provide some immediate relief as well.
PUBLICATION: The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
DATE: September 17, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A22
BYLINE: The Associated Press
DATELINE: Trenton, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: New Jersey Citizens Against Aircraft Noise; U.S. Representative Robert Franks (R-New Providence)
The Record reports that New Jersey Governor Whitman said Tuesday that the state will fund a computer model simulation of a citizens group's plan to reroute Newark International Airport departures over the Atlantic Ocean. Members of the citizens group, the New Jersey Citizens Against Aircraft Noise, said its plan would relieve 900,000 New Jersey residents of jet noise.
According to the article, Whitman said, "The study is in the interest of all New Jerseyans because it will allow us to find the best possible commercial air traffic routes while creating the least disturbance to those who live near the airports and under aircraft flight paths." The computer analysis will take into account airport safety, air traffic delays, and airplane noise, Whitman said. The governor added that she supports U.S. Representative Robert Franks' (R-New Providence) effort to get officials from the Federal Aviation Administration to discuss ways to reduce aircraft noise. Officials with the governor's office would not say how much money has been set aside for the project, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: September 17, 1997
SECTION: A Section; Pg. A01
BYLINE: Blaine Harden
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
The Washington Post reports that officials managing Boston's "Big Dig," a massive highway project to build an eight-lane highway under the downtown at a cost of nearly $11 billion, are spending about a quarter of the project money on mitigating the negative impacts of the project. Critics say Big Dig bosses give money to anyone who's smart enough to threaten a lawsuit. But the bosses say their approach simply illustrates the reality of undertaking a large public infrastructure project in the late 1990s. Their approach, the article says, is a combination of engineering, traffic management, eco-sensitivity, social work, and ward-heeling that could indicate how the U.S. will approach other road and bridge projects, which across the country need hundreds of billions of dollars worth of repair.
According to the article, the project to build the giant 7.5-mile highway underground is costing well over $1 billion per mile, with most of the money coming from federal taxpayers. The project started at the beginning of the decade and won't be done until after 2004, the article notes. Big Dig is the largest and most expensive public works project ever, and is using a wide range of mitigation techniques to make the project palatable to Boston's citizens. For example, artists living nearby couldn't take the dust and noise, so project officials spent $1.4 million on soundproof windows and new air conditioning systems. Fish in Boston Harbor were vulnerable to underwater blasting for a tunnel, so a $1 million "fish startling" system was created to spook fish away before each blast. And the Boston Fire Department got a new $230,000 fire boat out of project officials. James Kerasiotes, chair of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the man in charge of spending, explained, "If you say no, the fire chief is going to say, 'I'm not going to let you run cars through that tunnel.' Well, guess what? If the fire chief doesn't let you run cars through that tunnel, you don't have a project." Other mitigation efforts undertaken by project officials include an all-night watchman making sure noise is under control and construction workers don't violate the rule of not using a back-up beeper after 11 p.m. To help nearby merchants keep their customers and camouflage their businesses from construction junk, project officials are giving them free posters, flyers, and murals. And a team of traffic specialists, media consultants, construction engineers, and city police study Boston's chronically congested traffic and decide how to continue the dig without making it worse.
Strategies such as these are a big departure from the old way of doing public works projects, the article says. Project Director Peter Zuk said, "The old way of doing this business was engineers showed up and people just got out of the way. We just can't do that anymore, especially in big cities like Boston. We are working on a massive scale here, but we have to manage on a small scale. We have to respond to the person who calls in the middle of the night and says construction is disturbing his sleep."
The article notes that back in the days of the Franklin Roosevelt's large public works projects designed to pull the U.S. out of the Depression, issues such as worker safety and environmental consequences were, at best, second thoughts. For example, during the construction of Washington state's Grand Coulee Dam, federal engineers assumed dictatorial control and the project permanently blocked off the world's largest salmon highway, ruined the lives of many Native Americans, and killed more than 70 workers.
But now, the article reports, due to all the environmental laws, safety regulations, and political considerations, project officials must be much more sensitive to the project's impacts. About $60 million is being spend just on police to keep the work site safe, which project officials say is paying off. So far, there have been no work-related deaths, and managers say the project stands to save $600 million in insurance costs, the article says. Zuk said, "We have made a conscious decision as a society that we now want to have certain quality-of-life controls on construction of infrastructure in this country, and that comes at a price. This is what we have ahead of us across the country as we rebuild our cities."
There are about 40 interstate highway and bridge projects across the country that will cost more than $1 billion each, according to the article. For example, rebuilding the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in the Washington, DC area will cost an estimated $1.56 billion, mostly for costs related to traffic flow in Alexandria during the project. In Philadelphia, a new interstate exchange will cost an estimated $2.1 billion, and in New York, new infrastructure needs will cost a staggering $75 billion, according to that city's Regional Plan Association.
Continued funding for many of these projects is now pending before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. But, the article explains, there is a fight looming in Congress over allocation of federal infrastructure spending. Lawmakers from southern and western states are proposing legislation that will alter federal funding formulas and allow new money to be shifted away from the Northeast and toward states that have been paying more in federal gasoline taxes than they've received in highway-building money. For instance, Massachusetts now receives $2.13 in federal highway money for every dollar it pays in federal gas taxes, and other northeastern states are similar. But whatever the outcome of that fight, the article says, all the projects will face increasing expenses from measures that mitigate impacts. Boston's Big Dig has been funded up to 85% by the federal government, but that soon may change if southern and western lawmakers get their way, the article says, which is a major source of worry for local officials.
In Boston, however, much of the mitigation seems to be working, the article says. Some predicted that the project would sink Boston's economy, but that just isn't happening, according to the article. Boston's unemployment is just 3.8 percent, office rents are soaring, vacancy rates are low, and the economy has been growing solidly for six years. And, rush-hour traffic moves no worse than before the project began. According to Project Director Zuk, "What we are attempting to do -- and what I think we are succeeding at doing -- is perform open-heart surgery on a patient who is continuing to work and play tennis."
But project officials' spending habits have been criticized by many, the article explains. Boston Magazine has run a series of critical articles calling the project a deep-pockets Santa Claus. And the CBS news magazine "60 Minutes" recently ran a program that criticized the Big Dig for spending billions to "appease" the public with amenities that have "little or nothing to do with building the road." The project also has been criticized for its escalating costs. In 1985, the project was estimated to cost $2.56 billion, and the most recent estimate by the federal General Accounting Office puts the estimate at $11.6 billion. And this summer, U.S. Representative Frank Wolf (R-Va.), chair of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees transportation funds, demanded that the inspector general of the Transportation Department conduct yet another audit of the project. An investigation by federal prosecutors is also underway to look into allegations that U.S. Representative Bud Shuster (R-Pa.), chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, received campaign contributions in return for favors given to Boston business owners involved in a land dispute with Big Dig contractors, further muddying the image of the project, the article explains.
Despite all the criticism, Big Dig managers don't apologize for all the money they've spent on mitigation measures. "What does all this stuff have to do with building a road?" Zuk asked rhetorically. "It has everything to do with building a road."
PUBLICATION: ANP English News Bulletin
DATE: September 16, 1997
DATELINE: Amsterdam, Netherlands
The ANP English News Bulletin reports that an organization of air freight companies, Barin, is opposing the restrictions on flights at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, scheduled to take effect October 1. The organization sent an angry letter to Dutch Transport Minister Annemarie Jorritsma, claiming the restrictions designed to keep the airport within legal noise limits will compromise the safety and environmental standards.
The article reports that A. Hammans, chair of Barin and general manager of British Airways, wrote in the letter that the restrictions could mean aircraft will be prohibited from using the best and safest starting and landing slots. In addition, aircraft will be required to spend more time circling above the airport waiting for a landing space, resulting in more air pollution, Hammans argued. He also pointed out that the restrictions are likely to have commercial impacts beyond Schiphol, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: September 16, 1997
SECTION: Editorial/Opinion; Pg. B4
BYLINE: Edward Murphy, Mesa resident
DATELINE: Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
The Arizona Republic printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Edward Murphy, a Mesa, Arizona resident, regarding aircraft noise over Grand Canyon National Park
I, for one, am sick of the whining of the self-righteous, self-appointed protectors of the "natural quiet" of the Grand Canyon, such as Tom Robinson (Sept. 1 letter to the editor).
I visit the Grand Canyon fairly often on business. I am rarely disturbed by airplane noise. I am, however, overwhelmed with the roar of bus diesel engines, the coughing of vehicles equipped with poor mufflers, the threatening presence of poorly driven motor homes, the antics of unruly children and the jostling of hundreds of tourists elbowing for room at the overlook's railing to get a picture. Robinson and the other tree-huggers think they have a right to enjoy the Canyon in a manner that transcends the rights of others. What audacity! Robinson is a selfish do-gooder, intent only on denying hundreds of thousands of tourists each year a view of the Canyon he doesn't agree with. (He is probably afraid of flying and thus would impose his fears on others.) I n Robinson's view: Experience the Canyon his way, or not at all. Yet, the record shows that official complaints logged about airplane noise number but a handful each year, and those mainly by those of Robinson's ilk. I suggest he enjoy the Canyon his way, and let others enjoy it their way.
PUBLICATION: The Chattanooga Times
DATE: September 16, 1997
SECTION: Local; Pg. B4
BYLINE: Emily McDonald
DATELINE: Chattanooga, Tennessee
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Madeline Sims, president of a neighborhood association
The Chattanooga Times reports that residents of the Pine Grove and Portview Hills subdivisions in Chattanooga, Tennessee told members of the Metropolitan Airport Authority Monday that they aren't concerned about the aircraft noise generated at Lovell Field. However, according to Madeline Sims, president of the area's neighborhood association, the residents are worried that the airport authority will purchase their homes piecemeal and at low prices.
According to the article, the airport authority has $300,000 from the Federal Aviation Administration to use to purchase homes from residents bothered by the noise. But Sims said no one wants to move for that reason. "Just because you have a noise study plan doesn't mean you have an agreement with us," she said. "We just want to be left as we are." She added that if the authority does puchase homes, residents don't want to sell their property piece by pierce. Instead, they want the authority to purchase the entire neighborhood for top dollar, and at commercial rather than residential prices.
The article goes on to say that in response, airport authority vice chair Lloyd Stanley said there appeared to be a misunderstanding about the noise abatement program. He said, "There are not any plans that would result in the airport authority trying to acquire all this property. This is a federal program to supply funds to purchase property on a voluntary basis if the property owner wants to sell. We don't want to be part of anything that would destroy the neighborhood. There is nothing contemplated that would result in a forced sale or condemnation of property."
PUBLICATION: Times Newspapers Limited
DATE: September 16, 1997
SECTION: Home news
BYLINE: Simon de Bruxelles
DATELINE: Great Britain
The Times Newspapers Limited reports that Great Britain's Radio 3 station is handing out rustle-free cough lozenges to audience members who attend their live recording concerts, in an attempt to reduce noise during the live broadcast. Many audience members take cough lozenges during the concerts to avoid coughing at the wrong moment, the article says. The rustle-free wrapping paper was developed by Grantham Manufacturing Ltd. in Lincolnshire and uses waxed paper, as well as a secret ingredient to reduce noise.
According to the article, sound recording technicians have trouble getting good live recordings when the audience has beeping wristwatches, mobile phones, and hearing aids that produce feedback. Rustling wrappers are also a problem, so Radio 3's marketing manager, James Pestell, came up with the idea of a rustle-free wrapper that would promote the company's commitment to live recordings. Pestell said the lozenges have become so popular that they will be distributed at all Radio 3 concerts. He added, "People seem to regard them as a souvenir and take away a handful or two, but they serve a serious purpose. They are basic menthol-based cough sweets and have quite a kick. There is no excuse for coughing when you have one in your mouth."
The lozenges will be distributed at an upcoming live concert at the St George's Music Hall in Bristol, the article reports. Suzanne Clatworthy, administrator of St George's, said the building has particularly sensitive acoustics. She added, "We want people to come and enjoy the music, but not to ruin what they come to hear. If a concert is being broadcast live it is essential that the audience doesn't rustle throughout. If a pianist has been working up to the highlight of a piece for 15 minutes, that moment can be ruined by someone coughing or rustling. Some people think that, if the music has come to a louder piece, it is all right to cough. But everyone uses the same opportunity and so it can become a problem."
Martin Howitt, managing director of Grantham Manufacturing Ltd, would not divulge the secret ingredient in the wrappers that makes them quiet, but said the ingredient comes into play between printing and waxing the paper. He added that some customers like the noise of wrappers and ask for more noise, and this was "one of the few times we have been asked for silence."
PUBLICATION: Financial Times (London)
DATE: September 16, 1997
SECTION: News: Europe; Pg. 03
BYLINE: Gordon Cramb
DATELINE: Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Financial Times reports that the Dutch government may consider relaxing legal controls on noise pollution at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, after airlines mounted a strong protest against recently announced flight restrictions. Transport Minister Annemarie Jorritsma favors a review of the noise legislation, the article says, and may gain the backing of a parliamentary majority in a debate expected this week.
According to the article, the noise pollution limits for the airport went into effect last January, and in order to meet them, Schiphol is proposing to cut peak-hour capacity in half for the last quarter of the year, cutting the maximum number of take-offs and landings from 75 per hour to 37.
Representatives from the air carrier KLM and its industry partners, which account for more than two-thirds of Schiphol's traffic, said that the airport's restrictions could seriously damage Schiphol's reputation. In addition, associations representing about 90 operators using the airport told Jorritsma that the peak-hour restrictions were in danger of "creating a snowball effect throughout the day, not only affecting Schiphol but airports throughout the world." As many as 6,000 passengers per day could face delays after next month if they fly with KLM or partner airlines such as Northwest of the US, air carrier officials said. The article said this has prompted fears that delays at Schiphol could hinder future tie-ups such as those KLM has been negotiating with Japan Air System and Italy's Alitalia. The airlines claimed that without the restrictions, the legal noise limits are likely to be breached at only five of the 235 points at which jet noise is measured. Some of the sites that would experience noise violations contain a motorway and farmland, the article says. A ministry official said, "Maybe the only gain is that fewer cows will be disturbed."
The article reports that members of the air industry operators also believe the Schiphol management has proposed such drastic measures in an attempt to force clarity on the issue. Last month a court in Haarlem overturned restrictions placed by the airport on night flights, saying Jorritsma was the only one who could impose such restrictions. Jorritsma then appointed a co-ordinator to manage Schiphol traffic, making it the first European Union hub where traffic volumes were to be regulated on environmental grounds rather than because of runway congestion, the article reports.
The article also points out that an opinion poll for the state broadcasting network has shown that a clear majority of Dutch are in favor of expansion at Schiphol. The airport directly and indirectly generates as much as 2% of gross domestic product, the article says, and is being designated as a "mainport" by the government along with the Rotterdam harbor.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: September 16, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Orange County Focus Desk
BYLINE: Kimberly Brower
DATELINE: San Juan Capistrano, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that the San Juan Capistrano City Council will review a noise study along Interstate 5. Residents had complained about noise after highway changes were made, but the study shows that noise levels do not exceed federal limits. Since the levels are not exceeded, it is likely that no noise mitigation will be undertaken.
The article reports that in June, the Council commissioned a noise study to determine if noise mitigation was justified. The study was conducted in three to four-day blocks in the summer, twenty-four hours each day. Nine locations were used.
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: September 16, 1997
SECTION: East; Pg. B3; Briefly
DATELINE: Woodinville, Washington
The Seattle Times reports that Northwest Pipeline, a Seattle company that operates an underground natural gas pipeline, installed silencing devices on the pipeline last month to quiet sound waves resulting from compression of the gas at a station in Woodinville, Washington. Residents in the Bear Creek area had complained that the noise was constant and resembled a helicopter flying overhead. According to Grant Jensen, company spokesperson, the silencing project cost about $500,000 and should be a permanent fix.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: September 16, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Karla Schuster
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports that airport officials in Boca Raton, Florida will request Wednesday that the Airport Authority seek federal funding for a new noise study for the city airport called a Part 150 study. The action comes in the midst of continued criticism over airport officials' response to resident concerns about aircraft noise.
The article reports that the study would be the first major study performed since 1991, and would be part of a voluntary noise abatement program regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration. The study would examine land use in and around the airport, noise levels, and noise reduction measures. If conducted, it would cost between $150,000 and $200,000, and take up to 18 months to complete. Nina Demeo, assistant airport manager, said, "There have been a lot of questions about our [noise] study, and people have been asking what -- if anything -- has changed since we did it, and if we need to do a new one. So we're going to find out from the FAA if we can get the money to do a new one."
But consultant Ted Baldwin said the updated survey of noise levels he conducted for the airport in May, which showed that noise was two or three decibels higher than in 1991 and that more neighborhoods were affected, should be enough to satisfy noise questions. Baldwin also said the FAA is unlikely to pay for a new Part 150 study so soon after the 1991 study, the article says. "A Part 150 study is an enormous effort," he said. "Comparing what I did in May to that is like comparing buying a new car to getting a tune-up. This is like getting a new car when the old one has 50,000 miles on it." Before deciding whether to pay for a noise study, Baldwin said, FAA officials will look for a major change in the airport, such as a change in the type of traffic. He added, "The existing noise program does work, if it's followed. There's no new type of traffic and the hours of operation in Boca are about the same as they were in 1991. Yes, it's busier, but that alone isn't enough." Baldwin's study found that the number of daily takeoffs and landings has increased from 233 to 400 since 1988, the article reports.
Meanwhile, City Councillor Bill Glass said he believes more air traffic is a good reason to do a new Part 150 study. The City Council is scheduled to meet with the Airport Authority on October 16, and will discuss the topic, Glass said.
PUBLICATION: ANP English News Bulletin
DATE: September 15, 1997
DATELINE: Amsterdam, Netherlands
The ANP English News Bulletin reports that officials at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport announced last week they would place daytime restrictions on flights, if approved by Transport Minister Annemarie Jorritsma, in order to stay within the country's noise limits. The restrictions would result in only two of the airport's four runways being available at some peak times, starting on October 1.
According to the article, airport officials said there are three "peak" waves of arrivals and departures a day, each lasting two hours. The peak periods account for more than 50% of the traffic, according to officials.
The article says that airport officials passed the plans to Transport Minister Annemarie Jorritsma, but warned that the restrictions would hurt its standing as an international hub and stymie future growth. Hans Smits, chief executive, said in a letter to Jorritsma, "These measures will not only bring great financial damage but also severely harm [the airport's] image." Jorritsma said she would study the plan carefully over the next few days before deciding whether to approve it.
The proposed restrictions made airline officials angry, according to the article. Officials at KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, whose base is Schiphol, were still angry about a nighttime ban on takeoffs and landings by noisy jets agreed to by Jorritsma last month. KLM and its charter units Martinair and Transavia said the airport's latest plan would result in "hundreds of millions of guilders" in lost revenue and would inconvenience thousands of passengers daily by stranding them at the airport. The carriers said in a joint statement that at least 4,000 passengers per day flying with KLM and its partners would be negatively affected by the restrictions. That number would rise to 6,000 per day if all the airline companies are considered, the statement said.
PUBLICATION: The Independent (London)
DATE: September 15, 1997
SECTION: News; Page 8
BYLINE: Randeep Ramesh
DATELINE: London, England
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Tom Jacobs, resident; Dermot Cox, chair, HACAN, a Heathrow anti-noise group
The Independent reports that at the long-running public inquiry into a proposed fifth terminal at London's Heathrow Airport, government experts are submitting testimony that nighttime flights do not affect people's sleep.
According to the article, Dr. John Ollerhead, a researcher at the Civil Aviation Authority, the Government's safety regulator, will take the stand at the inquiry later this month and is not expected to deviate from the conclusion of a study he performed at the Department of Transport in 1992. He concluded there that "very few people living near airports are at risk of any substantial sleep disturbance due to aircraft noise, even at the highest event noise levels." Elizabeth Duthie, a civil servant at the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions also has submitted evidence in the inquiry, stating, "The number of disturbances caused by aircraft noise is so small that is has a negligible effect on overall normal disturbance rates."
But, the article reports, residents strongly disagree with that evidence. Tom Jacobs, a resident and retired physics lecturer, lives under one of the two flight-paths. He said that "noisier planes will wake me, even with the bedroom windows closed." Another resident said that her family woke up every morning at 6 am from jet noise. "It is incredibly unpleasant to wake up to the sound of screaming machines in the sky," she said. According to Dermot Cox, chair of the Heathrow anti-noise group HACAN, "We think the Government's research is fundamentally flawed. Our evidence shows that thousands of people are affected by these early morning flights."
Meanwhile, the inspector in charge of the inquiry, Roy Vandermeer QC, plans to stay in a hotel in Richmond to judge for himself whether the jets are able to wake people up. There are 16 arrivals and departures that occur before 6 am, the article notes.
The article goes on to say that even if the fifth terminal is not built, airport opponents fear there will be continuing pressure for more nighttime flights. Cox said that British Airways, which operates more than one-third of all takeoffs and landings at Heathrow, has told the inquiry inspector that the airline "will recommend an easing of the limit on the number of night flights permitted." BAA, the owner of Heathrow Airport, has claimed that if the fifth terminal is built, despite a 60% increase in passenger numbers, there would be "no change in noise levels."
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer
DATE: September 15, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Karen Henderson
DATELINE: Avon Lake, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bethany McDonough, Pam Murphy, Judy Horstmann, residents; Vincent Urbin, Avon Lake Mayor
The Plain Dealer reports that the Norfolk Southern Railroad and its competitor, CSX, have submitted a joint application to the federal Surface Transportation Board to purchase rail tracks from Conrail in the Lorain County, Ohio. If the purchase is approved, the article says, Norfolk Southern will increase the number of freight trains it runs through Lorain County en route between New York and Chicago from 13 per day to 24. Residents who live near the tracks in Avon Lake and local government officials are opposed to the idea of increasing train traffic for a variety of reasons, including increased noise and safety issues.
The article reports that residents who live near the train tracks in Avon Lake are concerned not only about increased noise from more train traffic, but also traffic tie-ups at rail crossings and delays in fire, hospital and rescue runs. Pam Murphy, whose backyard ends at the rail tracks, said, "Everybody is concerned because of the noise and traffic." She added she also is worried about possible derailments and toxic spills, and the safety of her children and others in the neighborhood. Murphy said when a train goes by, a backyard conversation must halt, and the windows and glassware in her house shakes and moves. "I can't imagine it tripling," Murphy said. Avon Lake resident Bethany McDonough and her husband are wondering if now is the time to sell their $200,000-plus home near the train tracks, but the question on their minds is: Will anyone buy? Judy Horstmann, who lives in Sheffield Township, said that tripling traffic on the tracks by her house would be too much. "That's ridiculous," Horstmann said. "Actually, it's a pretty quiet neighborhood. A lot of the neighbors have been here a real long time. They won't be happy."
Meanwhile, officials are opposing the proposed increase as well, the article says. According to Avon Lake Mayor Vincent Urbin, there are five major highways in the city that cross the tracks and have no overpasses or underpasses. Because all of the hospitals are on the other side of the tracks, he wonders how paramedics, fire, and police personnel will answer calls if the intersections are blocked by train traffic. In the county as a whole, there are 35 street crossings on the rail line. Tom Kelley, coordinator of the county's Emergency Services, said more trains would mean greater odds for accidents. Kelley added the railroads are not required to notify his agency about what their trains are carrying.
The Northeastern Ohio Regional Coordinating Agency, of which Urbin is a governing board member, will try to convince the railroad to use another route for its increased train traffic, the article says. The Agency board last Friday adopted a resolution expressing concerns about safety and environmental issues, including air and noise pollution, transportation of hazardous cargo, and delays in emergency response. The resolution went on to urge railroad officials to consider rerouting trains to tracks through less populated areas.
But Robert Gould, a CSX spokesperson, said there already is a planned increase in train traffic from 15 to 54 trains per day on the southern line through the southwest suburbs of Cleveland and a small section of rural Lorain County. The article goes on to say that the increased train traffic is sure to come if the Surface Transportation Board approves the Conrail buyout. According to railroad officials, decisions about crossing signals and construction of overpasses and underpasses are under local and state government jurisdiction, although the railroads share some of the costs.
The article goes on to say that a final hearing is scheduled for June 1998, and legislators, mayors, and city officials from Lorain and the western suburbs of Cuyahoga County have vowed to do whatever it takes to stop it. City councils are adopting resolutions objecting to the increased rail traffic, the article notes. In addition, the Federal Railroad Administration will hold a public hearing on the issue on September 21 from 2:00 to 5:30 p.m. in Lakewood City Hall. The findings of the hearing will be presented to the Surface Transportation Board.
The article also explains that the corporate buyout also may scuttle plans for a commuter rail system long-desired by local officials as a link between Lorain County and Cleveland. Officials in Lorain had planned to use a commuter rail station as a hub for downtown development near the Black River. Frank Brown, Norfolk Southern Vice President, had earlier said that it looked like the company would have the track capacity to accommodate commuter trains, especially on the single track that runs through Lakewood, Rocky River, Bay Village, and on into Lorain County. But now, that capacity seems to be gone, the article says. Susan Terpay, a Norfolk Southern spokesperson, said commuter trains no longer look feasible. She said one reason is that it appears there will be "too heavy freight usage," due to the fact that railroads have become more customer-focused and are competing with other types of carriers to deliver goods "just in time." She said, "There's a tremendous amount of business between New York and Chicago. First and foremost, we are in the freight transportation business." The article notes that commuter trains increase liability and are not that profitable.
But Lorain Mayor Joseph Koziura said he believes the railroads are increasing freight traffic as a way to stop plans for commuter trains, the article reports. "I am really disturbed by that," Koziura said. "We're going to do everything we can to put pressure on the board in Washington to stop this from happening."
PUBLICATION: The Dayton Daily News
DATE: September 14, 1997
SECTION: Business Page, Pg. 7B
BYLINE: Timothy Gaffney
DATELINE: Dayton, Ohio
The Dayton Daily News reports that the Armstrong Lab at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and Arvin Industries, a major supplier of auto exhaust systems, recently signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) to undertake a two-year research project to develop a computer program that can evaluate sound qualities. The article says that Arvin Industries wants better ways to evaluate sound quality in and around automobiles, while the Air Force is interested in evaluating the impact of air-base noises on surrounding communities. A CRDA is a way that federal labs make government technology for commercial uses, the article notes.
According to the article, Arvin Industries evaluates noise by using a test track outfitted with acoustic instruments and engineers trained to evaluate sound quality. John Grace, Arvin's vice president of systems and technology, said, "If you have a Corvette, you really don't want it to sound like a Cadillac. The issue is not unlike what you face in music: What is a good sound ... (and) what is it in the exhaust system that lets you generate that sound?" Meanwhile, the Air Force mostly has used community surveys to find out what sound annoy people who live near air bases, according to Joe Steuver, Armstrong Lab's lead researcher on the project. But Steuver added that both methods have their shortcomings, the article says.
For the first phase of the joint project, researchers will look at whether it's practical to develop a computer system to identify certain types of sound qualities. According to Steuver, Arvin Industries test track offers a good test facility that's already wired for research. "This gives us a unique opportunity to study the nuances of noise," he said.
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
DATE: September 18, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Dean Rebuffoni
DATELINE: Minneapolis, Minnesota
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dennis Burnett, of the National Park Service
The Star Tribune reports that federal officials announced Wednesday that a moratorium will be imposed on the use of personal watercraft in the National Park System, starting in October. The moratorium could lead to a permanent ban on the machines in many areas of the National Park System, the article says.
According to the article, the National Park Service now permits personal watercraft in 32 of its parks, and has imposed the moratorium due to increasing complaints about the noise, pollution, and safety of the machines. The moratorium will not greatly hamper personal watercraft users this season, the article points out, but the temporary ban is expected to remain in effect into next spring. The Park Service then will decide whether to continue to allow the watercraft or to impose a permanent ban, after taking input from Park superintendents, members of the personal-watercraft industry, park visitors, environmentalists, and others.
The article reports that according to Dennis Burnett, who oversees the National Park Service's rule-making process, the moratorium is part of a long-overdue review of boating and water-recreation rules throughout the National Park System. He said many Park superintendents are questioning whether personal watercraft are compatible with the goals of some Parks. In some parts of the park system where personal watercraft are already allowed, the machines are appropriate for those areas, Burnett said, because the areas were designed for water-recreation activities. For example, he said, the national recreation areas in the West where human-made reservoirs provide large expanses of open water are appropriate for water recreation. "However," Burnett continued, "there are probably a majority of areas [in the park system] where personal watercraft are not appropriate. We're setting up procedures for park managers and superintendents to make a determination on which sites are and aren't appropriate. We're looking at whether [the watercraft] are consistent with the legislation that created a park and if they are compatible with a park's environmental, scenic and cultural values. We're also looking at whether they will damage park resources or conflict with wildlife values, public safety, and water quality."
The article goes on to say that many national parks don't have regulations dealing specifically with personal watercraft, and superintendents thus have difficulty in dealing with them. Usually the machines are regulated with the same rules used for motorboats. However, some parks, the article says, including Florida's Everglades, have banned them. Burnett said Park Service officials met recently with members of the personal-watercraft industry and environmental groups to discuss the moratorium, and industry members wouldn't identify any park areas where the machines are not appropriate, while environmentalists pushed for broad prohibitions.
The article notes that in the Minnesota area, personal watercraft are now allowed in four portions of the National Park system. One site, Voyageurs National Park in northern Minnesota, has been the subject of controversy recently, as a year-old attempt to mediate the fight over the management of Voyageurs has floundered partly because of irreconcilable differences between watercraft supporters and environmentalists. Other regional sites where watercraft are permitted are the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in northwestern Wisconsin; Isle Royale National Park, on Michigan's big island in Lake Superior; and the St. Croix River, which is part of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The article points out that the moratorium is not expected to apply to the St. Croix from Stillwater downstream to the Mississippi River, because that segment is managed jointly by Minnesota and Wisconsin, not by the Park Service.
PUBLICATION: Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
DATE: September 20, 1997
SECTION: Local; Ed. F; Pg. 5A
BYLINE: Ann Imse
DATELINE: Denver, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Marty Flaum, Adams County Commissioner
The Rocky Mountain News reports that Denver officials agreed Monday to negotiate with Adams County officials over noise from the Denver International Airport. Under a schedule set in a 1988 agreement, Adams County gave Denver until Monday to agree to talks on solving the noise problem, or else it would sue to collect $3.5 million in noise violation fines. While noise pollution still is the primary dispute, the negotiations are expanding to include other airport-related grievances, including water pollution caused by the airport and Adams County's opposition to a sixth runway.
The article reports that before the airport was approved nine years ago, Adams County and Denver officials agreed to install 101 noise monitors in populated areas of Adams County, and agreed that Denver would pay $500,000 for each one registering excessive noise from 1996 onward. When Denver International first opened about two and a half years ago, 57 monitors registered noise violations, the article reports. However, airport officials made flight changes that cut their violations to just seven monitors exceeding the limits. In addition, the airport still violates the agreement's noise limits for two other areas next to the airport which do not carry fines. Under the agreement, Adams County had given Denver until Monday to agree to talks on solving any noise problem before it would sue to collect the $3.5 million in fines on the seven monitors that showed violations in 1996. On Friday, the article reports, Adams County still had not received a formal reply from Denver, but according to Assistant City Attorney Lee Marable, the city was sending a letter saying, "We'd be happy to sit down and talk with them." Marable added that the letter he drafted proposed no dates for talks and no specific proposals, but he said the city would welcome suggestions from Adams County officials. According to Adams County Commissioner Marty Flaum, the county likely will file the lawsuit to keep its options open, but with the understanding that both sides hope to settle out of court
Flaum went on to say that the airport has made great strides in reducing the noise problem, but anything more they do now will just cause a noise problem in another location, the article reports. The $3.5 million the County is entitled to for noise violations will cover just a fraction of the noise mitigation needed, Flaum said. Residents in 400 homes need help, he added, ranging from buyouts and demolition of the houses to installation of insulation and air conditioning. The total cost ranges from between $20 and $30 million, he estimated.
Flaum also has been talking with Denver Mayor Wellington Webb about expanding the negotiations to deal with issues other than noise. Flaum said Adams County officials' and residents' main concern is noise, but they are also worried about airport pollution flowing into Third Creek and Barr Lake. Denver officials, on the other hand, want Adams County officials to drop their opposition to the construction of a sixth runway at the airport. Adams County officials have successfully prevented Congress from funding the runway, fearing additional noise problems.
PUBLICATION: ANP English News Bulletin
DATE: September 19, 1997
DATELINE: The Hague, Netherlands
The ANP English News Bulletin reports that the Netherlands' Prime Minister Wim Kok said on Thursday that the legal noise limits that apply to Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport must be observed, but that the cabinet will look into any leeway possible within the law. He added that no decision has been made yet on the new daytime flight restrictions proposed for the airport, but that no solution was possible within the law, there will be little the government can do besides approve the restrictions. The prime minister also said that eventual changes to legislation have not been ruled out.
According to the article, Kok spoke on the issue during the parliamentary debate on the 1998 budget, saying, "We have to see how we can limit the [airport's] problems without contravening legal criteria." His comments came in the aftermath of a call by Conservative VVD leader Frits Bolkestein on Wednesday for the government to apply a "policy of tolerance" to Schiphol, permitting the airport to violate the legal noise level limits. The article reports that Bolkestein's comments angered his government coalition partners -- Labor (PvdA) and center-left D66.
Last week, the article says, Schiphol officials announced they proposed to set daytime restrictions that would allow only two of the airport's four runways to be used during certain peak times in order to meet government noise limits. The proposal was passed to Transport Minister Annemarie Jorritsma for approval. Schiphol officials warned Jorritsma that the restrictions would harm the airport financially, hurt the airport's standing as an international hub, and hamper future growth. The proposed restrictions would become effective on October 1, and have angered airline officials who had not yet recovered from the ban on nighttime takeoffs and landings by wide-bodied aircraft approved last month by Jorritsma.
The article goes on to say that officials from the government's Central Planning Bureau (CPB) said Wednesday that growth can occur at Schiphol, while improving the quality of life for nearby residents. CPB assistant manager P. van den Berg said at a conference in Rotterdam that redeveloping the residential area around the airport and instituting a strong pricing policy would allow the airport to handle substantially more passengers than the current 44 million a year legal limit. A tough price structure to discourage noisy aircraft could reduce noise levels by 20%, van den Berg said, and building a runway parallel to the existing Kaagbaan would lower noise further by tens of percentage points. In addition, van den Berg said, one billion guilders, or a rise in ticket prices of just 3,50 guilders, would allow 2,500 homes in the area to be redeveloped. Van den Berg also said that the growth of the airport is the most desirable scenario from an economic point of view, but conceded that growth would mean a significant increase in air pollution.
Van den Berg also warned that 15,000 jobs would be lost if Schiphol does not grow, the article reports. That opinion was seconded by FNV, the country's biggest trade union federation, which issued a statement Wednesday that jobs could be lost unless the government follows a clear and consistent policy for the future of Schiphol. The FNV said in a letter to Jorritsma, "The employment of many people could be jeopardized if Schiphol's reputation takes a knock because of these measures."
The article notes that the Amsterdam Council said Wednesday that it would keep options open in case Schiphol expands if it meets environmental conditions. The Amsterdam Council has a 22.8% stake in Schiphol, while the state has 75% and the Rotterdam Council 2.2%, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: The Bulletin (Bend, OR)
DATE: September 19, 1997
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A6
BYLINE: Eva Conover, Bend resident
DATELINE: Bend, Oregon
The Bulletin printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Eva Conover, a Bend, Oregon resident, regarding residents who complained about noise at Mountain View High School:
I would like to respond to the people who complained about the noise at Mountain View High School one night. These complaints are absurd. I agree with Elizabeth Milliron's "In My View" column of September 15.
I moved into a house by the Bend Airport 10 years ago and still live here. Imagine this. I knew that I would be hearing airplanes taking off (sometimes Lear jets in the middle of the night) and landing. I have no problem with it; I take it in stride. It was my choice to live here.
The citizens who complained about the noise from the high school moved in long after the school was built. If a person can't stand the noise from a high school gathering, move away, or, better yet, don't move next to one in the first place.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: September 19, 1997
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Rubaina Azhar
DATELINE: Suffield, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Roland Dowd, First Selectman; Ed Kenney, resident
The Hartford Courant reports that Roland Dowd, First Selectman in Suffield, Connecticut, is seeking to have special equipment installed to monitor jet noise from Bradley International Airport. Dowd's action comes as resident complaints about the noise are increasing. But some residents believe Dowd is just stalling, and a more immediate solution is needed, the article says.
According to the article, Dowd said the monitoring equipment would be placed throughout Suffield to track the decibel level of planes flying overhead. "It's like taking name, rank and serial number," he said. "It will give us the actual level of noise, where it happened and the time of day it happened." Dowd said he has requested a meeting with Robert Juliano, who heads the state Department of Transportation's Bureau of Aviation and Ports, to discuss the monitoring equipment idea. He has also discussed the idea with Charles Watras, a Suffield resident and chair of the Bradley International Airport Commission, a panel that advises the state on the airport's operation, the article says.
But, the article continues, some residents closest to the airport said Thursday that the monitoring equipment will just confirm what they already know: airport noise is a problem. Resident Ed Kenney said, "[Dowd is] just stalling, and we don't have time to stall. The noise is deafening. Even the light bulbs are loosening." Kenney was one of the residents who helped circulate a petition earlier this month demanding a solution to the "excessive aircraft noise," the article reports. That petition was signed by 119 residents and was presented to Dowd, who forwarded it to Juliano. Kenney said he wants the airport closed from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., so that residents "can get a night's sleep." A new runway sign also should be installed at the airport, Kenney believes, instructing pilots taking off to the northeast to turn left instead of right in order to fly over a less populated area of town.
Meanwhile, the Bradley International Airport Commission adopted a statement recently that commits to investigating legitimate noise complaints made to the airport's 24-hour hot line (860-292-2038). Watras of the commission said, "There isn't any easy solution. It's a mutual problem and we would like to try and resolve it. But the resolution isn't going to be that the sound is going to go away. That's the reality of living next to an airport."
PUBLICATION: Journal of Commerce
DATE: September 19, 1997
SECTION: Transportation; Pg. 16A
BYLINE: Robert Koenig
DATELINE: Frankfurt, Germany
The Journal of Commerce reports that the German Cabinet this week approved a new air-traffic environmental plan that calls for taxation of aircraft fuel and stricter requirements for aircraft to minimize harmful noise and air emissions. The plan was jointly proposed by the government ministries of Transportation and the Environment, the article notes.
According to the article, Angela Merkel, Germany's environment minister, said the steps outlined in the plan will be necessary to limit aircraft pollution over the coming decade, during which time a doubling of air-freight traffic and a 71% increase in air passenger traffic is expected. The article says that some of the plan's proposals could be implemented by a vote in Germany's Parliament, but other suggestions, such as a tax on aircraft fuel, would require negotiation with the European Union and other nations that agreed in the past to exempt airline fuel from certain taxes. According to Matthias Wissmann, Germany's transportation minister, the new generation of jets, which will reduce air and noise emissions, will help airlines meet many of the proposed new requirements. Wissmann added that the country's goal is to reduce harmful air emissions and fuel usage by between 10%-25%, and reduce noise pollution by about 12 decibels. The article says Wissmann believes Germany will be able to achieve all the plan's goals without harming the air transport business.
PUBLICATION: The Toronto Star
DATE: September 19, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. B2
DATELINE: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lawrence Mitoff, chair of the Council of Concerned Residents and president of the new ratepayers' group
The Toronto Star reports that a ratepayers' group has been formed in the Rockwood neighborhood of Mississauga, Ontario to represent the 14,000 residents who will be affected by aircraft noise when a new runway opens at Pearson Airport this November. Lawrence Mitoff, who is already the chair of the Council of Concerned Residents, a coalition of groups and individuals opposing the runway, was elected president of the new group as well. The article reports that many residents believe one aggressive organization is needed to represent residents' interests. Mitoff noted that planes will fly just a few hundred feet above houses when the new runway opens.
PUBLICATION: The Financial Post
DATE: September 18, 1997
SECTION: Section 1, Special Report: Business Air Travel; Pg. 42
BYLINE: Johanna Powell
DATELINE: Canada
The Financial Post reports that Canadian airline fleets have started to install hush kits in their older, noisier planes in order to meet new international noise restrictions. The article goes on to describe the noise regulations and hush kits, and to discuss which Canadian airlines are installing the kits.
According to the article, older, noisier jets won't meet new noise regulations now being phased in to cut down on aircraft noise around airports, especially during takeoffs. As a result, many of these older jets are being retrofitted with devices called hush kits, which act as mufflers. The models affected are DC-9s, Boeing 727s, and Boeing 737s, and are called Chapter 2 or Stage 2 aircraft, the article explains. Replacing a Stage 2 jet with a newer, quieter Stage 3 plane costs more than $30 million (US), but a hush kit costs less than $1.5 million (US).
The noise regulations require that the Stage 2 aircraft be adapted to be as quiet as the newer, Stage 3 airplanes. Governments around the world are requiring airlines to gradually reduce and finally eliminate the number of Stage 2 jets in their fleets, the article says. Airlines flying into the U.S. must have complete Stage 3 fleets by December 1999, while in Canada, the deadline is April 2002. Europe's timetable is similar to Canada's, the article notes.
The article reports that AvAero, a Florida company that makes hush kits for Boeing 737s, is installing the devices on Canadian Airlines International's fleet, based in Calgary. Canadian Airlines operates 44 Boeing 737-200 aircraft, and is fitting its jets with hush kits as they come in for regular maintenance. The first three planes will be outfitted by the end of this year, and the rest will be done in time to meet the U.S. deadline so that the airline can continue flying across the border, the article says. David Bell, vice-president and treasurer of Canadian Airlines, said the company's hush kit order is one of the largest for 737s, so the devices were purchased at "very competitive terms." Bell added that the 737s in the company's fleet are only 15 years old on average, so they have many years left in their design life. The hush-kitted planes will burn less than 0.5% more fuel, Bell said, due to the weight of the hush kit.
Meanwhile, WestJet Airlines, based in Calgary, is also installing AvAero hush kits on its 737s.
At Air Canada, the article reports, the only jets that require hush-kitting are DC-9s. According to spokesperson Priscille LeBlanc, the company originally planned to sell all its Chapter 2 aircraft, but now plans to keep 15 of its 32 DC-9s for an indeterminate amount of time. LeBlanc said it doesn't make sense to keep the planes without hush-kitting them because they wouldn't be allowed in the U.S. Air Canada doesn't have a timetable for hush-kitting their fleet, but LeBlanc said the company probably will finish the work in time to meet the 1999 U.S. deadline.
Finally, the air courier company Federal Express Corp. worked with Boeing to develop a hush kit for its 727s, and now is marketing the device to other companies. Mike Pescod, managing director of planning and administration for Federal Express Canada, said the market is huge, especially in the U.S. More than 1,800 727s were built between 1963 and 1983, and the majority are still flying, he said. Federal Express itself operates 135 727s, and half already have hush kits, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
DATE: September 18, 1997
SECTION: Local/Region, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Patrick Drake
DATELINE: Catasauqua, Pennsylvania
The Morning Call reports that the Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority has seized 107 acres of land by eminent domain in Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, effectively killing plans for a 262-home residential development that was being considered by the town Planning Commission. In seizing the land, the authority also may have saved three heavily used baseball diamonds, which were also being considered for development. Now, Catasauqua's mayor says he will ask the airport whether more sports fields could be built on the seized land, which the airport says it has no plans to develop.
According to the article, Willow Brook Land Development Co. had submitted plans to build a 95-acre subdivision adjacent to Catasauqua's Opportunity Field, a popular set of baseball diamonds on Walnut Street. The subdivision would have been north of Walnut Street and Covington Place in Catasauqua and west of Willow Brook Road in Allen Township. Willow Brook developers had asked the Catasauqua Planning Commission for a zoning change, so that twin homes could be built next to the fields on land zoned for single-family houses. The developers said that twin homes would allow the development to preserve the ball fields. At the same time, however, they submitted a version of the subdivision that located single-family homes over the ball fields, in case the commission wouldn't agree to the re-zoning, the article reports. Willow Brook also owned the ball fields, the article explains, but has leased them to Catasauqua Junior Baseball for no cost, according to Willow Brook President Peter Fuller. The article notes that the fields are used virtually every day in the summer, according to Catasauqua Mayor Robert Boyer. Boyer added that he never believed the ball fields were in danger of being developed.
But the airport authority killed all the development plans by seizing the land by eminent domain last Thursday, before the Planning Commission could make a ruling. Airport authority Executive Director George Doughty said the airport has no plans to build on the site, and expects to leave the land in agricultural uses for a long time. The authority now has title to the ball fields and the rest of the land. Doughty explained that the land was taken because it is less than a mile from an airport runway, which would have caused noise problems from planes for anyone living there. It's easier for the authority to take the land now, before construction starts, Doughty said. The article says the authority has purchased or taken by eminent domain more than 580 acres surrounding the airport in the last 3-1/2 years, including a 51-acre tract it took in February that Willow Brook was developing as a 189-unit subdivision in North Catasauqua.
According to Doughty, authority members and Willow Brook developers have argued for a year over uses of the land seized last Thursday. Authority members wanted Willow Brook to develop the land for industrial or commercial uses, which would be less vulnerable to airplane noise. Doughty said, "We would have hoped that the Fuller family would have worked with us to find a more compatible use of the land, but they chose not to." Doughty said. Fuller of Willow Brook said the authority was given the chance to buy the land in February, but Doughty said he can't remember any such offer, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: September 18, 1997
SECTION: News; Page A33
BYLINE: Niraj Warikoo
DATELINE: North Hempstead, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lillina Gallo Kane, president, North Salem Civic Association
Newsday reports that the North Hempstead (New York) Town Board voted unanimously Tuesday to reject plans for expanding a shopping center on Port Washington Boulevard, near a residential area. The board voted after a public hearing that attracted more than 100 residents who opposed the expansion. Residents believed the project would increase traffic, congestion, and noise.
According to the article, Revere Realty Co. wanted to expand its 12,000-square-foot shopping center by 9,300 feet. The company planned to find tenants to fill an additional one to four stores. The article reports that the shopping center was built in 1954, under a covenant between the company and the town that restricts expansion. But Revere wanted to modify that covenant, citing economic hardship. Bruce Migatz, the company's attorney, said, "We can't operate at a profit without additional retail space. We're just breaking even. Last year's profit was $2,000."
In response to that argument, town board member Fred Pollack said yesterday that he believes the company's financial problems have resulted from poorly negotiated leases. Besides, Pollack argued, the town is not responsible for bailing the company out. "They consented to this years ago, knowing that this covenant had restrictions," he said.
Residents also strongly opposed the expansion, the article says. According to Lillina Gallo Kane, president of the North Salem Civic Association, "The ability to enjoy our homes within a safe, healthful and aesthetically pleasing environment is within our rights as homeowners and citizens."
Residents said they suspected Revere was trying to attract CVS, a pharmacy store chain, with the expansion project. The company tried to construct a 9,300-square-foot building two years ago and bring in CVS, but withdrew the proposal after community protests, including a petition with 1,900 signatures. Revere officials said they had not approached any tenants for this proposal, but some residents believe the company was trying to sneak CVS in.
Revere's attorney Migatz said that the company is considering a lawsuit against the town, claiming the covenant is unconstitutional, the article reports. The covenant was established as a compromise to allow the company to build an underground gasoline storage tank in exchange for not expanding the property, Migatz said, but such a restriction is illegal.
PUBLICATION: PR Newswire
DATE: September 18, 1997
SECTION: State and Regional News
DATELINE: Olympia, Washington
PR Newswire released a press release that reports the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) will provide a grant of $165,000 to the Highline School District in Olympia, Washington for a pilot project to identify which schools could benefit from soundproofing to mitigate the impact of jet noise from the nearby airport. The money will allow the school district to begin the first phase of the pilot project, which will consist of surveying eight to twelve schools to determine which is the best candidate for an actual soundproofing project, the article says.
According to the press release, Tim Douglas, director of CTED, said, "This project will offer the school district an opportunity to better understand the effects of noise in the classroom and to work toward reducing any hazards. We are delighted that Highline is taking the first step in improving the quality of education and the quality of life for those in the school district." Dr. Joseph McGeehan, superintendent of the Highline School District, also expressed pleasure about the project. "We are pleased that the state has offered support to help us move forward in this project," he said.
The press release mentions that the first phase of the project could begin in the next few months. For more information, contact Barbara Dunn, CTED, 360-753-2936; or Nick Latham, Highline School District, 206-433-2331.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: September 18, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: David Fleshler
DATELINE: Hollywood, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mara Giulianti, Hollywood Mayor
The Sun-Sentinel reports that the Hollywood (Florida) City Commission voted Wednesday to approve a land deal proposed by developer Michael Swerdlow to create a cargo hub between the port and the airport and to approve the $1.5 billion expansion of the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The commission's decisions came after Swerdlow offered annual payment to the city in lieu of taxes.
The article reports that the county had agreed to purchase 271 acres of Swerdlow's property at Port Everglades in Hollywood to create a cargo hub between the port and the airport. But the City Commission was worried that the sale of the land to the county would cost the city millions in lost tax revenue, and as a result, the Commission withheld its approval of the county's plan to expand the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. But Swerdlow, who plans to build warehouses on part of the land he will lease back from the county, offered to make a series of annual payments to the city in lieu of taxes for the next 27 years. The payments will start at $204,000 and scale as high as $1.5 million after the warehouses are built, the article says. The deal still requires approval from the County Commission, the article notes.
Shortly after approving the land deal, the article reports, the City Commission took up the issue of the airport expansion. County representatives offered waffling answers to the frustrated Commission, the article says, but after Swerdlow again took the stage to argue forcefully for the airport expansion, commissioners voted to approve it. The Commission must vote again on the expansion at a second reading on Wednesday.
Despite the vote, commissioners and others felt that Hollywood's concerns about noise, traffic, and landscaping had been brushed off by the county, the article reports. Mayor Mara Giulianti said she felt they had been "thoroughly ignored." She asked the county's attorney, Ed Stacker, what airport officials would do to address noise concerns after lengthening its southern runway. Stacker said the airport had an obligation to conduct annual noise contour modeling studies, but he acknowledged there was no obligation for the airport to mitigate any noise problems the modeling revealed.
The article goes on to say that Swerdlow told the Commission his company is building hundreds of homes near the airport and has heard no noise complaints from owners. "The noise levels there are fully tolerable," he said. "We've sold 400 houses and there has not been a problem. The problem here is that the city feels like it's being treated like a stepchild. Hollywood thinks all the noise is going to be in Hollywood and the benefits are going to be in Fort Lauderdale."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: September 18, 1997
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 3; Zone: NW
BYLINE: Pat Clawson
DATELINE: Rolling Meadows, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ed Evenson, resident
The Chicago Tribune reports the Rolling Meadows (Illinois) City Council has agreed to seek voting rights on the Chicago O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, a group formed by the mayor to make noise mitigation recommendations. Currently, the city is represented on the commission, but cannot vote on issues because it is not considered an "affected area." But residents convinced city councillors that the noise they experience warrants a vote on the commission, the article says.
According to the article, resident Ed Evenson presented a report to the council that showed some areas of Rolling Meadows are more affected than parts of Arlington Heights and Mt. Prospect, both of which have voting privileges on the commission. Evenson developed an "Integrated Noise Average" for the city which incorporates data about the percentage of the municipality affected by jet noise, plus the loudness and frequency of flights, the article notes.
PUBLICATION: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram
DATE: September 17, 1997
SECTION: Business; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Dan Reed
DATELINE: Dallas, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Russ Jewert, co-chair, Love Field Citizens Action Committee; Lori Palmer, anti-noise activist and former Dallas City Councillor
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that a dispute is raging over whether the Wright Amendment, a law that restricts flights at the Love Airfield in Dallas, Texas, should be abolished. Many have speculated that abolishing the amendment would bring new air traffic growth and lower fares. But according to a Dallas official, there probably is not enough capacity at the airport to handle much growth. The article goes on to detail the limitations of the airport and of expanding flights there.
According to the article, historic Love Field is only a short drive north from downtown Dallas, in the middle of an industrial, residential and commercial area. The airport was built in 1917 and redeveloped into its current layout in 1957. Before the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport (D/FW) opened in 1974, Love was overflowing with air traffic and passengers, the article explains. But since January 1980, service from Love has been limited by the Wright Amendment, and D/FW has been the region's main airport. Today, Love is home to Southwest Airlines, a low-fare airline. Those who want to abolish the Wright Amendment believe Love could provide the site for a surge of new flights and increased airline competition.
But Danny Bruce, director of aviation for Dallas, says Love could not handle a great deal of growth. "There is some capacity for growth here," he explained. But, "There's really not enough terminal capacity here to handle all of the new service you hear people talking about coming here if the Wright Amendment goes away. Of course, a lot of that is just talk. "
The article goes on to say that in 1973, the year before D/FW opened, there were more than 400,000 takeoffs and landings at Love, including both commercial and general aviation planes. Last year, there were 222,726 takeoffs and landings, of which nearly half were from commercial airlines. Almost all the commercial operations were from Southwest. Last year, there were an average of 136 commercial airline departures per day, and currently, Southwest offers 139 daily departures from Love Field. Bruce, citing a 1992 U.S. Transportation Department study, said that "delays would start to become a significant problem only if aircraft operations reached the unlikely level of 360,000 annually." That figure suggests Love could handle 324 daily commercial flights, the article says, before delays would become persistent. The article points out that while this number is nowhere near the 1,100 daily flights at D/FW, it suggests some room for growth.
The article says that most airlines have declined to discuss their plans for Love if the Wright Amendment is scrapped. However, analysts say that if airlines that now offer only a few flights at D/FW, including United, Continental, Northwest, TWA, America West, and US Airways, shift some of their operations to Love, it could add an 25 to 75 flights per day. In addition, American and Delta might move some of their operations to Love if the other airlines do in order to protect their market share, which would add even more flights. American currently has 530 flights a day from D/FW, and Delta has 130. Southwest could add long-haul service from Love, analysts speculate, which would add more flights.
However, the article reports, Bruce said the logistics of increased service could be complicated. For example, he said, a significant increase in airport operations could create problems for Southwest, because their high-frequency operating formula depends on its ability to unload, clean, fuel, and reload its planes and have them back out on the runway 20 minutes after they arrive at the gate. Bruce explained, "Southwest likes to keep all of its flights on our west side runway, both because it's a bit longer, and because it makes for real short taxi times in and out. They could shift some of their flights to the east runway, and make some other changes, but that would increase their taxi times. "
While runways are not considered a barrier to growth at Love, noise and traffic congestion are, the article reports. Although noise levels surrounding Love have dropped in the past 15 years and will drop more after January 2000 when jets must meet quieter "Stage 3" standards, many residents near Love are opposed to any changes that would increase commercial service. Russ Jewert, co-chair of the Love Field Citizens Action Committee, which has been working to combat airport-related noise at Love for nearly 18 years, said, "We're totally against repeal of the Wright Amendment. That would be disastrous for the people living here." Jewert said more than 30,000 people live in an area where the average day/night noise level exceeds 65 decibels, the article says. "These newer planes don't put out the decibels that the old planes put out, true," Jewert said. "But more aircraft still mean more noise. We don't want any more big planes; I don't care what stage they are. Each plane, no matter how quiet, is one more noise incident. You add 200 flights a day at Love Field and we've got to live with all the extra noise."
Another potential barrier to growth of commercial service at Love is the shortage of passenger facilities, including terminal space, gates, roadways, and parking garages, the article explains. Currently, Southwest uses all 14 gates in the terminal's West Concourse, and leases nearly all of the gate space in the terminal's dormant North Concourse. Much of the space in the North Concourse has been converted by Southwest for use as a training facility, the article notes. Bruce said that the city can always reclaim the North Concourse gates if other airlines want to use them, but he said as a practical matter, only six or eight of the 22 gates in that concourse could be used by an airline other than Southwest. That's because about half of the gates are cut off from the taxiways by hangars that Southwest has built, and because one-third of the gates don't meet modern customer-service standards and require customers to walk outside to board the planes.
Meanwhile, the lease rights to the terminal's East Concourse were acquired by AMR Services, a corporate affiliate of American, last month in a deal that caught Bruce and other Dallas officials by surprise. Company officials said publicly that they plan to convert the concourse into offices, but privately, sources at American say that one benefit of the deal is to control one-third of Love's terminal capacity, the article reports.
Finally, Continental has just finished renovating two gates at Love Field, the article points out. In the 1980s, the airline won the right in court to serve Love Field within the limitations of the Wright Amendment, but currently has no service there. A spokesperson for the company said there are no plans to launch service at Love, and that the renovations were done to meet an investment requirement included in its lease. But analysts speculate that Continental Express, Continental's commuter subsidiary, could launch service from Love to its hubs in Houston, Cleveland, and Newark, N.J., using 50-seat regional jets. An exception clause in the Wright Amendment that has never been used before apparently would allow Continental to make such long-distance flights from Love, the article says. Continental Express has ordered a number of 50-seat Embraer EMB-145 regional jets, the article points out, and the two refurbished gates at Love now bear the Continental Express logo.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: September 16, 1997
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B4
BYLINE: Mark Spencer
DATELINE: South Windsor, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lewis Miller, resident
The Hartford Courant reports that the South Windsor (Connecticut) Town Council voted to table a proposed noise ordinance for a month and gather more information after a public hearing on the issue Monday. The ordinance was proposed after residents complained about noise from Cupid Diaper Co. of Satellite Road.
According to the article, the council voted unanimously to table the ordinance, which was submitted in January and has received preliminary state approval. The decision was made after a straw vote of the audience at the conclusion of the hearing found that 18 audience members were for the ordinance, and 15 were against it.
The article explains that the state sets basic noise pollution regulations, but allows municipalities to pass more restrictive ordinances if approved by the state. According to Town Attorney Barry Guliano, the town's proposed ordinance applies mainly to commercial and industrial zones and sets levels that are "slightly more stringent" than state regulations. The proposed ordinance would permit a fine of $99 per violation per day, and does not address farm activity, barking dogs, and loud music from cars.
Some residents living near Cupid Diaper Co. have complained for at least six years about the noise from dryers and other machinery, the article reports. Resident Lewis Miller said the ordinance was the "best hope of striking a reasonable balance" between residential neighborhoods and adjoining industrial or commercial areas.
But Steven Basche, an attorney for Cupid Diaper, said the ordinance was "draconian," the article says. He pointed out that permitted noise levels emitted from industrial lots to residential areas would be reduced from 61 to 50 decibels during the day and from 51 to 40 decibels at night. He added that the ordinance could muffle local economic development, and said, "When you have an ordinance this tough, it invites legal challenge."
PUBLICATION: AP Online
DATE: September 19, 1997
SECTION: Washington - General News
BYLINE: H. Josef Hebert
DATELINE: Washington, D.C.
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kevin Collins, spokesperson, National Parks and Conservation Association
AP Online reports that the U.S. National Park Service is developing new rules to make it easier for personal watercraft such as jet skis to be banned in National Parks. The agency has proposed a rule expected to get final approval in late October that would direct local park officials to determine the "appropriateness" of jet ski use in each park and restrict or ban the machines if necessary. The article says there has been a growing concern among many park superintendents about the impact of personal watercraft on the tranquillity of parks.
According to the article, Dennis Burnett, the agency's program manager for regulation, said the proposed rule does not constitute a total ban. Instead, he said, "It will establish a procedure for park superintendents to make a determination of appropriateness for these vehicles in their park areas." There are 34 park areas where jet skis are currently used and widely accepted, Burnett said, including Lake Mead near Las Vegas and the Lake Powell recreation area of southern Utah. He added that Park Service officials see no reason to ban jet skis at such areas. But, he said, "National parks are supposed to be special places and they can't be all things to all people."
Under the proposed rule, park superintendents at all park areas would examine jet ski use in their parks and presumably could impose some restraints, the article says. Currently there are only a few prohibitions on jet ski use within the entire National Park system, and park officials have few mechanisms for controlling their use. Under the proposed rule, park officials would consider a number of issues to determine whether the watercraft should be regulated or banned, including the park's original purpose, cultural and scenic values, potential damage to park resources, disruption of wildlife or their habitat, and conflicts among park visitors. The rule would address only individual watercraft that are less than 13 feet in length, are powered by inboard jets, and seat no more than two people.
The article goes on to say that conservation groups have argued for years that the Park Service should place controls on the use of motorized craft in parks that were created primarily for natural resource protection and wilderness values. According to Kevin Collins, a spokesperson for the private National Parks and Conservation Association, "These places were set aside to protect their natural condition, their tranquillity and their silence."
The article notes that jet skis are becoming increasingly popular. Sales of jet skis and similar small individual watercraft are at about 200,000 per year, the article says, with approximately 1.2 million now in use. There have been conflicts over jet ski use at a number of parks, including the Voyageurs National Park in far northern Minnesota, Canyonlands National Park in Utah, and Olympic National Park in Washington state.
PUBLICATION: The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
DATE: September 20, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A01
BYLINE: Tina Traster
DATELINE: Bergen County, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Paul Griffo, Rutherford resident and member of the Teterboro Aircraft Noise Abatement Advisory Committee; Senator Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.); Michael DeMarco, Moonachie City Councillor and member of the Alliance of Municipalities Concerning Air Traffic
The Record reports that a plan to relieve congestion and delays at New Jersey's Newark International Airport could add 14,000 takeoffs and landings per year to the Teterboro Airport in Bergen County. But residents and local officials near Teterboro who are already fighting jet noise from the airport are unhappy with the idea and are preparing for a new battle, the article says.
According to the article, Philip Engle, the manager of Teterboro Airport, said officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns Teterboro and operates the Newark airport, are looking at ways to help Newark. One option, he said, is for Teterboro Airport to take some of the Newark's general aviation traffic. Officials say they expect corporate jet pilots would choose Teterboro over Newark because of lower costs and greater convenience. The solution would benefit both airports, officials say: Teterboro wants to lure more corporate jets because of increased landing fees, while Newark needs relief because it has more delays than any other commercial airport in the country. Warren Morningstar, spokesperson for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, said, "All things being equal, a pilot prefers to go to a reliever airport because it's better suited to his needs." Many corporate jets previously flew to Newark because of its proximity to New York, Morningstar said, but now such jets are more frequently using smaller airports because there is less air traffic and hassle, and it's more cost-efficient. The article notes that Teterboro is attractive to small-plane pilots because it has more service and fuel stations for smaller aircraft than Newark, more hangars for private jets, and landing fees are much cheaper. Chuck Meara, a Port Authority spokesperson, said there are no specific plans to re-route corporate jet traffic to Teterboro, "but to the extent that corporate traffic chooses to use Teterboro, it is in everybody's best interest." Jim Peters, a spokesperson for the Federal Aviation Administration, said Newark airport "can restrict operations" of private and business traffic and reroute traffic to Teterboro on a day-to-day basis, without FAA tracking.
The article reports that Teterboro officials say general aviation traffic, including private fliers, corporate jets, air taxis, charters, freight, and helicopters, has remained relatively constant over the last five years. However, corporate jet air traffic has increased 18% between 1995 and 1996, while non-corporate traffic has dropped 12%. Teterboro had a total of 160,000 takeoffs and landings in 1996, of which 74,553 were made by corporate jets. Corporate jets range in size from 12,000 pounds to 80,000 pounds, which typical commercial jetliners range from 100,000 to 800,000 pounds. The 14,000 increase in takeoffs and landings being discussed for Teterboro would represent an increase of nearly 20% in corporate-jet traffic. But Engle downplayed that number, saying, "It's not a big increase. It's really a drop in the bucket."
At Newark, meanwhile, only 5% of the total air traffic is from general aviation flights, the article says. In 1992, Newark had 403,978 takeoffs and landings, of which 20,730 were by private and corporate planes. By 1996, total takeoffs and landings increased more than 10%, but general aviation remained at nearly the same level.
The article goes on to report that residents and local officials who are already fighting jet noise from Teterboro are preparing for a new fight over any increase in corporate jet air traffic. In recent years, the article says, opponents have been successful in getting future flight paths re-routed away from residential areas, but this fight could be tougher. Paul Griffo, a Rutherford resident and member of the Teterboro Aircraft Noise Abatement Advisory Committee, said, "The frequency of the passage of jets overhead has become intolerable. The problem is the rise and fall of the sound of the planes. While the noise may not exceed 65 decibels, it is as torturous as a dripping faucet." He added, "Before Teterboro brings more planes here, we want public hearings and environmental studies on noise and air pollution. We need state officials to come to Moonachie and Carlstadt to listen to the planes overhead. We need Governor Whitman to come here and talk about the problems before they are increased."
The article explains that in August, mayors and residents of eight Bergen County towns formed the Alliance of Municipalities Concerning Air Traffic. The group intends to work with airport officials on issues related to increased air traffic, noise, and air pollution. Michael DeMarco, a Moonachie Councillor and member of the Alliance said, "No one is studying noise or air pollution." DeMarco said the Alliance will look into a federal program that would fund home and school soundproofing, but said that airport or Port Authority officials would have to request federal studies and funding.
Meanwhile, Senator Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) is getting involved in the fight, the article reports. After being contacted by this newspaper, the article says, Torricelli sent a letter to Robert Boyle, executive director of the Port Authority, requesting a meeting between Port Authority officials, local mayors, and FAA officials to address local concerns. Torricelli wrote, "I understand that, as a reliever airport, Teterboro is expected to accept traffic from Newark, but I also recognize that this airport has its own capacity issues. It is my understanding that in the last three years, jet traffic into Teterboro has tripled. Obviously, this has had tremendous impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and the families that reside in the area."
Another concern of residents, the article says, is that in the future, corporate jets will be larger and have more powerful engines. But Engle insists the new generation of corporate jets will be quieter and more fuel-efficient, the article reports. He added that Boeing Commercial Airplane Company and Air-Bus Industries are developing a new generation of corporate jets that are similar in size and capacity to the Boeing 737, a twin-engine commercial aircraft.
Meanwhile, Henry Young, an environmental consultant for Teterboro, said airport officials have sent more than 1,300 warning letters to pilots who have exceeded allowable noise levels, and have banned 63 pilots from using the airport during the past decade. Young also said that Port Authority officials have never asked for grant money from the FAA for noise mitigation because of the "scale of such a project and the paucity of funds." Young added that he is conducting an environmental assessment for a plan that would re-direct landing approaches away from residential areas and toward the industrial zone along the Hackensack River. This plan would reduce the air noise over Teaneck, Bogota, Ridgefield Park, Carlstadt, Wood-Ridge, and other nearby towns, according to Young.
PUBLICATION: The Northern Echo
DATE: September 19, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 6
BYLINE: Julie Tyers
DATELINE: Bishop Middleham, England
The Northern Echo of England reports that for residents of Bishop Middleham, England, noisy traffic could be a thing of the past after a local quarry company helped pay for road safety measures, including paving the road with a covering called whispering bitumen, which absorbs traffic noise.
According to the article, parish councilors and staff from Thrislington Quarry in Bishop Middleham, near Ferryhill, are celebrating the success of oddly-named whispering bitumen, a road covering developed to absorb noise from passing traffic. Councilor Norman Ellwood said because up to 88 trucks from the nearby quarries pass through Bishop Middleham every day, pressure was put on the company to do something about it. He said: "Since the road was leveled and the whispering bitumen laid, the noise has been reduced by up to 20 per cent." Redland Aggregates, owner of the quarry, covered part of the costs of the road improvements.
PUBLICATION: The Northern Echo (England)
DATE: September 18, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 50
BYLINE: Karen Smith
DATELINE: Darlington Borough
The Northern Echo of England reports that residents of Darlington Borough, England, disturbed by noise from late-night work by a cable TV company brought their objections to town officials.
According to the short article, residents' complaints about noise and late-night disturbance from cable TV workers led to an urgent meeting being called yesterday. Darlington Borough Council officials demanded the meeting with representatives of the Comcast company after people complained about being kept awake by its workers.
Previous week: September 7, 1997
Next week: September 21, 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