PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal (Atlanta, GA)
DATE: April 15, 1998
SECTION: Local News; Pg. 05E; Pg. 05E
BYLINE: Kelly Simmons
DATELINE: Atlanta, Georgia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rev. Eugene Holder, resident
The Atlanta Journal reports a study of noise from a Georgia police firing range shows that noise levels acceptable.
According to The Atlanta Journal, the study showed that the noise neighbors of the firing range hear is about as loud as a group of people talking nearby. Not all the neighbors accepted the study's findings. "I get no relief," the Rev. Eugene Holder, whose property abuts the range on Cobb County Services Parkway, told the county commissioners Tuesday. He has been complaining about the noise for three years. "I don't have peace and quiet and serenity. You stole it without my permission." About two dozen homes are in the Chamberlain Circle subdivision behind the police training center.
The article states that Public Safety Director Robert Hightower presented the consultants' study to commissioners on Tuesday. Using automatic and manual sound monitoring systems, the study measured day and night noise for several days from two sites on Holder's property at 758 Chamberlain Circle. The highest-recorded decibel levels during that time were between 60 and 75 decibels, said Hightower. Sixty decibels is the equivalent of people talking from three feet away, and 75 decibels is the equivalent of the noise emitted from a commercial area. (By comparison, a diesel truck 50 feet away emits about 85 decibels.) Neither Georgia state nor county laws regulate acceptable noise levels. Hightower said the study used standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, ] and the Federal Highway Administration for the study. The gunfire measured slightly exceeded the EPA limit for rural residential areas, but it was acceptable under FAA and FHWA guidelines, he said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times (Chicago, IL)
DATE: April 15, 1998
SECTION: Nws; Pg. 3
BYLINE: Gilbert Jimenez
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joe Karaganis, attorney for the Suburban O'Hare Commission; Mary Rose Loney, Chicago Aviation Commissioner
The Chicago Sun-Times reports the national network of air traffic routes will be redrawn to reduce flight delays and noise on the ground, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
According to the article, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey said that the review will begin in the New York-New Jersey area, then move to the rest of the eastern triangle, bounded by Chicago, Boston and Miami. That region is a priority because its airspace is the most congested in the nation. One aspect of the redesign could shift low-altitude airport approach paths in way that would reduce the impact of noise on residential areas. "Anything the FAA can do that is going to improve safety, efficiency and reliability we support" as long as it doesn't interfere with the city's success in helping to mitigate aircraft noise, said city Aviation Commissioner Mary Rose Loney. But critics say the changes will increase the capacity of O'Hare, which will worsen noise and air pollution emission by packing more planes into paths over dense residential areas.
The article states the current air traffic route system is laid out like two interstate highways running west to east across the nation, passing over Chicago and Dallas. In some cities, changes to low-level flight paths could help mitigate noise. But Joe Karaganis, attorney for the Suburban O'Hare Commission, criticized the redesign as a way to "stack more airplanes (into O'Hare) . . . putting them nose to tail. He said the redesigned flight paths will concentrate noise and air pollution over a narrower path. "It is not designed as a noise abatement alternative," said Karaganis. A spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association estimates the redesign will take several years to complete.
PUBLICATION: Las Vegas Review-Journal(Las Vegas, NV)
DATE: April 15, 1998
SECTION: Aa; Pg. 8Aa
BYLINE: Lynn Collier
DATELINE: Spring Valley, Nevada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Claire Williams, resident; Gary Colemansmith, resident; Mark Colemansmith, resident
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports some Spring Valley residents are angry their homes could be included in the updated McCarran International Airport Environs Overlay District Maps, possibly classifying their homes as being in a high aircraft noise area.
According to the article, residents believe the proposed map's expansion of area around the airport, which reflects increased air traffic and current noise levels of 60 to 65 decibels, would decrease their property values and make it more difficult to sell. Sections of Spring Valley lie in the path of one of McCarran's major runways. State laws currently require homeowners to disclose that they live within the airport's noise contour map before selling their home. "It puts a cloud over our property if we want to sell," resident Claire Williams said at a Spring Valley Town Board meeting on March 30. "When we moved here 20 years ago, there was no noise out here," she said. Her neighbors Gary and Mark Colemansmith estimate they would lose $20,000 if they tried to sell their 3-year-old home under the proposed map's conditions. "We feel violated," said Mark Colemansmith. The Colemansmiths believe pilots aren't flying the flight patterns set out by the county. Federal Aviation Administration regulates pilots to follow the traffic control tower's commands. The tower tries to stick with the established flight patterns, but, "It's no railroad in the sky," said Teresa Arnold, principal planner for Clark County Department of Aviation
The article states that the surveyors contend the new map is an accurate representation of current flight patterns. The survey, made by Las Vegas-based Brown Butin and Associates, created the proposed noise contour map with computer calculations and followed radar tracks, said company president Bob Brown. "The map study is based on actual flight patterns," Brown said. "It shows where the aircraft flies, not where they say they fly." Arnold said the map reflects current noise levels for 1997. It does not project increases or decreases in current noise levels. Arnold said the map 1990 map "isn't truthful or fair" to new people buying homes in the area. "We want to make people understand where the aircraft are flying," she said. "This (the map) is a snap shot."
The article goes on to report that some residents complained that nearby Spanish Trail, an upscale planned community, was left out of the expansion of the noise contour maps. "I think they drew the line a little thin," said Gary Colemansmith. Brown said the computer-generated statistics drew the boundary and that's where it happened to draw the line.
According to the article despite residents' pleas to reject the proposed map, the Spring Valley Town Board voted to recommend the Clark County Commission approve the ordinance. The Spring Valley Town Board members agreed with the Department of Aviation that the map was just a reflection of current noise levels in the valley and should be fairly reported. "You can stick your head in the sand and say it doesn't exist, but it does," said board chair Dorothy Kidd. The Board added a condition to review the noise contour maps in 2000. It also voted down part of the ordinance that would require construction in the Day-Night Level 60 to 65 decibels subdistrict to require builders to add insulation to reduce interior noise by 25 decibels. Board member Pam Mortensen, a local engineer, said the issue was moot because the building industry already meets those requirements by using energy-efficient building materials. If the Clark County Commission approves the new map on April 22, it will inform zoning laws for the area. Besides adding disclosure regulations to homeowners, it would also add zoning restrictions for home builders and homeowners who want to build additions. They would have to add extra insulation to reduce the interior noise level to 25 decibels.
PUBLICATION: News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
DATE: April 15, 1998
SECTION: General News, Pg. A1
BYLINE: Doug Campbell
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mike Slane, resident; Gil Haddel, resident; Carolyn Barker, resident
The News & Record of Greensboro, North Carolina reports noise -wary airport neighbors still vow to fight FedEx and the airport's planned third runway.
According to the News & Record, about 150 angry airport neighbors crowded into the Marriott Airport hotel to express their concerns to the airport, the government, and Federal Express Corp. "We will object to this right to the very end," said Cardinal resident Mike Slane. "Your plan for a third runway was 30 years ago, before our government allowed the development. We will fight you tooth and nail." Said Cardinal resident Gil Haddel: "This runway is not needed. It is a fleecing of America." Homeowners from Cardinal, north High Point and other points in between, told the panel of bureaucrats and corporate executives that they worried about falling property values and sleepless nights. Despite their protests, residents were told a third runway will open in 2003.
According to the article, Robert Palmer, FedEx vice president of hub operations, said of the runway: "It was a requirement." He said the third runway was a pivotal factor in the company's choice among six airports in the Carolinas competing for the $300 million hub, its 1,500 jobs and the promise of other economic spinoffs. FedEx has promised that 95 percent of its nighttime flights - at least 20 planes per evening - will land from the southwest and take off in the same direction, meaning noise from the jet engines will mostly pollute commercially zoned space. And soon, all of its planes will be the quietest in the industry.
The article reported that among the most controversial questions posed Tuesday by area residents were why FedEx needs a third, parallel runway if three years ago the airport was handling 160-some flights daily, without the runway, as opposed to just 80 now? FedEx says that a parallel runway - its second runway is perpendicular to the first - is crucial because it needs guaranteed uninterrupted operations that the current arrangement won't provide. Also, FedEx plans as much as 75 flights a night within 15 years. Another concern the residents brought up was the secret negotiations that kept airport neighbors ignorant about the third runway until Monday? Jess Bunn, a FedEx spokesman, said, "There has to be some strict confidentiality and the reason is each airport is submitting factors that would affect our decision." It was reported in the media that FedEx desired parallel runways. Thirdly, the residents asked if the FedEx airport package sorting and shipping complex - by which planes will park and idle - could be built farther away from adjacent residential areas than now planned? It might, officials said, but not much farther from its currently proposed site near Bryan Boulevard.
The article stated that even though plans for the third runway appears certain for now, FedEx was making efforts Tuesday to win over its future neighbors. "We don't want to be your enemy," said Palmer, the FedEx vice president. "We have noise issues on every airport we fly out of. Our intention is to listen to you and to work with the airport." But Carolyn Barker was skeptical. Barker, who lives in a house southwest of the airport that's been in her family since 1936 said, "They just came here to listen to us (complain). All the decisions were already made and cast in stone."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL)
DATE: April 15, 1998
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 1; Zone: NW
BYLINE: Rogers Worthington
DATELINE: Des Plaines, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports two groups, seen as rivals by some, will present their approaches to dealing with noise from O'Hare International Airport to the Des Plaines City Council starting Wednesday night.
According to the Chicago Tribune, the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, formed and financed by the City of Chicago, and the Suburban O'Hare Commission, a group of suburbs opposed to airport noise and expansion, will describe their histories, achievements and goals to Des Plaines' eight aldermen and Mayor Paul Jung in City Hall meetings. The 15-month-old Noise Compatibility Commission will make the first presentation on Wednesday. Then the 17-year-old Suburban O'Hare Commission will address the Council on Thursday. Des Plaines residents are invited to both informational sessions.
The article states Des Plaines currently is a member of the Suburban O'Hare Commission, but Mayor Paul Jung and Alderman Anthony Arredia wonder if the suburb ought to be aligned with the Noise Compatibility Commission as well. The O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission is credited with opening communication on the noise issue among airlines, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the City of Chicago. Arredia suggests that Des Plaines, which suffers from the fourth-highest average noise level among the 24 O'Hare-area suburbs monitored by Chicago, might benefit from being a member of the Noise Compatibility Commission. "I'm not so sure we shouldn't be going to meetings and getting firsthand information," Arredia said. "Does that mean I want to lose SOC? Absolutely not."
The article reports that the SOC, on whose board Jung serves, is known for its militant stands against O'Hare noise and runway expansion. It has fought successfully in the courts for soundproofing of homes and schools near O'Hare. "SOC has been successful. You can't argue with success," said Des Plaines Ald. Carmen J. Sarlo (6th). But he said he'll listen to the Noise Compatibility Commission. But hard-core supporters of the Suburban O'Hare Commission see the new commission as a stalking-horse for more airport runways and noise. "The whole makeup of (the Noise Compatibility Commission) is keyed to people who don't have significant noise impact, or who are essentially pro-expansion," said Joseph Karaganis, the lawyer for the Suburban O'Hare Commission. But Mulder repeatedly has argued that the Noise Compatibility Commission "is about noise abatement only." Arredia and Jung say they see no reason why Des Plaines can't participate in both organizations. "I think we have to stop drawing a line in the sand all the time," Arredia said.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA)
DATE: April 14, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Paul Hefner
DATELINE: Sacramento, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Cindy Miscikowski, councilwoman
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports legislation that would repeal Los Angeles' ban on gasoline-powered leaf blowers did not get the majority of votes Monday in a state Senate committee.
According to the article, the 4-2 vote left the measure one vote short of a majority of the full Senate Business and Professions Committee. However, state Sen. Richard Polanco, D-Los Angeles, said he would bring the measure back April 27. He said he introduced SB 1651 because gardeners were being hurt economically. "We're taking away the tools of the trade for people who have families to support," Polanco said. "The way LA dealt with them is not fair."
The article says state law leaves leaf-blower regulation up to local governments, which have increasingly restricted or banned the machines. A Los Angeles ordinance that took effect Feb. 13 prohibited gardeners from using the blowers in residential areas. More than a dozen other cities, including Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, have enacted similar bans. But Polanco's measure would override any ban approved by a local government except those enacted by an initiative or referendum. Instead, cities and counties would be allowed to regulate leaf-blower use only in the evenings and early mornings. The bill would leave regulation of gas-powered leaf blowers to the state Department of Consumer Affairs. Commercial gardeners would be given until 2000 to switch to blowers that meet a 65-decibel noise standard.
The article reports that opponents argued that the bill would rob cities of their authority over the issue. "We're dismayed by it," said Glenn Barr, a spokesman for Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, who pushed for the Los Angeles ban. "It's really an issue, to put it in very crude terms, of emasculation." Homeowners complained that the devices are a noisy source of pollution, while landscapers contend that bans on blowers have robbed them of a useful tool. "To go back to using rakes and brooms is like taking X-rays away from doctors," said Douglas Nakamura of the California Landscape Contractors Association.
PUBLICATION: News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
DATE: April 14, 1998
SECTION: General News, Pg. A1
BYLINE: Scott Andron
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joe Libreri, president of the Cardinal West Neighborhood Association; Joe Glover, vice president of the Prestwick Homeowners Association; Bob Hayworth, High Point City Council
The News & Record of Greensboro, North Carolina, reports that residents living northeast of the Piedmont Triad International Airport say they want FedEx to choose a different site.
The News & Record reports the announcement that Federal Express Corp. will put a hub at Piedmont Triad International Airport was not welcomed by people who live in the Cardinal and other neighborhoods northeast of the airport on Monday. To accommodate FedEx, airport officials said they will build a new runway near the Cardinal neighborhood. FedEx will operate at least 20 planes per night, with the planes arriving between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m., and leaving between 3 and 4:30 a.m. "We're opposed to the additional noise, " said Joe Libreri, president of the Cardinal West Neighborhood Association. "We're opposed to the additional runway. It's going to devalue our property."
According to the article, Robert Palmer, FedEx's vice president for hub operations said residents' concerns would not lead FedEx to reverse its plans. FedEx executives said Monday they will listen to neighborhood leaders at a meeting today. Executives also pledged to keep noise to a minimum. "We will do everything we can to mitigate the noise situation," said Robert Palmer, FedEx's vice president for hub operations. Palmer said FedEx plans to direct 90 percent to 95 percent of its flights to take off and land from the southwest - away from the neighborhoods and over mostly commercial properties. But North High Point residents may not like the company's solution to bring planes in and out from the southwest. Their neighborhoods are a few miles southwest of the airport. "Any diversion of air traffic over north High Point is probably not going to be accepted by taxpayers in the area," said Bob Hayworth, who represents the area on the City Council. "That's not what we need in this community. I expect the citizens of north High Point to fight this very vigorously."
The article reports neighborhood leaders said they are skeptical of FedEx's promises because the company ignored their requests for a meeting last week. "I think we've been duped already," said Libreri, who had previously been urging his members to remain calm. "The next thing you know they've made their decision." Libreri, an industrial engineer, is urging his members to call their legislators, and anyone else they can think of who might be able to help stop the new runway. Libreri and other neighborhood leaders met with airport officials last week, but received few answers. They requested, unsuccessfully, a face-to-face meeting with FedEx executives before a decision was made.
The article goes on to report that this weekend, the leaders of seven airport-area neighborhood associations drafted a letter to FedEx Chairman Fred Smith expressing their concerns. Neighborhood leaders from Cardinal Commons, Cardinal West, Prestwick, River Hills, Edinburgh, Pleasant Ridge Farms and Cardinal Woods signed the letter to FedEx. But Glover said he also has received calls from people as far away as High Point, Brassfield and Lake Brandt who are worried about FedEx. They faxed the letter to company headquarters in Memphis, Tenn., on Monday as FedEx was preparing to make its announcement. "I'm very, very disappointed that they made this decision unilaterally," said Joe Glover, vice president of the Prestwick Homeowners Association. "It's obvious that we were ignored. As far as I'm concerned, they have said this is a unilateral decision and they're not interested in my input."
According to the article, House Speaker Harold Brubaker, R-Asheboro, and Senate president pro tem Marc Basnight, D-Manteo, have expressed support for this plan, as has Gov. Jim Hunt. "The governor doesn't live in the Cardinal," said state Sen. Bob Shaw, the Republican who represents the Cardinal area. "The speaker lives in Randolph County." Shaw attended Monday's news conference. "I don't know," he said after listening to FedEx and airport officials deliver the announcement. "I just heard the PR (public relations). I want to see the facts. It's a great thing to have a new company come in. I want to see how it's going to affect northwest Guilford County."
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: April 14, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Karla Schuster
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bill Glass, city council member
The Sun-Sentinel reports a Boca Raton City Council member is proposing a resolution that would fine violators of nighttime flight curfews at Boca Raton Airport.
According to the article, City Council member Bill Glass' proposal calls for a mandatory night curfew on "Stage 1" jets, a voluntary curfew on other jets, and fines or loss of landing privileges for violators. Stage 1 aircraft, considered the noisiest type of jets, are already are being phased out by the Federal Aviation Administration. There are less than 40 in use nationwide, and none are based at Boca Raton Municipal Airport, city airport officials said. Currently, the airport has a number of voluntary noise reduction procedures, including a voluntary nighttime flight ban and suggested flight patterns that limit noise over residential areas. Glass' resolution would impose fines on pilots that violate the voluntary noise abatement procedures at the airport.
The article states that Glass' proposal faces a number of hurdles. "I don't see how the airport can do what Mr. Glass is asking for without getting FAA approval, because how do you fine somebody for violating a voluntary noise abatement? That would make it a mandatory procedure," said Renee Johns, the airport's noise abatement officer. FAA rules limit the kind of flight restrictions airports can impose, and the City Council has no direct authority over the Airport Authority, which runs the airport. To win approval for such measures, airports must undergo a lengthy and expensive FAA study. Naples' airport has won FAA approval for a nighttime ban on Stage 1 aircraft. "I know that there's not any way we can make them (the Airport Authority) do anything, but I'm hoping that if we pass this kind of resolution it'd put some pressure, well let's say encouragement, on them to deal with the noise problems," Glass said. Airport officials say they've attempted to reduce noise without violating FAA guidelines. In January, the airport imposed a nighttime and weekend ban on "touch-and-go's"-repeated practice take-offs and landings performed by training pilots. But plans to impose penalties for violating the "touch-and-go" ban have been delayed while city and airport officials investigate which city agencies would be involved with enforcement.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: April 14, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Lisa J. Huriash
DATELINE: Deerfield Beach, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Regeanne Simard, resident; Michel Charron, resident
The Sun-Sentinel reports residents at a mobile-home community for seniors in Deerfield Beach, Florida, fear current noise and vibrations from trains and rail tracks are about to increase.
According to the Sun-Sentinel, Tri-Rail is building a second set of tracks just west of the existing tracks along a 67-mile corridor through Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Double-tracking will allow two trains to go by at the same time. "It will tremendously increase our capacity," Tri-Rail spokeswoman Lauren Krugman said. "It will increase our train frequencies. We'll be able to run trains much more often than what we are now." But what's good news for commuters, sounds like a nightmare for people who live near the tracks.
The article reports that every morning, Regeanne Simard readjusts the pictures on the walls of her mobile home. And every night, the trains that rumble through the neighborhood knock them out of place again. Each night as she tries to fall asleep, she feels the vibrations of approaching trains. With the additional trains, Simard and her neighbors at Pine Tree Park, a mobile-home community for seniors in Deerfield Beach, fear the noise and vibrations are about to get worse. Michel Charron lives less than 50 feet from the old tracks. The new tracks will be 15 feet closer to his home. "We want to be able to sleep. That is not the way to live. We came here to live in peace." Charron, who lives in Pine Tree Park, gathered 228 signatures from his neighbors demanding a 20-foot barrier wall to shield them from the noise, vibrations, and dirt that the additional trains will produce. The petition, filed at Deerfield Beach City Hall last week, also asked that trains be banned from blowing their whistles near the neighborhood; filters be installed on engine exhausts to collect dust and dirt; shrubs and trees be planted to create a barrier; and train wheels be modified to minimize vibrations. It also asks that two trains don't pass by the residential area at the same time.
The article reports the solutions requested by the Deerfield Beach residents may not be possible, according to Kirby McCrary, a Department of Transportation construction project manager. A barrier wall could cost about $ 1 million a mile, he said. "We do not typically build walls like that," McCrary said. "You never want to say never, but I don't know if it would be . . . a cost-effective measure to put on a railroad corridor." Vibrations pass through the ground, so a wall wouldn't shield neighbors from the shaking, he said. And the wall would have to be built extremely high to minimize the amount of noise, he said. "The department policy right now is we're not even considering (barriers) on the corridors . . . the funds are so limited." Nor is a ban on two trains passing at once likely. "Our passengers are desperately awaiting the double-tracking," Tri-Rail spokeswoman Lauren Krugman said. "When the double-tracking is in, it's very safe to assume that two trains will go by (at the same time). That's the whole point . . . to increase the frequency. Why would we double-track and only put one by at a time?"
The article reports Deerfield's Pine Tree Park is not the only community complaining. Since trains began using the second set of tracks in Oakland Park last year, the additional train whistles have made people living near the tracks miserable, said Oakland Park City Commissioner Steve Arnst. "We never had complaints before," Arnst said. "Now all we're doing is getting complaints. I would attribute some of it to the double-tracking."
PUBLICATION: Copley News Service(San Diego, CA)
DATE: April 13, 1998
SECTION: Standing, General Features
BYLINE: Gene Gary
DATELINE: San Diego, California
The Copley News Service reports on ways to prevent the sounds of a noisy neighborhood-steady traffic, dogs barking, children at play, and late-night parties-from filling your home..
According to the article, there is almost nothing that will completely block out exterior noises. But there are some soundproofing techniques that can help. The most effective method of reducing street sounds is to construct a concrete block or brick wall which is at least 6-feet high. If your home is a two-story building, the barrier would have to be that much higher to help protect the second-floor level. Such a wall can deflect nearly 60 percent of the street sounds. A wooden fence can reduce noise only by about 5 percent.
The article states improving wall and ceiling insulation may slightly reduce indoor noise level. However, since most sound enters homes through windows and doors, open holes, and the wooden framework of the house itself, noise can be blocked by sealing up holes around windows, electrical service entrances, and vents with caulking and weather stripping. Of course, air conditioning units allow you to close your windows and shut noise out. Window-mount units should be mounted on and surrounded by EPDM gaskets to isolate their vibrations from the wall.
The article goes on to say that a relatively expensive sound barrier is to replace single pane windows with double-pane or triple-pane glass. This can reduce noise levels by nearly 50 percent or more, depending on the type of window replacement. Apparently, glass itself does not insulate well, but trapped air does. Windows with multiple layers of glass have an airspace between the layers which increases R-value (R-value is a measure of insulation, the higher the number, the better the R-value). Double-glaze units have an R-value between 1.5 and 1.8. Triple-glaze units have R-values between 1.8 and 2.8. The width of the airspace also affects performance. The accepted optimum air space is between l/2 and 5/8 inches. Windows that have argon (a dense, inert gas) injected between the panes have better insulation value compared to those that are air-filled.
According to the article, the type of material used in window framing can also affect sound transmission. Vinyl-frames deaden sound more than aluminum frames. When selecting window glass to reduce noise, consider the type of glass. It's best to select a product that has laminated glass for one side of the glazing, or one that has a layer of 1/8-inch and a layer of 1/4-inch glass, because the difference in thickness will intercept different sound frequencies. A few manufacturers specialize in acoustic windows and offer units with STC (Sound Transmission Coefficient) ratings in addition to R-value. These units emphasize sound dampening features in their design. Framing can be adapted to accommodate the new window, or custom windows can be built. To cut expenses, consider replacing only those windows which face the street or the noisy side of the building. Another consideration is interior storm windows. These magnetic-mount windows will help reduce exterior noise, are easy to install, and can be used in selected rooms or throughout your house. In addition to windows, a solid door with a tight-fitting threshold and weatherstripping and a good storm door blocks out four times as much noise as a hollow-core door with no storm door. Another method of blocking noise is to mask it with a more agreeable sound. Small electronic gadgets are available that are designed to generate a pleasant whir to mask persistent noise.
PUBLICATION: The Santa Fe New Mexican (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
DATE: April 13, 1998
SECTION: Opine; Pg. A-9
The Santa Fe New Mexican published an editorial about on-going noise issues in Santa Fe, prompted most recently by residents' complaints about a local bar. It's the editor's opinion that a sound-level meter and an enforceable ordinance would solve the city's noise problems.
According to the editorial, every so often, El Farol, a bar and lounge on Canyon Road, elicits complaints about loud music, rowdy customers, and Harley-Davidsons. El Farol's detractors have taken their case to the City Council, claiming the place lacks the proper zoning. The Council voted to delay action in order to gather information.
This article points out that Santa Fe has a noise ordinance. It should buy a sound-level meter and enforce the ordinance. Apparently it's been going unenforced in the case of diesel trucks and now ignored in the El Farol case. The present ordinance may need some amending, but its intent is clear: ensuring Santa Feans "an environment free from such excessive sound as may jeopardize their health, welfare and safety, or degrade the quality of life." A provision may be needed to protect neighbors from excessively amplified music; a standard that would apply to any source including garage bands.
According to the article, the ordinance is quite clear about motor-vehicle noises, so if motorcycles leaving El Farol are making too much noise, the city should ticket the drivers. To address the music coming from El Farol, the city's engineering and legal staff can come up with a sensible standard for this and other establishments. Owner David Salazar has considered some systems that might muffle the bar's sounds. He should be encouraged in that pursuit and be given a break. Consultation, cooperation and compromise will help resolve this case.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL)
DATE: April 13, 1998
SECTION: Metro Chicago; Pg. 1; Zone: N
BYLINE: James Hill
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that in the last year thousands of Chicagoans have had their cars impounded, some for violating the city code governing Noise and Vibration Control.
According to the article, violation occurs when the music "generated by the device is clearly audible to a person with normal hearing at a distance greater than 75 feet," according to Article VII of the city code governing Noise and Vibration Control. Those who violate the ordinance can have their vehicle impounded and face a $500 fine, plus towing and storage costs. 5,286 citizens have had their cars impounded since the 21-month-old law took affect, according to Cathy Murray, a deputy director with the city's Department of Revenue, which oversees the impoundments. Drivers can have their vehicles impounded for a number of offenses, including solicitation of drugs or prostitution, carrying a gun in the car, violating curfew, illegal dumping, and playing music too loud.
The article reports of the 12,879 vehicles impounded last year for violations of the ordinances, 4,764 were impounded for violating the city's noise ordinance--making it the top violation. And 3,679 were impounded between April and September. "This is a quality-of-life issue," said Patrick Camden, Chicago police spokesman. "How many times have you been sitting on the porch at night or stopped at a red light and some guy comes by blasting the radio so loud you start shaking and you can't hear yourself think? Nobody is saying you can't listen to a radio; just do it at a reasonable volume."
According to the article, Jared Walker, 24, learned the hard way. Walker spent nearly two hours Thursday at Chicago police headquarters arguing his case before a hearing officer. He had his car towed from in front of his friend's house on the South Side three weeks ago for playing his car stereo too loud. "I didn't think it was that loud," Walker said in disgust after the hearing officer ruled against him. "My friend's mother was sitting right there on the porch and she wasn't complaining. And older people are usually the first ones to tell you to turn your music down." Walker was fined $600. He has the option of appealing the decision to the Circuit Court.
According to the article, police say many violations of the noise ordinance are reported by residents tired of being awakened in the night or having their favorite TV program interrupted by drivers with stereo systems, some of which are worth more than the vehicle. But just as often, some police said, officers will be sitting in their squad car at a red light or stopped on a street when they feel and hear the rumble of a big-bass system. "Most of the time you're on patrol, you hear the music and it's a few young people with the radio blasting, and you go tell them to turn it down," said one Albany Park District patrol officer. "Usually, it's not a problem. They turn it down, you drive away, simple. Sometimes, if they are standing with a group of their friends or something like that, they might want to act tough or become argumentative, trying to make it seem like you are picking on them. At that point, we don't even argue. We just call the tow truck. They can argue all they want at the hearing." At that time, the hearing officer determines whether there was cause for the vehicle to be impounded.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA)
DATE: April 12, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 14; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Gerald A. Silver and Myrna L. Silver
DATELINE: Encino, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Gerald A. Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino
The Los Angeles Times published an editorial by Gerald A. Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino, California, and writer, Myrna L. Silver, about jet and helicopter noise from Van Nuys Airport. What follows is their article as published:
San Fernando Valley residents are being bombarded with more jet and helicopter noise from Van Nuys Airport than ever before. Nonetheless, the Valley Industry and Commerce Association and airport tenants have been heavily lobbying the City Council and airport commission and seek to destroy any effective noise regulation. The claims of lost jobs and profits are fraught with misinformation. Here are some facts to set the record straight.
Myth 1: There is no need for a mandatory Stage II phase-out regulation, since noisy Stage II jet aircraft will be eliminated by attrition. Fact: History shows this to be false. Many of the top 20 jet operators at Van Nuys still use noisy aircraft manufactured in the 1960s, '70s and '80s. The economic climate makes older planes even more attractive. Several corporations may share one jet and put their own planes on the market at low prices. A phase-out of Stage II jets at Van Nuys will not happen unless there is a legal mandate.
Myth 2: The FAA has exclusive control over the phasing out of noisy Stage II jets and will not allow this to happen at Van Nuys. Fact: The FAA approved the Airport Noise and Capacity Act on Oct. 1, 1990. It established a mechanism to phase out older Stage II jets and provided a grandfather clause for any noise regulation proposed before Oct. 1, 1990. Since the airport commission had proposed a phase-out of Stage II aircraft at Van Nuys well before this date, such action would clearly be legal.
Myth 3: The Van Nuys noise problem is not as severe as that of LAX, Burbank or other airports with numerous large air carrier operations. Fact: The FAA mandated a phase-out of Stage II aircraft by the year 2000. But this will not impact Van Nuys because it does not affect general aviation aircraft under 75,000 pounds, which includes virtually all the many corporate jets at Van Nuys. The noise exposure contour for a Lear 25 or Gulfstream III is vastly larger than that of a Boeing 757-200, 737-300, MD-82 or A300.
Myth 4: The noise contours at Van Nuys Airport have been shrinking. Fact: In 1990 there were 1.82 square miles of incompatible land use around Van Nuys Airport, using state mandated noise measures. Although there was some immediate improvement because of a "Fly Friendly" program, the contour has again increased due to a jump in Stage II operations. Many itinerant Stage II aircraft fly into Van Nuys for fuel or repairs because they are banned elsewhere.
Myth 5: Helicopters are controlled by the FAA, and it is beyond the airport commission's authority to place a 7 a.m. curfew or other controls on them. Fact: This myth is espoused by helicopter operators who do not want regulations on their activity. The FAA states that helicopters are Stage II aircraft and thus qualify under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act phase-out rules. This allows a helicopter curfew to be imposed. Santa Monica Airport, for example, does not allow helicopters to fly out before 7 a.m., except for emergencies. Why should Van Nuys become the helicopter noise dumping ground of the region?
Myth 6: The proposed noise regulation was prepared hastily, without adequate consultation with affected parties and without due notice. Fact: The current noise regulation proposal was developed in consultation with Van Nuys tenants and operators. Numerous properly noticed hearings were conducted and a full environmental impact report was made.
Myth 7: Airport operators and tenants work hard to keep the noise down and avoid bringing in large, noisy aircraft. They discourage night and weekend operations and helicopter training. Fact: This myth is easily dispelled by the Van Nuys Airport marketing and promotional information aimed at jet owners worldwide. One tenant advertises that their "new larger facility--which we moved into in 1994--can hold a DC-9. It features a concrete ramp that will support a Boeing category aircraft. Thus we can modify or customize virtually every corporate aircraft or helicopter flown today."
Rules ban helicopter training flights at Van Nuys. Some helicopter flight schools ignore this rule and promote training for "international students" and offer a broad range of helicopter training courses and tours as well. Residents have waited patiently for years for noise relief. The airport commissioners and City Council must now go forward promptly and implement: a non-addition rule that would prohibit any more noisy jets from joining the Van Nuys fleet; a phase-out of existing Stage II aircraft at the airport.; and a 7 a.m. helicopter curfew. To do less is to sell out the interests of Valley residents and to further undermine our quality of life. Communities surrounding Van Nuys Airport are tired of empty promises. The only thing that prevents effective noise controls at Van Nuys is the political will--not the FAA.
PUBLICATION: Copley News Service
DATE: April 12, 1998
SECTION: News A-3
BYLINE: Norma Meyer
DATELINE: Burbank, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Bogle, resident
Copley News Service reports plans to expand the Burbank Airport are vehemently opposed by the city of Burbank. The rest of the country is closely watching this debate and how if will affect the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision that limited local control of airports.
According to the article, for the past 20 years, Burbank has owned and operated the airport jointly with Glendale and Pasadena. Recently, the latter two cities began supporting a $250 million proposal that calls for a new larger terminal and what could be almost a doubling of the gates. Fed up with the noise, pollution and congestion from the airport, Burbank is defiantly opposed to the expansion, at least not without a cap or curfew. The multimillion-dollar legal feud could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The question is -- does the city have the right to say how big an airport should be within its own boundaries?" asked Burbank Mayor Bob Kramer. He emphatically answers yes.
The article reports hostility is rampant among the nine members of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority -- each city appoints three commissioners to the airport's governing body. But members of the airport authority do agree on one crucial point. Any increase in flights would affect Burbank, since the residents of Glendale and Pasadena don't get the jet noise or rumblings. The second city to bear the brunt of the air traffic is Los Angeles, which has joined Burbank in some of the 11 lawsuits filed in the case. The airport, where nearly 58,500 planes arrived or departed last year is largely surrounded by middle-class homes in Burbank. Jim Bogle lives in one of those homes. He lives in "Bomber's Alley," less than a half-mile from the Burbank Airport. Overhead noise from air traffic sucks Bogle's orchids right off their branches. Sometimes, his young grandchildren run screaming from the back yard, their hands clapped over their ears like a scene from some horror movie. The outdoor swimming pool gets a jet fuel film on top, the furniture inside a strange grimy dust. "You get the feeling you could hit one with a rock. It sounds like someone is outside the house hitting it with a sledgehammer," Bogle, a 67-year-old retired schoolteacher, loudly said one morning. As he spoke in a family room, an airliner screeched madly overhead. Bogle and his wife, Marilyn, hope to stay in their home. They installed air conditioning so they never have to open the windows. They put in double-pane glass to soften the vibrations. "The thing I don't understand is why is our quality of life determined by appointees from other cities?" said Bogle. "I almost feel like I should organize something like the Boston Tea Party -- we have taxation without representation." But Pasadena Mayor Chris Holden, airport commissioner, says the jet airliners using the airport are Stage 3 planes, the quietist, and that some Burbank homeowners have been offered soundproofing. Holden argues that the airport is a financial boon for Burbank.
The article states that Burbank Mayor Bob Kramer, like many expansion opponents, isn't against the airport's main objective to replace the old terminal. Airport officials say a new terminal is needed because the old one is 400 feet too close to the runways and is a safety hazard. But the airport also wants to increase the 14 gates to 19, with the potential to add eight more. Burbank suggests having 16 gates, but not without a limit on flights and a mandatory curfew on all takeoffs and landings between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Kramer says his city has spent more than $5 million over two years to push its position in court because almost all of its 100,000 residents are affected. Airport spokesman Victor Gill, however, claims the airport authority has no power to curb flights or impose a curfew. He accuses Burbank of holding the project "hostage" to solve its long-term gripes about noise. Federal Aviation Administration head Jane Garvey, who has offered to mediate the dispute, last week said her agency also can't make such restrictions.
The article goes on to note that in 1973, in a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Burbank's attempt to limit noise at the airport, ruling that federal law supersedes local control in the matter. And that ruling is at the crux of many of the current legal challenges, most which are at the appellate level. Airport attorney Richard Simon said the case is being watched closely throughout the country, and he, like many others, expects it may end up in the nation's highest court. "Airport capability is a huge issue. There are not going to be many, if any, new airports built in the country. Airports need to expand," Simon said. "What occurs here legally may point the way for what happens elsewhere." Superior Court judge recently overruled Burbank's latest attempt to block the project -- the city passed an ordinance enabling it to stop the sale of the land needed for expansion.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)
DATE: April 12, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Natalie Pompilio
DATELINE: New Orleans, Louisiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jane Roselli, resident
The Times-Picayune reports many residents who live along the Interstate 10 Service Road are supportive of building sound barriers along the highway.
According to the article, 180,000 vehicles travel the highway on an average day. Metairie homeowner Jane Roselli who lives along the Interstate 10 Service Road, says she has a simple desire: "To go outside and have barbecues and crawfish boils and not have to scream at the top of your lungs to be heard would really be nice." Roselli and thousands of other residents and business people will find some relief if state and federal officials move forward with plans to build sound barriers along the highway. "We like this area a lot, and we could stay a long time if it were a little quieter," Roselli said.
The article reports a new study commissioned by the state recommends noise -deflecting walls ranging in height from 10 to 24 feet along the 11-mile I-10 corridor between the St. Charles Parish/Kenner line and Tulane Avenue in New Orleans. "This is not going to eliminate noise. It's just going to reduce it," said Paul Waidhas, an engineer at Burk-Kleinpeter, the New Orleans company that completed the noise survey. Highway noise can reach as high as 75 decibels at nearby homes, the equivalent of hearing someone scream from three feet away or of a vacuum cleaner or garbage disposal at close range, the study said. Once the walls are in place, the sound coming off the roadway and into nearby homes will be only as loud as someone's normal speaking voice when heard from three feet away, the report said.
According to the article, state and federal officials have previously considered building sound barriers along I-10. But they were put off by an initial study that said the barriers would cost $20 million and be as high as 30 feet -- approaching the 38-foot height of light poles along the highway in Metairie. Louisiana Transportation and Development Secretary Frank Denton hired Burk-Kleinpeter to re-examine the issue. The revised plan calls for lower walls but at an even higher cost of $24 million. For many people the more important issue was the height of the walls, not the cost. Lowering the walls will not reduce their noise -muffling capability, officials said. Moreover, the federal government will pay 80 percent as part of the $100 million I-10 widening project now under way. The widening project will improve traffic, but it also will bring more traffic, increasing noise and the need for sound barriers.
The article reports that Tony Sussman, the Federal Highway Administration's top official in Louisiana, said the wall work would take several years and would be performed in stages, the same way the roadwork is being done. Before any work is started, officials will hold public hearings. After the first report was released, most residents who attended the public hearings supported the sound barriers, Sussman said. Besides quieting the noise from the roadway, the walls also would provide protection from the occasional vehicle flying off the highway. But opponents argued the walls were a waste of money. "Earplugs would be cheaper," one dissenter said. Critics also said the walls would encourage crime, providing a safe haven for burglars and graffiti artists to hide behind. Officials will listen to both sides during the hearings. "Public input is a major factor. . . . One or two vocal people shouldn't stand in the way of everyone else," Sussman said.
According to the article, the final composition of the barriers has not been decided, but certain materials have been eliminated. Landscaped earthen berms require more space than is available. And wood has no chance of long- term survival with the area's subtropical temperatures and "aggressive insect population," the latest study concluded. Some form of concrete is the most likely choice, Waidhas said. The state also is considering a metal-fiberglass combination. Roselli has seen highway barriers in other states and said she doesn't think she'd mind having a concrete wall in front of her home. "I'd rather the wall than the noise, " she said.
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star (Ventura, CA)
DATE: April 12, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A04
BYLINE: Marisue Eastlake
DATELINE: Santa Paula, California
The Ventura County Star reports the Santa Paula City Council will consider whether to expand as it considers final approval for a general plan update on Monday. Besides setting policy for land use, the general plan covers noise, conservation, safety, and open space.
According to the article, expansion, which would someday quadruple the city's size, is expected to be the most controversial subject. Santa Paula has not experienced significant growth in 20 years and is almost built-out, limiting alternatives, said City Manager Peter Cosentini. "(The general plan) brings a new option for economic vitality," he said. Planning commissions endorsed a plan that would add 9,570 acres to the city. About 3,600 new housing units, four schools, 151 acres of park, 3.7 million square feet of industrial growth, and 850,000 square feet of new commercial space could result.
The article states that although the update is a local document, sphere amendments and annexations must go to the Local Agency Formation Commission for approval. The City Council could approve the entire plan, but then apply for only a portion of the expansion areas. However, city staff recommend the council bring the entire expansion before LAFCO. Expansion areas include Adams and Fagan canyons to the northwest, greenbelt land on the eastern boundary, and a western sector south of Highway 126. A large parcel to the south would be reserved for open space.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: April 17, 1998
SECTION: Nws; Pg. 28
BYLINE: Becky Beaupre
DATELINE: Park Ridge, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mark Fishman, chair, noise advisory group; Ronald Wietecha, Park Ridge Mayor and member of the Suburban O'Hare Commission
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Park Ridge, Illinois has formed an eight-member citizens advisory group to give the city a voice in fighting jet noise from O'Hare International Airport. The article says the group met for the first time Wednesday, and about 20 residents attended the meeting and voiced complaints ranging from constant noise, low-flying airplanes, and the averaging of noise data that downplays intense periods.
The article reports that Park Ridge is already one of the among the biggest opponents of O'Hare Airport noise, fighting airport expansion through the Suburban O'Hare Commission. But, according to Mark Fishman, the chair of the new group, "We have a great number of complaints from Park Ridge (residents) about airport noise. This will give them a better way to communicate.... This will give them a voice." Ronald Wietecha, the Park Ridge Mayor, said the new group will give Park Ridge residents a way to organize their opposition. He said he has received about 100 calls from interested residents. The advisory group will advise the city council on noise issues, Fishman said, but it also will work to educate residents. The group plans to pass out information on airport noise at Park Ridge's Memorial Day parade.
The article notes that there are already many other groups fighting O'Hare Noise. In addition to the Suburban O'Hare Commission, Arlington Heights has a noise advisory group that includes village trustees and residents. Chicago also has funded the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, which includes 25 municipalities and school districts.
PUBLICATION: Evening News (Edinburgh, Scotland)
DATE: April 17, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 17
BYLINE: Rosemary Free
DATELINE: Edinburgh, Scotland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Will Lorimer, Shona McCaskill, residents
The Evening News reports that residents in Edinburgh, Scotland are angry about noise from a comedy club, the Gilded Balloon II Festival Fringe venue, near their homes. The residents accuse comedy club workers of bullying residents to ensure that residents don't oppose them. Now, residents are lodging complaints with the Edinburgh City Council in an attempt to block the club from holding a festival venue at Fishmarket Close from 11 am to 1 am between August 7 and 29. The comedy club has applied for a temporary theatre license to operate festival venue, and the City Council's licensing committee will discuss the issue at a meeting today.
The article reports that neighbors say the site is not suitable for performances because it is too close to residences. Will Lorimer, who lives in neighboring Tron Square, said, "People have been tolerant of noise, enduring far more than any other community in town living as we do in the epicenter of the Festival. But this is too close." Lorimer said club workers visited an elderly, terminally-ill neighbor once and advised him to withdraw a doctor's letter to the City Council objecting to the venue on medical grounds. The club denies involved in the incident. Shona McCaskill, another resident, said the noise was unbearable during Festival time, and the attitude of the people operating the venue was "outrageous." She said the noise is about ten feet from her family's bedrooms, and the "noise gets louder as the Festival goes on and by the end it is unbearable."
The article goes on to say that Bob Cairns, a City Councilor, said, "I don't think these premises are suitable for theatre use at a late hour. They are far too close to residential property and the record of the operator of the premises has been extremely dismissive of people in the past." Keith Geddes, a Holyrood Councilor, said the club has displayed a "high-handed attitude" to residents, and added he will ask for the times of the festival to be restricted. He said, " The proximity of the Gilded Balloon to Tron Square means if the license goes on too late it's adding to the irritation and frustration of residents."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: April 17, 1998
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Shelby Grad and Lorenza Munoz
DATELINE: Irvine, California area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Christina Shea, Irvine Mayor
The Los Angeles Times reports that the master plan for the proposed El Toro Airport in Orange County, California -- which includes four scaled down options for airport configuration -- was presented today. The airport, in any of its incarnations, would handle three to five times more passengers than nearby John Wayne Airport.
According to the article, the smallest configuration would allow the service of 20 million passengers, while the largest would handle 33 million. Los Angeles International Airport handles two to three times those amounts. All four options are scaled down from the 38 million passengers that county officials first proposed in the environmental report from 1996.
The article reports that airport supporters seem to be pushing for an option that would serve 25-28 million passengers: a number that would significantly serve air traffic demand in the area while causing minimal noise and traffic problems. There is no "preferred" alternative yet.
But, the article says, opponents of the airport have an alternative non-aviation plan that would use the former base for a college, residences, greenspace, and cultural-event venues. They will spend about $140,000 in the first phase of publicity for their plan. They argue that "Whether it's 38 million passengers or 28, the issue is that an airport will still have a huge impact on the local communities."
The article notes that those who support an airport want a quick selection between the four choices, so it can be compared directly with the non-aviation plan. They hope that when people see two specific plans side by side they will see that the airport isn't as big as they thought it would be, and believe they "can show people [it] is the best alternative."
The article goes on to say that a major difference among the different plans is what type of flights will come out of El Toro, and nearby John Wayne Airport. One scenario does not include international flights from El Toro. Another limits its operations to general (non-commercial) aviation. This second option is not a favorite of county officials because it doesn't integrate the two airports as a system. Each plan designates slightly different zoning specifications for land around the airport.
The article notes that impacts for residents won't be specific until one proposal is chosen, since the type of flights at the airport make a big difference in noise and volume of highway traffic. Also, a possible light-rail line between the two airports could change impacts as well. Another possibility is the proposition of flight curfews.
The county will do an environmental review for each of the four plans, even if only one plan is chosen by Supervisors. The final decision should be made in late 1999, although lawsuits may be brought by airport opponents. Also, approval from the military and the Federal Aviation Administration must be obtained.
PUBLICATION: Mainichi Daily News
DATE: April 17, 1998
SECTION: Page 12; Domestic
BYLINE: Kimio Kamoshita
DATELINE: Japan
The Mainichi Daily News reports that a subcommittee of the Central Environment Council in Japan will propose raising the level of noise allowed along major roads at an April 21 meeting of the Council. The subcommittee will recommend that the maximum acceptable noise level near arterial roads should be 70 decibels during the day. The new proposal exceeds the current noise limit of 65 decibels recognized by the Supreme Court in 1995 in connection with a noise pollution lawsuit brought by residents in Kobe.
According to the article, members of the subcommittee believe the court's decision dealt with only a limited area, not the entire country. The 1995 court decision upheld a lower court ruling ordering the government to compensate Kobe residents for noise pollution along Route 43 and the Hanshin Expressway. The article notes that the subcommittee's stance appears to support the interests of the construction and transportation industries, who say that government noise standards make it impossible to build new roads. The article also notes that Hideki Tachibana, a Tokyo University professor, is the chair of the subcommittee.
In addition to recommending an increase in noise levels, the subcommittee also will recommend a new method for calculating noise levels. The new "equivalent" noise level method is widely used in Europe and the United States, and is reported to illustrate human perception of annoying sound more closely than the method Japan has used.
The article goes on to explain that the government, including the Environment Agency, has attempted to improve noise pollution problems since the Supreme Court's ruling in 1995. However, their efforts, which include installing noise insulators and instituting noise restrictions on commercial vehicles, have not had much impact, according to the article. For instance, in fiscal 1996, noise levels exceeded government regulations at almost 90% of 4,647 observation points. The article says that this is apparently because noise violators aren't punished. The Noise Pollution Regulation Law stipulates only that prefectural governors can request their public security commissions to take action when noise pollution has reached "levels that adversely and substantially affect the lives of local residents."
PUBLICATION: News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
DATE: April 17, 1998
SECTION: Triad/State, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Doug Campbell
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joe Libreri, president, Cardinal West Homeowners Association; Neil Dorr, president, River Hills Homeowners Association
The News & Record reports that residents living near the Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina are opposing the construction of a new runway to accommodate a new $300 million hub and flights by Federal Express, set to begin in 2003. The article says that residents believe a new runway is not necessary and will bombard their neighborhoods with noise. Some residents are offering other alternatives in an attempt to keep the FedEx hub at their airport, but without building an additional runway. Federal Express officials, however, insist that a new runway is necessary. Meanwhile, the animosity over the issue accelerated at a community briefing Tuesday that quickly deteriorated into an ugly shouting match, the article says.
According to the article, the new 9,000-foot runway would be built parallel to the airport's existing main runway in order to help handle FedEx's planned 20-plus flights each night. But, the article reports, neighbors suspect that FedEx and the airport don't really need to build a new runway, and they offer other ideas for accommodating the cargo airline company. For example, residents say that extending the smaller of the airport's two existing runways would allow planes to take off and land simultaneously. FedEx has said it wants two parallel runways in order to guarantee that if one runway is out of service, the other can be used. Residents say their alternative would make a third runway unnecessary. Residents are also questioning the location of the new hub building, on the north end of the airport. That location is closest to the residential neighborhoods that will have to experience the noise of idling aircraft every night, the article notes.
In spite of residents' ideas, the article says, officials from the airport and FedEx say they aren't going to change their mind about a new runway. Ted Johnson, the airport's executive director, said, "FedEx has said that is a requirement for the project and I don't know how else I can say that. We don't have any specifics (on how to address community concerns) right now, but we're looking into that and doing some research on what some other airports might have done." The airport recently hired a public relations consultant to help it deal with its neighbors, the article notes.
Federal Express has offered to minimize the noise by using only the quietest aircraft by landing and taking off mostly to the southwest, where development is largely commercial. The noisiest areas affected by the new runway are expected to be mostly within airport limits to the north, and across Interstate 40 on the south. The article goes on to say that FedEx hasn't spelled out how it might address concerns of neighbors. Company officials have said they will listen to residents' concerns at public meetings, though no dates have been set yet.
But at the community meeting on Tuesday, when Joe Libreri, the president of Cardinal West Homeowners Association asked Robert Palmer, FedEx vice president of hub operations, whether a new runway was negotiable or not, the answer was no. And FedEx officials have said that they studied all the options for the hub building and runway and concluded that a hub at the north end of the airport and a parallel runway would work best for them.
The article explains that residents are feeling fed up with their lack of progress, and several homeowner associations are meeting this week to discuss how to get their message across. There has been mumbling about litigation, but the details are still unclear. Neil Dorr, president of the nearly 500-family River Hills Homeowners Association, said, "I would like to think that FedEx or the airport authority would go back and look at this again. But I'm not sure that's going to be the case."
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: April 17, 1998
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. 26A
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel printed an editorial that argues that city officials in Boca Raton, Florida should continue their attempts to quiet jets at the Boca Raton Municipal Airport. In addition, the editorial says that progress toward effective noise-abatement procedures will ultimately depend mostly on the voluntary compliance of pilots and airlines, and they should help preserve Boca Raton's high quality of life.
According to the editorial, Boca Raton City Councilor Bill Glass proposed a resolution Monday that would ban nighttime flights of the noisiest Stage 1 jet aircraft, would impose a voluntary curfew on quieter jets, and would fine or take away airport privileges for violators. The editorial notes that the City Council has no direct control over the Airport Authority, which administers the airport. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration has jurisdiction over any noise restrictions that can be placed on airports. However, the editorial argues, a strong anti-noise stance by the City Council will send a clear message that the city won't stand for increasing noise.
The editorial also mentions that the Airport Authority imposed a night and weekend ban on "touch-and-go" training operations in which planes land and take off again immediately. But, the editorial notes, the ban hasn't really been implemented yet because city and airport officials are trying to work out how to enforce it.
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star
DATE: April 17, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A03
BYLINE: Billie Owens
DATELINE: Westlake Village, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Valerie Freedman, organizer, Neighborhood Preservation Group; Scott Yanke, resident; Ronald Burnett, president, Westlake Canyon Oaks Homeowners Association
The Ventura County Star reports that residents of Westlake Canyon Oaks in Westlake Village, California don't want a sports park built on 41 undeveloped acres near their homes. The article says village officials are considering a proposal to build a $4 million sports park on 28 acres of land that is currently zoned as open space. Residents say they are prepared to bring a lawsuit over the issue.
According to the article, the sports park is proposed for a privately owned parcel called lot 79, which is north of Hedgewall and Landino drives and bisected by Lindero Canyon Road. On the east side of Lindero Canyon Road, the park would include two ball fields, a tot lot, restrooms, and parking for 120 cars. On the west side of Lindero Canyon Road, it would include two more ball fields, four combination basketball/roller hockey courts, restrooms, a concession stand, a tot lot, and parking for 195 cars. In addition, the park would include berms to shield residential developments from noise. According to a draft environmental impact report prepared for the project, the traffic, light, and noise pollution from the project could be mitigated to some extent, but their cumulative impacts would be significant.
Proponents of the plan say the park would provide a place for recreation for the community. Residents now have to travel to neighboring communities for similar recreation fields, the article says.
But residents living in nearby neighborhoods say that development of any kind on the land would be a mistake, and a sports park would bring crime, noise, and traffic, the article reports. Valerie Freedman, a resident who helped organize the Neighborhood Preservation Group to fight the proposal, said, "We are absolutely prepared to litigate." Ronald Burnett, president of the Westlake Canyon Oaks Homeowners Association, said, "As a homeowner, I don't think lot 79 is the appropriate location for a sports park. Traffic is already terrible. We're getting over-developed. It's becoming like San Fernando Valley." Freedman said the project is commercially motivated because some teams would be paying to use the baseball fields. In addition, she said, a sports park that straddles a main road is dangerous for children. Freedman said she supports an alternative site for the park on undeveloped land in Westlake North, near the Pierce Brothers Valley Oaks Memorial Park. The draft environmental impact report examined that site as an alternative, but said it would be more expensive. Freedman, however, is unconcerned about that point. "In the face of a lawsuit, I think this option would actually be cheaper," she said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: April 17, 1998
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 2; Zone: Nw; Overnight News.
BYLINE: Dean Geroulis
DATELINE: Des Plaines, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Craig Johnson, Elk Grove Village President
The Chicago Tribune reports that officials in Des Plaines, Illinois are considering joining the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, a group formed by the city of Chicago to address noise issues at O'Hare International Airport. Des Plaines is already a member of the Suburban O'Hare Commission, a group that opposes any expansion at O'Hare and supports building a third area airport. On Thursday night, representatives of the Suburban O'Hare Commission urged the Des Plaines City Council not to join the Chicago group, saying the group supports building new runways at O'Hare.
According to the article, Craig Johnson, the Elk Grove Village President, said, "SOC is winning. That's why Chicago is scared to death. Now is not the time to start breaking apart. Now is the time to come together." Leaders of the Suburban O'Hare Commission have accused Chicago officials of forming the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission in order to create a suburban consensus in favor of new runways at O'Hare and to block construction of a third airport.
The article notes that on Wednesday night, Des Plaines City Councilors heard a presentation by the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, which described how Chicago has spent $185 million soundproofing homes and schools.
PUBLICATION: The Chattanooga Times
DATE: April 16, 1998
SECTION: Main News; Pg. C3
BYLINE: The Associated Press
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mike Slane, resident
The Chattanooga Times reports that about 150 angry residents in Greensboro, North Carolina attended a community meeting Tuesday to complain about a planned third runway at the Piedmont Triad International Airport. The runway is part of an expansion that would accommodate a Federal Express hub.
According to the article, the airport authority told the Guilford County Board of Commissioners in 1973 that a third runway was eventually planned for the airport, and any residential development north of the airport would be affected by noise. But, the article says, the County Commissioners decided to let developers build north of the area anyway. Back in the 1970s, airport executives said they were concerned about the development because some homes would be within 1,500 feet of the planned third runway. However, John Russell, the president of Cardinal president in 1973, was quoted as saying then, "Why penalize us for the 'if?' We hope by the time the runway is built, if it is built, that environmentalists will have caused planes to be quieter."
Meanwhile, current residents living near the airport in the Cardinal area are angry about the proposed runway. Mike Slane, a resident of the Cardinal Country Club development, said, "We will object to this right to the very end. Your plan for a third runway was 30 years ago, before our government allowed the development. We will fight you tooth and nail." The article said that at Tuesday's meeting, residents berated Federal Express executives and airport administrators for 90 tense minutes, saying their property values would fall and their sleep would be ruined.
But, the article reports, officials told residents that the third runway, which would be nearly two miles long, would have to be built if FedEx was to locate at the airport. According to Federal Express officials, the new runway was a key factor in the company's choice of Greensboro for its hub. Six airports in North and South Carolina competed for the hub, which is expected to cost $300 million, and to bring 1,500 jobs and more than $1 billion in economic spin-offs.
FedEx officials have said that 95% of its 20 or more nightly flights will land and take off toward the southwest, over mostly commercial areas. Company officials said the company's planes will soon be the quietest in the industry, the article adds. FedEx and the airport also have pledged to hold community meetings to address residents' concerns.
The article explains that one of the most pointed questions raised by residents at Tuesday's meeting was why FedEx needed a third runway when three years ago the airport was handling twice the daily flights it now has with only two runways. FedEx officials said the third runway, which would be parallel to the first runway, is key because it guarantees that there can be uninterrupted operations. The article notes that the company plans as many as 75 flights a night within 15 years. Robert Palmer, FedEx vice president of hub operations, said, "We don't want to be your enemy. We have noise issues on every airport we fly out of. Our intention is to listen to you and to work with the airport."
PUBLICATION: The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN)
DATE: April 16, 1998
SECTION: Neighbors, Pg. Em1
BYLINE: Jody Callahan
DATELINE: Memphis, Tennessee
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Paul Edwards, resident
The Commercial Appeal reports that residents in Memphis, Tennessee living near a planned road expansion project are concerned that noise walls will not be built to protect them from traffic noise. The $35 million road project will revamp Walnut Grove between Interstate 240 and Humphreys, the article notes.
According to the article, the city/state project includes three components: a larger, seven-lane overpass replacing the current five-lane structure over Interstate 240; an expansion of a stretch of Walnut Grove from seven to nine lanes; and a new, elevated overpass at the Humphreys-Walnut Grove interchange. The article says the project could begin in the spring of 1999, and would be finished in 2001 at the earliest.
The article explains that residents living near Walnut Grove have requested that noise walls be added as part of the project to help mitigate noise coming from the expanded road. Wain Gaskins, administrator of transportation planning and design in the city engineer's office, said, "The current plans do not call for any type of noise wall on the project. I don't foresee it being included at a later date." Resident Paul Edwards said, "My understanding is that they're not going to provide a sound wall and that does upset me. Right now, I'm just really not sure what to make of it. My main concern is that there be some sort of barrier."
The article also discusses how the project will affect the traffic lights and the exit points on the roads.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: April 16, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Eric Wahlgren
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that Vice President Al Gore announced Wednesday that the Burbank Airport in Burbank, California will get a $2 million federal grant to soundproof 55 homes in Burbank, Sun Valley, and North Hollywood. The soundproofing measures will include adding double-paned windows and new doors, the article says. The grant money for Burbank Airport was part of a $55 million federal airport grant program that was awarded to 14 airports in six states.
According to the article, Sean McCarthy, a spokesperson for the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, said since the soundproofing program started in early 1997, nine homes have been soundproofed. He said, "It is the difference between having someone run a lawn mower in front of your house with all the windows open versus having someone run a lawn mower across the street with all your windows closed. It makes a dramatic difference." The article notes the airport hopes to soundproof as many as 2,300 homes during the next 10 years, pending funding. McCarthy said it will cost about $110 million to soundproof all 2,300 homes, and while the airport will contribute 20% of the cost, it will need federal grants to make up the rest.
But, the article goes on to say, some Burbank city officials who oppose an airport expansion plan also oppose the airport's soundproofing programs because the airport makes residents sign a waiver never to sue the airport over noise, smoke, or vibration caused by normal airplane operations in exchange for the free soundproofing work. Soundproofing is estimated to cost $37,000 a house, the article says. Ted McConkey, a Burbank City Councilor, said, "If the airport really wants to be a good neighbor, why don't they just insulate the houses and forget about" the agreement. McConkey also said that after the soundproofing measures are installed, homeowners are left with the higher maintenance costs of the new windows, advanced heating and air conditioner systems, and other equipment.
PUBLICATION: The Detroit News
DATE: April 16, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. Pg. D3
BYLINE: David Shepardson
DATELINE: Romulus and Huron Township, Michigan
The Detroit News reports that vice president Al Gore announced Wednesday that the Detroit (Michigan) Metropolitan Airport will get $5 million to soundproof 110 homes in Romulus and Huron Township, and to buy homes in the loudest areas. The article notes that this is the fourth year the airport has received the $5 million grant, which is part of the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program.
According to the article, Colleen Pobur, director of the Wayne County's noise-reduction program, said the county has spent more than $15 million to buy 180 homes and soundproof 50. Soundproofing usually includes replacing windows, adding drywall and insulation, and installing air conditioning, at an average cost of $30,000 per house, Pobur said. The airport ultimately plans to soundproof 2,200 homes, and buy and tear down 300.
Edward McNamara, a Wayne County Executive, said of the latest grant: "This is kind of like winning the lottery, in a sense. If we have one serious problem at the airport, it's the noise." The article notes that county officials will discuss the project with residents at the April 22 Romulus City Council meeting.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: April 16, 1998
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Charles Stannard
DATELINE: Durham, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Paul Raboin, Susan Dapkus, Summer McLean, residents
The Hartford Courant reports that about 15 angry residents in Durham, Connecticut turned out for a planning and zoning commission hearing Wednesday night to oppose a proposal by the Durham Rod and Gun Club to allow skeet shooting in a farm residential zone. The commission decided to continue the public hearing at its May 6 meeting.
According to the article, the gun club is proposing a zoning text amendment that would allow existing clubs to have skeet and trap shooting facilities in farm residential zones after obtaining a special permit from the commission. James Ercolani, the gun club president, said the club wants to offer skeet shooting during the warm-weather months on Saturdays and Sundays from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., and Wednesdays from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.; and during the cold-weather months on Sundays from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Ercolani said the skeet shooting would involve allow six club members to fire about 250 shots per hour. He added, "We're looking to use this as something to sustain our membership, and give a place to practice for guys who are on teams." The article notes that the club has about 125 members, and is located on 125 acres off Madison Road. The club also has applied for a special permit to build three concrete blockhouse structures to house target-throwing machines, the article says.
Residents expressed strong opposition to the skeet shooting plan at Wednesday's meeting, saying it was an infringement on their right to peace and quiet, according to the article. Resident Paul Raboin said, "What happens when I don't want to hear the noise any more, where can I go?" Resident Susan Dapkus said the topography of the area carries the gunshots far from the club's property. She said, "I'd like to give you some leeway, but we have to live here." Another resident, Summer McLean, who lives closest to the proposed shooting area, said residents are already disturbed by gunfire from hunting and occasional target shoots on the club property. She said that listening to 250 shots per hour on top of existing activity at the club would make the situation unbearable. She said, "This is just not an acceptable activity in a residential area."
PUBLICATION: The Independent (London, England)
DATE: April 16, 1998
SECTION: News; Page 15
BYLINE: Adam LeBor
DATELINE: Paris, France
The Independent reports that the Economic and Social Council (CES) in France, a consultative body representing industrial, business and social groups, issued a report that finds six million French people suffer from excess noise, mainly from cars, railways, and planes.
According to the article, the report found that Paris has the most noise sufferers, with 56% of the population affected, and 55% affected in the suburbs. Large towns and cities have almost as many noise sufferers, while about 23% of residents in the country are affected, the study found. The CES now is urging France's environment minister, Dominique Voynet, to introduce strict regulations that would fine noise polluters and would set noise limits on everything from military airports to construction vehicles.
The article also mentions that in addition to noise pollution, Paris suffers from increasingly severe air pollution. Last October, air pollutant levels rose so high that local authorities restricted car usage on some days.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: April 16, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Orange County Focus Desk
BYLINE: Debra Cano
DATELINE: Anaheim, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kathy Wright, resident
The Los Angeles Times reports that in response to years of noise endured by residents of Anaheim, California, a public meeting will be held tonight to discuss a possible $40-million noise wall and train overpass in the area. The project would alter a railroad corridor that parallels Esperanza Road.
According to the article, $14.5-million may be available from the federal government thanks to efforts by a Representative, and state and local funding will have to take care of the rest. The meeting will include city, county, and railroad officials as well as lawmakers.
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: April 16, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A17; Mark Simon
BYLINE: Mark Simon
DATELINE: Menlo Park, California
The San Francisco Chronicle printed an editorial in which the columnist humorously discusses the decision Tuesday by the Menlo Park (California) City Council to ban gas-powered leaf blowers. The editorial writer pokes fun at the City Councilors for not listening to hundreds of people who said a ban was overkill.
According to the editorial, the Menlo Park City Council was up against one of the toughest special-interest groups in America -- the leaf-blower lobby. But in spite of that, the City Councilors stood firm and disregarded the historical argument that every citizen has a right to a well-armed militia and a well-tended lawn, the editorial says. The City Councilors also "refused to succumb to the temptations of representative democracy" when they voted to approve the ban despite hundreds of people who said the ban was a bad idea.
The editorial goes on to speculate that maybe the City Council's vote is the best argument for adopting tougher anti-noise laws in Menlo Park. The writer says that even though hundreds of people told the council it should attempt to compromise with the gardeners, the three-member majority on the council didn't change their minds. Maybe they could hear too well, the columnist says. But things are likely to get noisier, the editorial says. Opponents of the ban now are collecting petition signatures for a referendum to overturn the council's decision.
The columnist goes on to facetiously suggest that the whole issue is going to escalate. There will be demonstrations from the Pro-Leaf Lobby, calling for protection of blades of grass because they are God's creatures. There will be counter-demonstrations of the Pro-Noise Lobby, arguing that every person should be allowed to choose to have a well-blown sidewalk.
Then, the editorial says, lawn mowers will be dragged into the debate. Some will argue that push mowers can be operated at the same pace and efficiency as power mower, but much quieter. This will lead to an argument about the power mowers used by the city's gardening force.
Then, the columnist says, there will be an outcry over jet noise. But the City Council will know what to do. They'll pass a ban on jets over Menlo Park air space, the editorial concludes.
PUBLICATION: The Guardian (London, England)
DATE: April 15, 1998
SECTION: The Guardian Society Page; Pg. 3
BYLINE: Peter Brown
DATELINE: London, England
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dermot Cox, chair, HACAN
The Guardian printed an editorial that argues the British government should survey residents living near London's Heathrow Airport about the aircraft noise they are experiencing, rather than relying on computer-generated noise averages. The editorial argues that only by doing such a survey can the government make the noise consultation currently in progress over Heathrow's expansion worthwhile.
The editorial explains that currently, computers are telling airport officials that hundreds of thousands of people living near Heathrow are not annoyed by aircraft noise. And, the writer says, the government prefers to believe its computers rather than its people.
The editorial goes on to say that ten years ago, computers drew contours around the airport showing how much noise was experienced at various distances from the airport. A decade later, when they drew new contour lines, the noise energy levels had fallen in some areas, which resulted in the contours being drawn closer to the airport. Therefore, the computers and government concluded, the noise had improved.
But that conclusion was wrong, the editorial says. In the past decade, passenger flights coming into and leaving from Heathrow have risen from 282,000 to 423,000 a year, and passengers have grown from 31 million to 57 million. In addition, the editorial points out, about 20,000 citizens have told the inspectors of the public inquiry into the Heathrow expansion that aircraft noise around the airport has increased in the last decade. The editorial says the noise situation is becoming ridiculous -- school lessons are disrupted, concerts are interrupted, and afternoons in the garden are shattered by overhead airplanes.
The editorial says no one has said noise has improved, except for Transport Minister Glenda Jackson, her senior civil servants, and officials from the airport operator BAA. All of these officials have based their conclusions on the computerized noise energy tabulations, the editorial reports.
But, the writer explains, there are two obvious reasons why more people are annoyed with jet noise when the numbers show that noise is improving. First, the noise contours illustrate the average amount of noise energy over a 16-hour period from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. This ignores the effect of planes flying at night and during the busy period from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. Second, the editorial says, the noise contours take no account of how many aircraft are flying overhead. The noise-measuring system would predict that people's annoyance with aircraft noise would be the same regardless of whether 100,000 or 500,000 planes a year flew over them.
The editorial writer goes on to say that the issue is frustrating because there is a simple way to measure the impact of aircraft noise on people -- ask them. The last social survey carried out around Heathrow was done in 1982 on a sample of only 2,000 people. The government is comfortable relying on that 16-year old data, the editorial says, even though the impact of the airport on residents has changed dramatically since then. It is also astonishing, the writer says, that Britain's longest and most expensive public inquiry looking into Heathrow expansion doesn't have up-to-date information on this issue of greatest public concern. The editorial says that without a social survey that would cost a few hundred thousand pounds, the 60-million pound inquiry examining a 1.8-billion pound expansion is devalued.
The editorial concludes that the only way to gauge the impact of aircraft noise on people is to gather the experiences of the people. Human experiences are subjective, and social surveys are a systematic and reliable method of measuring subjective responses, the editorial says. Only by undertaking a social survey of the impact of aircraft noise on people will the noise consultation be made worthwhile.
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Examiner
DATE: April 15, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A-9
BYLINE: Eve Mitchell
DATELINE: Menlo Park, California
The San Francisco Examiner reports that a gardeners group in Menlo Park, California has launched a drive to hold a referendum on overturning a ban on gas-powered leaf-blowers approved by the City Council in a 3-2 vote Tuesday. The article notes that the City Councilors made their decision after four earlier contentious public hearings.
According to the article, Ramon Quezada, the president of the 200-member Bay Area Gardeners Group, said the group will launch a referendum drive. He said, "We just don't feel comfortable that all the Menlo Park residents agreed to this. If most of Menlo Park agrees with (the ban), then we'll respect that." The article explains that about 1,700 signatures, or 10% of the registered voters in Menlo Park, must be collected within 30 days of Tuesday's vote in order for the referendum to appear on a ballot. Joe Sheetz, a gardener in Redwood City, said the gardeners group hopes to launch the referendum drive next week. He said the ban will force him to hook up an electric blower to a gas-powered generator at times. "A generator is louder than any of the leaf blowers," said Sheetz. "A rake is not efficient."
The article says that during the four public hearings, many residents spoke out against a ban. But some residents, the article reports, including retirees and people who work at home, said leaf-blowers create unacceptable noise pollution.
But gardeners say if they can't use leaf-blowers, their jobs will take longer and their rates will go up. Before City Councilors voted on the ban, the article notes, gardeners had offered to restrict the hours they use the blowers and to use quieter models.
The article says when the ban goes into effect in 90 days, violators can be fined $50 fine for the first offense, $200 for the second offense, and $500 for the third offense in a one-year period. Additional offenses would be treated as a misdemeanor, the article notes.
The article mentions that gas-powered leaf-blowers also are banned in Piedmont and Los Altos, and are regulated in Hillsborough and Atherton. The article notes that after a ban was passed in Los Altos, opponents gathered enough signatures for a referendum, and the ban was upheld by the voters by a 59%-41% percent margin.
PUBLICATION: The Patriot Ledger
DATE: April 13, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 11S
BYLINE: Molly Hochkeppel
DATELINE: Cohasset, Massachusetts
The Patriot Ledger reports that the appeals board in Cohasset, Massachusetts unanimously rejected a request Friday by John and Christine Millar of Cedar Street to build 30 dog runs on the outside of their kennel. The board rejected the request because of the noise factor, and because it would bring the building 10 feet closer to the lot line, a violation of the zoning bylaw.
The article reports that the Millars run a kennel with cages for 60 dogs and 30 covered dog runs surrounded on three sides by the U-shaped building. The Millars said their proposal, to build 15 more outside runs on each of two sides of the building, would not increase their capacity to house dogs.
However, members of the appeals board believed it would increase the noise, because all 60 dogs could be outside at the same time. In addition, the board noted, because the new runs would be on the outside of the building, the "noise per dog" would be noticeably greater. Board member Benjamin Lacy noted that if the kennel were built today under the present zoning bylaw, no part of it could be located outside. The article explains that the kennel is located in a residential zone, but it qualifies as a non-conforming pre-existing use because a kennel operation existed in that spot before the zoning bylaw was adopted in 1955.
Meanwhile, the article says, the Millars said the new runs would make the kennel area quieter. Staff members would have to handle the dogs less often, because each dog would have its own run, and dogs make noise when they're moved around.
PUBLICATION: Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph (England)
DATE: April 15, 1998
SECTION: Pollution: Noise, Pg.2
BYLINE: Hayley Gyllenspetz
DATELINE: North Lincolnshire, England
The Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph of England reports more than 900 complaints about excessive noise were made to North Lincolnshire council last year, but few resulted in formal action.
According to the article, the figures, presented in a report to the Environmental Health and Waste sub-committee, show less than two per cent of complaints resulted in formal action. When a complaint is made, the alleged offender is visited by council officers and asked to stop the nuisance. The complainant is also asked to complete a record sheet detailing when the problem arose and a decision is made whether to monitor the problem if it continues. There is service for people who are disturbed at night or during the weekend but this service, which costs the council GBP 9,000 a year, is only available to those who have previously complained. The report states that last year 71 percent of complainants only made one complaint and did not return their record sheet because either the situation had improved or they did not want to antagonize their neighbors. Almost half of those who pursued their complaint were deemed not to have a problem by visiting officers, the other half were kept under observation.
The article goes on to state the report tot he Environmental Health sub-committee recognizes the serious effects of excessive noise on the community and individuals. The report reads: "Domestic noise problems are no doubt amongst the most difficult type to deal with. Many complaints relate to inconsiderate neighbors who cause nuisance by shouting, banging doors and playing music loudly." The report goes on to state: "Noise can be a severe environmental nuisance and damage health." However, in line with the national trend, less than two percent of complaints in North Lincolnshire resulted in official notices being served.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: April 12, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Natalie Pompilio
DATELINE: Metairie, Louisiana area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jane Roselli, resident
The Times-Picayune reports that a new study commissioned by Louisiana state officials recommends that 10- to 24-foot noise walls be built along 11 miles of Interstate 10 near Metairie, between the St. Charles Parish/Kenner line and Tulane Avenue in New Orleans. The article notes that building the noise walls would be part of a project to widen Interstate 10. Before a final decision is made, the state will hold public input meetings to gather comments from residents.
According to the article, the Interstate widening project will add lanes and expand interchanges and ramps between the Interstate 610 split in New Orleans near the Metairie line and Williams Boulevard in Kenner. The article notes that state and federal officials have planned for some time to build noise walls along the Interstate, because traffic noise can reach as high as 75 decibels in nearby homes. That's the equivalent of hearing someone scream from three feet away, or of a vacuum cleaner or garbage disposal at close range, according to the recent study. But an initial study done for the state found that the noise barriers would cost $20 million and would be as high as 30 feet. In response, Louisiana Transportation and Development Secretary Frank Denton asked consultants Burk-Kleinpeter to re-examine the issue. The article explains that the consultants' revised plan found that lower walls could be built, but that they would cost even more: $24 million. The federal government would pay for 80 percent of the noise walls as part of the Interstate widening project, the article notes. The state would pay for the remaining 20 percent. The article says that the shorter walls will not reduce their noise-insulating capacity, according to state officials.
The article explains that after the noise walls are built, noise would be as loud as someone's normal speaking voice from three feet away, according to the study. Paul Waidhas, an engineer at Burk-Kleinpeter who worked on the noise study, said, "This is not going to eliminate noise. It's just going to reduce it." Tony Sussman, the Federal Highway Administration's top official in Louisiana, said work on the noise walls would take several years and would be performed in stages, similar to the road work being done. The noise walls would be built mostly in the locations where fences currently are. But, noise walls wouldn't be built in some sections, the article notes, because consultants decided noise walls wouldn't be cost-effective. The article explains that the noise walls likely will be some form of concrete or a metal-fiberglass combination. Earthen berms and wooden fences were ruled out by the study because there isn't enough room for berms and wooden walls wouldn't last with the region's temperatures and insect populations.
The article notes that public hearings will be held on the project before any final decisions are made. After the initial report was produced, the article says, large numbers of residents turned out to comment, most supporting the barriers. One Metairie resident, Jane Roselli, said she just wants to "go outside and have barbecues and crawfish boils and not have to scream at the top of your lungs to be heard." Roselli said, "We like this area a lot, and we could stay a long time if it were a little quieter."
The article also lists how tall the proposed noise barriers would be in different sections along the Interstate:
Northwestern Dr.- Loyola Dr.: 20-22 ft.
Piedmont St.- Greenwood St.: 16-18 ft.
Phoenix St.-Augusta St.: 20-22 ft.
Panama St.-Helena St.: 18-20 ft.
Illinois St.-Maryland St.: 12-16 ft.
Olympic Dr.-Veterans Memorial Blvd.: 14-16 ft.
Veterans Memorial Blvd.-Harvard St.: 14-18 ft.
Park Manor Dr.-Harvard St.: 14-16 ft.
Utica St.-Lake Villa Dr.: 19-24 ft.
Richland Ave.-Hessmer St.: 13-17 ft.
Houma Blvd.-Division St.: 15-18 ft.
Galleria Dr.-Metairie Heights Ave.: 14-18 ft.
Tolmas Dr.-Aurora Ave.: 14-20 ft.
Sena Dr.-17th St. Canal: 20 ft.
Aurora Ave.-17th St. Canal: 16-18 ft.
17th St. Canal-Brooks St.: 12-20 ft.
17th St. Canal-Lakelawn Mausoleum: 20 ft.
Milne St.-Norfolk Southern RR: 8-20 ft.
Banks St.-D'Hemecourt St.: 18-20 ft.
Previous week: April 5, 1998
Next week: April 19, 1998
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