PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald
DATE: April 25, 1998
SECTION: City; Pg. B6
BYLINE: Gordon Legge
DATELINE: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Fred Waterman, resident
The Calgary Herald reports that the Calgary (Canada) Airport Authority voted Wednesday that a study be conducted to look at the feasibility of building a second north-south runway at Calgary International Airport to deal with increasing air traffic. In response, Fred Waterman, a Castleridge resident, said he may launch a petition drive opposing construction of the runway.
The article reports that according to Bryce Paton, an airport authority spokesperson, the study will look at airport capacity, and make recommendations about whether another runway should be constructed, and if so, when. Paton said, "It's certainly premature to say that construction of another runway is imminent. It isn't.... Let's just wait and see."
Meanwhile, Waterman, who has lived east of the airport for about ten years, said, "There's going to be a major noise factor with another runway." Waterman said he has surveyed about 50 people, and they all oppose a new runway. Waterman added that the aircraft noise is tolerable right now, except at 3 a.m. when airline mechanics tune the jets. If there's a new runway, it should be built near Crossfield, Waterman said.
Community leaders, by contrast, voiced approval of a possible new runway at a meeting Thursday. Northeast community leaders said a new runway would attract jobs to the area.
In a related matter, the article says, Hugh Bennett, a Calgary farmer, said he is angry that he sold his land to the government in the late 1960s for a new runway that was never built. Bennett said government agents led him to believe a runway would be built in the next three years, and that the government could expropriate the land. He wouldn't have sold his land if that approach had not been used, Bennett said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: April 25, 1998
SECTION: Nws; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Gilbert Jimenez
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Sun-Times reports U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater announced that two Chicago area schools will get $6 million in grants for soundproofing against noise from O'Hare and Midway airports. In addition, Slater announced grants of $6.9 million to other Chicago airport projects, and $14.3 million for other Illinois airport projects.
The article says that $6 million will be spent to mitigate noise at Kinzie Elementary School near Midway and Enger School near O'Hare. The soundproofing measures will include air conditioning, baffling systems, insulated windows, heating and electrical upgrades, ceiling and roof upgrades or replacements, vestibules and soundproof doors, according to city Aviation Department spokesperson Monique Bond. She added that 62 schools have already been soundproofed and work is underway on 16 more.
The article notes that $6.9 million will be spent on O'Hare projects, including rehabilitation, shoulder work, lighting, and drainage, according to Slater. He said, "These investments are good for Illinois. They will create jobs and improve the quality of life for those living near the airports." Slater also praised a recent agreement that will open Japan to more U.S. flights. That agreement will more than double the number of flights -- from 20 to 42 -- arriving at O'Hare from Japan.
According to the article, the other grant money will go to other airport programs, including $1.3 million to the Rockford Airport for purchasing land for a larger noise buffer zone.
PUBLICATION: The Tampa Tribune
DATE: April 25, 1998
SECTION: Home & Garden, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Beth Dolan
DATELINE: Tampa, Florida
The Tampa Tribune printed a column in which the columnist says one of her previous pieces on neighborhood disruptions hit a sore spot with many readers. The column says that many people agreed their lives have been worsened by disrespectful and noisy neighbors. The column goes on to discuss two popular complaints in more detail: barking dogs and early morning and late evening lawn mowing and leaf blowing.
According to the column, dogs bark when they're protecting their territory from strangers. But according to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in Norfolk, Virginia, dogs often bark because they're lonely and neglected. The animal group suggests that neighbors bothered by barking dogs call their police departments or humane societies to report the incidents. In addition, the organization suggests that neighbors bothered by the noise should keep a record of the times and dates when barking occurs, and should take photos if the dog is often without food, water, and shelter.
With respect to lawn mowers and leaf blowers, the columnist suggests that people need to use common sense and respect their neighbors. The Professional Lawn Care Association of America states, "Leaf blowers, mowers and outdoor power tools should be used during reasonable hours, so you won't wake up or anger neighbors. When using leaf blowers, never blow debris onto an adjacent property, the street, vehicles, people or pets. Leaf blowers should not be used within 10 feet of doors or windows."
PUBLICATION: Agence France Presse
DATE: April 24, 1998
SECTION: International News
DATELINE: Copenhagen, Denmark
Agence France Presse reports that the European Commission, in cooperation with the Danish government, will hold a conference on May 4-5 in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss the European Union's noise pollution policy. The conference will focus on bringing noise pollution regulations of member states up to a standard and creating European Union legislation on noise pollution.
According to the article, noise is an increasing problem for millions of EU citizens. A survey undertaken by the European Commission found that about 20% of Europeans, or nearly 80 million people, live with noise pollution that health experts deem unacceptable. The European Commission estimates that noise pollution results in lost working hours and illness that costs member states between 0.2 and 2.0 percent of their GDP.
The article also notes that the speakers at the conference include: Ritt Bjerregaard, the European Environment Commissioner; Svend Auken , the Danish Energy and Environment Minister, and Domingo Jiminez-Beltran, the director of the European Environment Agency.
PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald
DATE: April 24, 1998
SECTION: City; Pg. B1 / Front
BYLINE: Eva Ferguson and Gordon Legge
DATELINE: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Calgary Herald reports that the Calgary Airport Authority in Calgary, Alberta, Canada has decided to undertake a study looking at the possibility of building a new north-south runway parallel to the existing main runway in order to accommodate increasing air traffic at Calgary International Airport. Meanwhile, a $30-million office complex is being proposed near the airport. Many members of communities in the northeast are happy about the proposed expansion, and say residents near the airport are already used to jet noise, according to the article.
The article reports that passenger traffic has increased from 4.8 million in 1992 to 7.5 million in 1997, and is projected to jump over 10 million in the next decade. The expansion plans have caused Great West Realty Advisors to propose a $30-million office complex on top of a building adjacent to the airport's existing parking area. In addition, a direct road link to the airport from Deerfoot Trail is being considered.
The article says some leaders in northeast communities are welcoming the expansion plans. Mark Hosowich, president of the Whitehorn Community Association, said, "There's going to be a lot of development around the airport now. That's good for more jobs coming in. It'll just attract more people into the northeast. Hopefully that will work to change the bad rap everyone keeps giving us." Gerald O'Brien, president of the Calgary Marlborough Community Association, agreed that more jobs will be positive.
Hosowich went on to say that jet noise is something residents are used to. He said, "It'll be exactly what we have now, what we're used to. Everybody that moves out here knows there's an airport out here and they're not about to complain once they move in." Alderman Ray Jones, however, said some residents, especially in communities such as Saddle Ridge, could complain about jet noise because "there could be noise in places where there wasn't any before." Greg Steiner, president of the Saddle Ridge Community Association, said an airport expansion would mean more traffic but also increased property values. Steiner added that because plans for a new runway have been under consideration since the early 1970s, development in Saddle Ridge has already taken factors like noise from the expansion into account. Dale Zimmerman, past president of the Coral Springs Community Association, said he is not aware of concerns about a new runway. He added that the community would welcome the expressway development because it would ease traffic problems.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: April 24, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 30
BYLINE: Becky Beaupre
DATELINE: Schaumburg Township, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mandy Hagestedt, resident
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that a 5,000-seat, $7-million minor league baseball stadium was proposed last month in Schaumburg Township, Illinois. But Mandy Hagestedt, a neighbor who said she first learned about the proposed stadium on the evening news, is organizing other residents who are concerned about the noise, traffic, and bright lights that the stadium will bring.
The article reports that Hagestedt and some neighbors will meet at her home tonight to discuss their concerns about the stadium, which is expected to open in May 1999. Hagestedt said, "The traffic is going to be the worst. It's a safety issue. If we need an ambulance, fire truck, policeman, they won't be able to get here ... not if there's a game letting out."
Meanwhile, Al Larson, Schaumburg's Mayor, said police will help control traffic, and the stadium will be built to mitigate noise, according to the article. Larson said the stadium won't be as bad as people think. He said, "When they think about a baseball stadium, they think, 'Oh my God, it's Wrigley Field.' But it's not. It's 5,000 seats."
PUBLICATION: The Columbian (Vancouver, WA)
DATE: April 24, 1998
SECTION: B; Pg. 10
BYLINE: Michael Zuzel, editorial board writer
DATELINE: Vancouver, Washington
The Columbian printed an editorial that explains that the Portland International Airport in Portland, Oregon will allow some passenger jets to make their big turns at lower than usual altitudes over Clark County in Washington for 60 to 90 days, beginning Monday. The experiment is a test to determine how sensitive residents are to jet noise in the area. The editorial writer says that airport officials should prepare to get lots of complaints.
According to the editorial, residents in areas east of Vancouver, Washington have complained loudly in the past about jet noise. For instance, the writer says, people in McLoughlin Heights are angry when winds force jets to dive low over their neighborhoods in order to land on the airport's north-south runway.
The editorial goes on to say that last November, airport officials proposed eventually shutting down the north-south runway. And, the experiment to fly jets lower is actually designed to reduce noise above populated areas, and it will apply only to newer planes with quieter engines. Still, the editorial says residents probably won't like the experiment, and even if the runway is eventually closed, the airport is one of the fastest-growing in the country. The editorial writer concludes that airport officials and their Noise Abatement Advisory Committee deserve credit for trying to improve the situation.
PUBLICATION: The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec)
DATE: April 24, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A3
BYLINE: Paul Cherry
DATELINE: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Marion Deterry, resident
The Gazette reports that more than 100 angry residents in the Montreal, Quebec area met with officials from Aeroports de Montreal Wednesday to discuss noisy takeoffs and landings at Dorval airport. According to residents, the noise has become unbearable since international flights were transferred to Dorval from Mirabel airport in September. But residents were disappointed with the meeting, the article says. Officials told residents that studies were underway and they were considering changes in takeoff procedures.
The article reports that since the international flights were moved to Dorval airport, some flights take a flight path over a residential part of Pointe Claire, instead of flying straight out over Lac St. Louis as they used to. According to Marion Deterry, a Pointe Claire resident, airport officials simply aren't giving residents any answers. Deterry said when she lived elsewhere on the West Island in the 1970s, she was happy when international flights were moved from Dorval to Mirabel airport because it was impossible to communicate between 7 and 9 a.m., the airport's rush hour. She added, "The meeting was very disappointing, but at least we've got them to the point of talking with us. It's not like in the '70s, where we were banging our heads against the walls."
According to the article, Normand Boivin, Dorval's general manager, Youssef Sabeh, the airport's environment director, and Jacques Savard, a sound expert, attended the meeting. They reported that they recently spent $1.2 million installing eight microphones to monitor noise in five municipalities along Dorval's flight paths. Boivin said, "We wanted to get some concrete information instead of dealing with something we might have." Boivin also said that Aeroports de Montreal is considering requiring jets to start their descents earlier and then come in slower, which would reduce the noise.
PUBLICATION: The Idaho Statesman
DATE: April 24, 1998
SECTION: Local ; Pg. 2b
BYLINE: Kendra Martinez
DATELINE: Boise, Idaho
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Asbury, resident
The Idaho Statesman reports that Jim Asbury, a resident of Boise, Idaho, has complained to police about noise from booming car stereos near the Fairview Avenue and Mitchell Street intersection. Police say they have investigated noise complaints in the area, but have difficulty catching violators in cars with loud stereos.
According to the article, Asbury works at night and attempts to sleep during the day. But, he said, the loud car stereos in the area make sleeping almost impossible. Asbury said the car stereos are the worst between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m., when commuters are leaving town. "I can understand it when people want to play their stereos a little bit loudly," Asbury said. "But when the noise rattles the windows in my house, then it is too loud." He added that he has lived in Washington, D.C. and California, where the same problem started happening to residents.
The article reports that Lieutenant Jim Tibbs, a spokesperson for the Boise Police Department, said that if a stereo is audible 50 feet from the street, then the person playing it is violating the city noise ordinance and can be charged with a $100 fine. Tibbs said, "We do investigate noise complaints. But the problem is that by the time we get on the scene, the car with the loud stereo is long gone." He added that noise complaints during the day sometimes take a low priority status when their are more pressing calls on officers.
The article also explains how the ordinance is enforced. When officers witness noise violations, the violators are given a citation and must pay the fine unless they want to go to court. If violators deny the offense, they must appear in court before a judge, and if they still refuse to pay the fine, their license can be suspended. When officers don't hear the noise violation, for example in the case of car stereos, the resident can get the license plate number of the vehicle and a description of the driver and sign a citation. Police will then deliver the citation to the violator, and the citation becomes a matter between the violator and the resident who complained.
PUBLICATION: Journal of Commerce
DATE: April 24, 1998
SECTION: Transportation; Pg. 12A
BYLINE: Bruce Barnard
DATELINE: Europe
The Journal of Commerce reports that the air cargo industry in Europe is facing an increasingly regulated market due to restrictions on noise levels and night flights. The article notes that the limitations come as express carriers are reporting record volumes in business.
According to the article, when Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, Europe's fastest-growing major cargo airport, started to impose restrictions to curb noise levels, the air cargo industry became alarmed. Schiphol officials asked the government to allow 40,000 extra flight movements per year (total flight movements were 349,500 in 1997), but the government approved only 20,000 per year. And, the government said it would take strong action against airlines if noise limits were exceeded. The article says these developments will reduce the activity at Schiphol, with the air cargo industry bearing the brunt of the restrictions.
Meanwhile, temporary curbs on nighttime flights at Schiphol caused a diplomatic disagreement with the United States, which hinted it would tear up an "open-skies" accord with the Netherlands if U.S. carriers faced problems at Schiphol. The article reports that airport officials say they have already lost business, notably Federal Express, which wanted to locate its European hub at the airport. But, the article says, the airport couldn't have met its noise limits if Federal Express moved in. FedEx instead set up its hub at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, which according to Schiphol officials, has less stringent noise limits. But officials at Aeroports de Paris (ADP), which operates the airport, this is not true. Jean Alain Ress, general manager of ADP Cargo, said all European airports face the same environmental pressures.
The article goes on to explain that Germany is viewed by air cargo operators as the strictest regulatory country, while Belgium is viewed as the most lax. The article notes that Nuremberg airport in southern Germany introduced new restrictions on night flights on April 1 that will prevent DHL Worldwide Express from operating its Boeing 727 aircraft between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Those restrictions ban the quieter Chapter 3 aircraft, the article says, even though those are the most modern aircraft under International Civil Aviation Organization rules. At other German airports, officials gave the airline five years to phase in quieter aircraft such as Airbus 300s. The article notes that DHL unleashed a major protest when it proposed establishing a hub in Strasbourg, in eastern France. In addition, TNT Ltd., a competitor of DHL, decided to transfer its European hub from Cologne, Germany, to Liege airport in Belgium.
The article also notes that the air express cargo industry recently established a lobby called Platform for Logistics and Aviation Network in Europe (PLANE) to represent their interests.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: April 24, 1998
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. 27A, Tom Kelly
BYLINE: Tom Kelly
DATELINE: Palm Beach, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel printed an editorial by a writer who argues that jet noise from the Palm Beach (Florida) International Airport is decreasing. The writer says he lives south of the airport under the main takeoff corridor, and he believes the jets are becoming less noisy. His experience was confirmed, he says, when several airlines at the airport recently got awards for using quieter jets.
The editorial says the Palm Beach County Department of Airports presented awards to several airlines Thursday for outstanding achievement in noise abatement during 1997. The airlines were: American Airlines, America West Airlines, Midway Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service, Delta Air Lines, and US Airways. The airlines all use the quieter Stage 3 jets on at least 90% of their flights into the airport. The first five airlines used 100% Stage 3 airplanes in 1997, while Delta uses 94% and US Airways 92%.
According to the editorial, US law requires all airlines to use only Stage 3 jets by 2000. Thus, nine of the sixteen airlines operating at the airport still must get quieter planes in the near future. The editorial notes that the airlines at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport have even further to go. In 1997, 66.8% of their flights were Stage 3 aircraft, compared with 68.1% in 1996. The dropoff in Stage 3 flights occurred because the airport recently added Delta Express to its roster of airlines, which flies noisy Stage 2 jets.
The editorial explains that the Palm Beach Airport had a more impressive record due to the constant pressure that neighbors in West Palm Beach and Palm Beach applied to the airport. In the mid-1980s, a lawsuit filed by residents under the flight path resulted in a settlement that imposed a nighttime curfew, $2,600 fines for violators, and an agreed phaseout of Stage 2 planes. The editorial says if Congress hadn't passed less-stringent national standards, the airport could have been rid of the noisiest jets a few years ago.
The editorial writer says the airport has become a much better neighbor, but any noise at all is still too much for some residents. In response to a plan by the airport to lengthen the main runway to attract more and bigger jets, a group of Palm Beach residents filed a new lawsuit against the airport last month. Meanwhile, the City of West Palm Beach angered the Palm Beach County Commission by considering joining the residents in the lawsuit. County Commissioners responded by suspending work on the proposed new convention center for downtown West Palm Beach. Later, however, the county agreed to create a citizens' commission to oversee development at the airport. The editorial writer concludes by saying that the panel may be useful for public relations in the short term, but the best solution for the noise problem is to simply get all airlines to meet the federal noise standards as soon as possible.
PUBLICATION: The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN)
DATE: April 23, 1998
SECTION: Neighbors, Pg. Se2
BYLINE: Raina Hanna, with contributions from Christina Lambard
DATELINE: Memphis, Tennessee
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Deanna Serenco, outreach coordinator, Memphis Oral School for the Deaf
The Commercial Appeal reports that fourth-graders at Southwind Elementary in Memphis, Tennessee learned about the dangers of noise on April 16 with a Hazards of Noise program. The program was led by Deanna Serenco, outreach coordinator for the Memphis Oral School for the Deaf. By the end of the school year, the article says, Serenco will have taught the program to fourth-graders at 62 area schools.
According to the article, Serenco teaches kids that noise can be harmful to their hearing. She said, "This affects everybody because of the amount of noise in our society. Everything from lawn mowers to toys are very noisy and can be horrible for your hearing." Serenco works with fourth-graders, the article says, because she feels that older children and adults are accustomed to the amount of noise in their world and don't pay attention to warnings about damaging hearing. "I have a listening tape where they can hear how things sound as you lose your hearing. Speech can be distorted," Serenco said. She also demonstrates how to properly use earplugs. "We talk about the different things that are noisy, and I demonstrate some, including a big boom box."
Serenco went on to say that 61% of 18-year-olds have some hearing loss. She said there are too many middle-aged people who start saying "Huh?" more because they're can hear everything. Serenco added that it's important to teach kids to start protecting their hearing early.
PUBLICATION: Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV)
DATE: April 23, 1998
SECTION: A; Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Steve Friess
DATELINE: Clark County, Nevada
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that hundreds of residents packed a Clark County (Nevada) Commission meeting Wednesday, complaining that a proposal to let prospective property buyers know about jet noise from the McCarran International Airport will lower their property values. Commissioners promised the residents that a compromise would be developed during the next month, and would be considered at the May 20 meeting. The article notes that the proposal also would apply to land around Nellis Air Force Base, but none of the residents living in the proposed zone around the base complained at the meeting.
The article reports that the proposal stipulates that landowners around McCarran and Nellis who experience an average of 60 decibels of noise from air traffic should be required to notify that fact to prospective property buyers. In addition, property owners would have to soundproof any additions to their buildings to block 25 decibels of noise under the proposal.
The article explains that about 8,000 businesses and homes are located in the proposed 60-decibel buffer zone around McCarran, and about 9,000 are in the zone drawn around Nellis, according to county officials. The proposed 60-decibel zone has the effect of widening the current designated noise buffer around the airports. Property owners close to the airports already must disclose sound levels to prospective buyers. The article notes that the proposed 60-decibel zone around McCarren runs from Sands Avenue to south of state Route 160 at some points, and from Durango Drive past Stephanie Street. The zone around Nellis stretches west into North Las Vegas and south past Lake Mead Boulevard, according to county spokesperson Mike Estrada.
The article goes on to say that according to Jacob Snow, the assistant director for planning, environment, and general aviation at McCarren, people who are considering living around the airport should know what they're getting into. Snow pointed to a two-foot stack of noise complaints and said, "A lot of people can't get enough sleep at night. They have heart conditions and other ailments that are affected. All of this is documented right here."
But, the article says, dozens of residents spoke against the proposal at the meeting. David Bavero, who has lived west of McCarran since 1988, said, "They stuck a freeway in my back yard, they fly planes over my house, and now they're passing a law that will force me to tell everyone what they did to me." Realtor Audra Lang said she disagreed with claims by airport officials that the 60-decibel zone wouldn't lower property values. She said recent prospective homebuyers asked her not to show them homes north of Warm Springs Road after they learned about the area's proximity to McCarran. Many residents said creating a 60-decibel zone is not a part of Federal Aviation Administration laws but is a non-binding suggestion. Other residents said state law already requires homeowners to disclose anything to a buyer that might affect the value of the home.
PUBLICATION: The San Diego Union-Tribune
DATE: April 23, 1998
SECTION: News Pg. A-1
BYLINE: Gordon Smith
DATELINE: Orange County, California
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a proposed new regional airport at the site of the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station near Irvine, California has divided the county. Supporters of the proposed airport, including the Orange County Board of Supervisors, say it would allow the county to become a major economic player in the region. Opponents say the airport will just bring more noise and pollution. They want to transform the base into a mixed-use urban center for the county. Many view the controversy as one of the most divisive and most important issues the county has faced.
According to the article, the County Board of Supervisors this week directed staff members to create plans for an El Toro airport that would serve 24 million passengers annually. By comparison, San Diego International Airport serves 14 million passengers annually, and Los Angeles International serves 60 million. The article says that the design agreed to by supervisors would tie the airport to the county's existing John Wayne Airport, which is seven miles to the west, by a $300 million, high-speed light-rail line. Under this scenario, John Wayne would handle general aviation and short-haul domestic flights, and El Toro would handle longer domestic and international flights. Supervisors also agreed to an alternative design that would create a bigger airport at El Toro. This design assumes the airport would operate independently of John Wayne, and would serve international flights only. The article explains that a decision between the two designs is not expected for at least one year. Environmental impact studies will begin this summer. But, the article says, either design would have impacts on airports in San Diego and the greater Los Angeles area.
The article reports that according to County Supervisor Bill Steiner, an El Toro airport would eventually draw passengers from San Diego's North County and perhaps beyond. According to Brian Enarson, director of operations at San Diego International Airport at Lindbergh Field, said an El Toro airport could attract international carriers away from the San Diego airport. But Malin Burnham, a San Diego businessmen who advocates a new airport in San Diego, said the city will still need a larger airport of its own in the future. He said the airport proposed at El Toro wouldn't be large enough to accommodate all the increasing air traffic in Southern California.
The article explains that the 4,700-acre El Toro base was slated for closure in 1993. In 1996, the County Board of Supervisors, as the base's official redevelopment agency, voted 3-2 to convert the base into a commercial airport. The article notes that the decision was made after the Southern California Association of Governments released studies showing that Orange County's airports can handle only about half the passengers and a small fraction of the cargo coming into and leaving the county each year.
According to the article, the county's largest airport, John Wayne, is already operating near its current capacity. And to the north, officials at Los Angeles International Airport project that air traffic throughout Southern California will double by 2020. A spokesperson for that airport said another airport in the region, especially one that handles domestic air traffic, would be welcome. Orange County Supervisor Chuck Smith said, "Easy access to air transport will determine economic success in the 21st century. Does Orange County want to control its own destiny, or lose its autonomy and be led into the future? The need is clear, the project is right and the time is now."
The article notes that support for an El Toro airport is strong in the older communities in northern Orange County, and in Newport Beach, a community that experiences most of the noise from John Wayne Airport. Peggy Ducey, deputy city manager of Newport Beach, said, "John Wayne literally does not have a noise buffer zone, and we have residents who live a half mile from the runway." Ducey says that John Wayne couldn't accommodate many more passengers without expanding. She said, "We want it to continue to operate, but not outside its current physical capabilities ... we support establishing a second commercial airport at El Toro." The article notes that Ducey and two city employees are working full-time and one employee is working part-time to bring an airport to El Toro.
But, the article says, residents in Irvine, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel, and other communities in southern Orange County are working hard to ensure a new airport is not built. Southern county communities are worried that a new airport would create more noise over their homes, more traffic, and more air pollution. The city of Irvine is trying to annex the El Toro land, and would not consider an airport if the annexation succeeds.
The article explains that Irvine has joined with six other cities to create the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, a group that's advocating a different redevelopment plan for the base. Paul Eckles, executive director of the group, said, "We're trying to conceive of something that would be a central focal point for the county. Right now the only image people are likely to take home from Orange County is something with mouse ears on it." The article says that the planning group wants the base to be converted to an urban park, an arts and culture district, and education, research, and technology facilities.
But the County Board of Supervisors agreed to consider the group's plan only if a "fatal flaw" comes up for an airport. Such a flaw could occur if the Federal Aviation Administration refuses to certify an El Toro airport for safety reasons.
The article concludes by pointing out that three positions on the five-member County Board of Supervisors are up for re-election this year, and as the June primary election draws near, candidates are already gearing up. Eckles says everyone recognizes that "this is the number one issue in Orange County right now."
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: April 23, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Marian Dozier
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Boca Raton Aviation Action Group; Boca Raton Federation of Homeowners; Tom Knibbs, resident and pilot; Shirley Schnuer, president, Boca Teeca Unit Owners Association; Ron Betters, member, Knob Hill Association
The Sun-Sentinel reports that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Wednesday rejected a resolution proposed by City Councilor Bill Glass in Boca Raton, Florida to impose curfews on noisy jets at the Boca Raton Airport. The article says that Dean Stringer, an FAA official, told members of the Boca Raton Airport Authority that if the resolution passes, the airport could lose funding from the FAA and Florida Department of Transportation, and could open itself up to lawsuits.
According to the article, Councilor Glass introduced a resolution on April 13 calling for mandatory night curfews on older, noisy jets, and a voluntary curfew on newer, quiet jets. Under the resolution, fines would be imposed or landing privileges would be lost for airlines that violated the rules. Others who supported Glass' resolution included Mayor Carol Hanson, Councilor Susan Welcher, several members of the Noise Compatibility Advisory Committee, and several members of the Boca Raton Aviation Action Group, a coalition of homeowner groups. According to Glass, he wrote the resolution to encourage the airport authority to find a solution to the noise problem. He said, "Don't just put it on the door of the airport, but aggressively seek it. Put it in the pilot logs so anyone coming down here from Chicago or wherever knows they can't fly in after 10 o'clock at night."
But, the article reports, Stringer of the FAA said, "Without a study, without satisfying federal requirements, we're going to object to it. Finding (the airport) in noncompliance means no FAA funds, and Florida DOT probably is not going to give any money if you're in noncompliance with a federal agency." Stringer added that the city probably doesn't have the authority to enforce noise regulations because the airport is not under the control of the City Council.
The article notes that the airport already has instituted voluntary noise-reduction procedures, including a voluntary nighttime flight ban and suggested flight patterns that limit noise over residential areas. In addition, Renee Johns, the airport's noise abatement officer, has been monitoring late-night flights for the past two weeks, comparing them with resident complaints, and writing letters to the aircraft operators who have not been complying with the voluntary restrictions.
In a related matter, the article says, the Boca Raton Aviation Action Group tonight will discuss breaking away from the Boca Raton Federation of Homeowners, an umbrella group that represents 21 groups on a variety of issues. Tom Knibbs, a resident who lives near the airport, said, "I think there's a lot of anger and frustration that the federation is not representing our interests about airport noise." The article notes that many residents living near the airport wanted the federation to nominate Knibbs' name to the City Council for a seat on the Airport Authority, but the federation instead nominated incumbent Jack Davenport and two others. Shirley Schnuer, president of the powerful Boca Teeca Unit Owners Association, and Ron Betters of Knob Hill Association both said they won't seek to leave the federation right now.
PUBLICATION: The Toronto Star
DATE: April 23, 1998
SECTION: News
BYLINE: Mike Funston
DATELINE: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lawrence Mitoff, president, Rockwood Homeowners' Association; Ron Searle, resident and former Mississauga mayor; Romesh Sachdeve, resident; Council of Concerned Residents; Anthony Cole, spokesperson, Etobicoke Federation of Resident and Ratepayer Associations
The Toronto Star reports that about 200 residents of the Rockwood neighborhood of Mississauga, Ontario attended a public meeting last night at which they said the new runway at Pearson International Airport is making their life hell. The residents also criticized the federal government and the local Liberal Members of Parliament for allowing the new runway, which opened late last year, to be built.
The article reports that according to Lawrence Mitoff, president of the Rockwood Homeowners' Association, said, "Intolerable noise, falling property values, and increased pollution are destroying our quality of life." In addition, the article says, many speakers lashed out at the government and specific politicians. Ron Searle, a resident and the former Mississauga mayor, said, "Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Liberal MP) said the new runway would be built over her dead body. We should be so lucky. Some of us met with her (after she flip-flopped on the runway issue) and she told us she was forced (by her party) to change her position or her political career would be ruined." Searle said. Albina Guarnieri, another Mississauga Liberal MP, was also lambasted for switching sides to agree with the party.
The article explains that in 1973, the federal government passed an Order-in-Council that promised the airport's runway system would not be expanded, according to Searle. He said that based on that promise, and after months of consultations with then Liberal transport minister Otto Lang, Mississauga approved an Official Plan in 1978 that allowed thousands of homes to be built in neighborhoods now affected by aircraft noise.
The article also says that resident Romesh Sachdeve said he can't leave his windows open when the new runway is being used. He added that one day, planes seemed to fly low over his house every two minutes. After he wrote a letter to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, he found out that 396 landings had occurred on the new runway that day. Members of the Etobicoke Federation of Resident and Ratepayer Associations also attended last night's meeting, the article notes. Anthony Cole, a spokesperson for the group, said that in addition to noise problems, "the constant stench of jet fuel is sickening."
The article notes that the Rockwood Homeowners' Association, through the Council of Concerned Residents (an umbrella organization of ratepayer groups), has been trying to use the courts to stop the use of the new runway or to win compensation. But, the article says, it is not yet clear whether the case will proceed beyond the preliminary legal proceedings.
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: April 22, 1998
SECTION: Local (News), Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Laura Sullivan
DATELINE: Pasadena, Maryland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mary Rosso, resident
The Baltimore Sun reports that the Anne Arundel County (Maryland) Council voted 5-2 Monday to allow "sports racing complexes" as one of the allowed activities at a site in Pasadena that has been proposed for a motor speedway. The article says the decision removes a major obstacle to the proposed project. Meanwhile, residents are angry that the decision to bring the track to their area occurred in slightly more than a month, and that their concerns have not been considered.
According to the article, the Middle River Racing Association is proposing to build a $100-million speedway with a 54,800-seat stadium in the Pasadena area. A NASCAR event would be one of three annual major events the stadium would bring, the article says. The County Council's decision doesn't mean the project will necessarily go forward, the article notes. First, the racing association must raise money, address environmental requirements, and deal with residents' opposition.
Still, the article notes, officials and residents who support the track were excited yesterday about the Council's decision. Bob Burdon, president of the Anne Arundel Trade Council, said, "This is a big plus for Anne Arundel County. With this kind of entertainment complex, the potential property tax exceeds $800,000, and the entertainment taxes will be well over a million -- as well as revenues from people coming into our county for race day events." Councilor Thomas Redmond, who represents Pasadena and wrote the bill, said he wasn't convinced by residents' arguments Monday night that the approval process should be slowed. He said, "I stuck my neck out because there is so much support in my area for this. I was just overwhelmed by what it could do economically for the district and county."
But residents who oppose the track said they were in shock over the decision, noting that the process leading up to the decision had lasted only slightly more than a month. In that amount of time, opponents said, community associations didn't have time to poll members or form a position. Mary Rosso, an opponent, said, "We feel like a tornado just came through."
The article explains that before the speedway can be built, the racing association will have to agree to requirements to keep noise to a minimum, keep traffic flowing, and keep the area environmentally clean. The proposed site is currently zoned for heavy industrial use, and houses an abandoned copper refinery, according to the article. The site is dotted with acres of wetlands, and has experienced copper runoff from 30 years of heavy manufacturing, as well as dredge spoil from Baltimore's harbor. In addition, the site has no sewer or water services. The article notes that the Pasadena area has had problems with traffic congestion since the 1980s. The speedway project might also have to acquire more land for parking, and officials have suggested they might try to purchase property from the neighboring CSX. But CSX officials said they aren't planning to sell any land for parking.
The article explains that the racing association last year proposed building a racetrack in Baltimore County, and residents debated the project for months. In addition, the racing group tried to locate a speedway site in western Anne Arundel County, but that plan was quickly defeated by residents who raised similar complaints as Baltimore County residents over increased noise, traffic, and pollution. Councilor Bert Rice, who cast the deciding vote Monday, was criticized by residents for fighting against the track when it was proposed for his district in Russett, but supporting it Monday when it was proposed for someone else's district. Rice said, "While visiting the two sites and their proximity to residents, it was very apparent that the Russett site is just across the river, only 700 feet from the residences. That was a rather upscale, new community building out very quickly, whereas the closest dwelling at the Pasadena site is seven-tenths of a mile from residences."
Meanwhile, the article says, Carolyn Roeding, the president of the Greater Pasadena Council, said she hopes her council will address the racetrack issue at a meeting tomorrow. She said she hadn't taken a side on the issue until the Greater Pasadena Council could vote, but that no one expected the County Council would make a decision before their next meeting was scheduled. She said, "The community feels excluded from the process. Quite frankly, we feel like second-class citizens."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: April 22, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Freida Gad
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that Village Board in Arlington Heights, Illinois has asked the Arlington Heights Village Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise to make a final decision on whether the village should support a third regional airport in the Chicago area. The article notes that the committee voted against joining a coalition that supports building a third airport in the Peotone area in February, saying a third airport would not reduce jet noise in Arlington Heights. The committee will take up the issue again at its May 19 meeting.
According to the article, the committee heard conflicting reports at the February meeting regarding whether the number of flights at O'Hare International Airport will increase in the future. A plan put out by the Federal Aviation Administration predicts a 30% increase in flights by 2010. But, the article says, executives for both American and United Airlines predicted no increase in flights because larger, more advanced aircraft will replace older, smaller jets. Village Trustee Glenn Lehner said an article in the current issue of Newsweek magazine (titled "Packed Like Sardines") supported the airlines' view. According to Lehner, the article said the number of flights will stay flat, but each plane will carry more people.
According to the article, Trustee Virginia Kucera said the issue of a third airport is important, because money and jobs could move out of state. She said, "Where those flights originate or where the jobs are is important. I'm not interested in pumping up Gary (Indiana) or Mitchell (airport in Milwaukee)." Stephen Daday, the chair of the committee, said, "Like interstate highways, it's not a local issue."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: April 22, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 9
BYLINE: Robert Herguth
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joe Karaganis, attorney for the Suburban O'Hare Commission; Jack Saporito, director, Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that the O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois has started its annual maintenance project to repair roadways, taxiways, and runways. The project, which will cost at least $25 million, is likely to bring more noise to some suburbs and less noise to other suburbs.
According to the article, most of the work will be on Runway 4R-22L, a northeast-by-southwest runway at the south end of the airport. The runway will be resurfaced, according to Dennis Culloton, spokesperson for Chicago's aviation department. Most of the work will be done at night, he said. Most of the work will not start until May 1, but some improvements to taxiways have already started. The project is expected to end in September. The article notes that a $70 million drainage improvement project on the north end of the airfield also has resumed.
The article explains that according to O'Hare opponents, because the runway will be closed sometimes during the day, other runways will take more flights and produce more flights over certain areas. Joe Karaganis, an attorney for the Suburban O'Hare Commission, said, "It won't get any better, and it will probably get worse in certain areas. When you are using selected runways, there are communities who have gotten used to a certain level of noise ... and then they're suddenly bombarded."
The article notes that Bensenville, Park Ridge, Niles, and Elmhurst experience the brunt of the noise from Runway 4R-22L, so their noise levels may decrease during the work, according to Mark Fowler, executive director of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. Fowler said, "I think it's fair to say the traffic that normally goes on that runway will be shifted elsewhere in the airport. But it's tough to say if Arlington (Heights) or Wood Dale will get more traffic. But the impact shouldn't be that great." The article says that Fowler's agency will distribute thousands of brochures starting next week to towns around O'Hare detailing the work and the impact on noise.
Meanwhile, the article reports, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced Tuesday it has awarded 53 more day-time take-off or landings slots per day to four airlines at O'Hare, according to Culloton. By comparison, last year the airport averaged about 2,400 take-offs and landings a day. Jack Saporito, head of Arlington Heights-based Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, said, "Obviously, it opens up the flood-gates for more noise pollution and safety problems."
PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: April 22, 1998
SECTION: News; Page A05
BYLINE: Mohamad Bazzi
DATELINE: New York, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Claire Shulman, president, Queens Borough; Rose Marie Poveromo, president, United Community Civic Association
Newsday reports that the U.S. Department of Transportation yesterday approved nine additional daily flights at New York City's LaGuardia Airport. The decision came in spite of a pending lawsuit in federal appeals court filed four months ago by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Queens Borough President Claire Shulman, seeking to reverse an earlier Department of Transportation decision to allow 21 flights at the airport.
The article reports that the latest decision allows five new slots for American Trans Air service from Chicago's Midway Airport and four slots for Spirit Airlines service from Melbourne, Florida. (A slot is one takeoff or landing.) The Department of Transportation also rejected applications for 39 other flights at LaGuardia and six flights at Kennedy Airport, the article notes.
According to the article, Queens Borough President Shulman said the added flights will increase noise, traffic and air pollution in the residential areas surrounding the airport. Shulman said, "I'm mad as hell. It's an insult for them to do this when the federal lawsuit is pending. They're laughing in our faces." Bill Mosley, a spokesperson for the DOT, said, "We believe this very limited grant of exemptions is in the public interest. I can't speak directly to the lawsuit."
The article goes on to explain that LaGuardia, along with Kennedy airport and two other airports in the country, have had a fixed number of slots set by the Federal Aviation Administration since 1968. Almost all the slots at LaGuardia are held by major airlines, which critics say stifles competition by barring smaller airlines from entering the large markets. In 1994, Congress gave the DOT the authority to grant exemptions to the fixed number of slots only if the added flights are in the "public interest" and there are "exceptional" circumstances warranting the exemption. According to Mosley of the DOT, the agency favors requests that offer air service on newer, quieter Stage 3 aircraft, new non-stop services, and lower-fare services.
But Shulman said that nearly 150,000 people live around LaGuardia, and regularly experience noise above 65 decibels, the maximum amount of noise compatible with residential areas, according to FAA guidelines. Shulman said, "We have more people suffering from the effects of excessive airplane noise than anywhere else." Rose Marie Poveromo, president of the United Community Civic Association serving parts of Astoria and Jackson Heights, said the recent DOT decision was "unconscionable," pointing to rising asthma rates and other health problems associated with air pollution. She said, "These officials who live in Washington don't understand the harm they are causing our children. Whatever decision U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater makes in his ivory tower affects our lives."
PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: April 22, 1998
SECTION: News; Page A29
BYLINE: Ellen Yan
DATELINE: Washington, DC
Newsday reports that a New York congressional delegation yesterday warned the Federal Aviation Administration not to direct air traffic from New Jersey's Newark Airport over Long Island in New York as the agency begins to redraw the nation's air traffic routes.
According to the article, a letter was sent yesterday to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from both of New York's U.S. senators and 14 of its representatives warning that it is "not good policy to divert air traffic from one community to another in an effort to alleviate the problem of jet noise." The politicians asked the FAA to pledge that their region "will not bear the burden of increased jet noise and air traffic."
The effort was led by Representative Peter King (R-Seaford) and Representative Nita Lowey (D-Westchester). King said he is concerned about the issue because members of New Jersey's congressional delegation appear to be in close contact with the FAA, and have attached a high priority to remapping the New Jersey and New York region's airspace. In 1994, the article notes, New York and New Jersey faced off on the same issue, as Newark-area residents proposed rerouting air traffic away from Newark and over Long Island. King said New York doesn't want to be caught short this time.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for New Jersey Representative Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Pascrell, who has been involved with the FAA on the remapping effort, has not yet endorsed any proposal. Pascrell held a news conference with FAA chief Jane Garvey last week to announce that the metropolitan region, considered the world's most compact and congested air space, will be the first to undergo remapping. The article notes that the air traffic routes have remained virtually the same for more than 10 years, even though flights have increased. The remapping is intended to reduce jet noise over residential areas and improve safety.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: April 22, 1998
SECTION: Metro Du Page; Pg. 3; Zone: D
BYLINE: Laura Zahn Pohl
DATELINE: Lisle, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that the East-West Tollway in Lisle, Illinois will be expanded by one lane between the North-South Tollway and Naperville Road. As part of the project, a noise study will be conducted, and noise barriers will be constructed if needed, the article says. Residents along the Tollway would like to see noise barriers built, the article notes.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: April 22, 1998
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 4; Zone: NW
BYLINE: Mark Shuman
DATELINE: Des Plaines, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that aldermen in Des Plaines, Illinois voted 7-1 Monday to decline membership in Chicago's O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. The article says the aldermen made the decision in order to affirm their commitment to the Suburban O'Hare Commission.
According to the article, leaders of the Suburban O'Hare Commission (SOC) say that the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission was started to create a suburban consensus in favor of new runways at O'Hare International Airport. Ald. Jean Higgason said, "This action sends a message that we don't want any new runways, more noise or pollution affecting our children."
The article explains that Ald. Tony Arredia cast the one dissenting vote. He said, "I am a firm believer that the SOC is where we should stay." But he added that it's not a good idea to close off communication with the Chicago commission.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: April 21, 1998
SECTION: Chandler Community; Pg. Ev1
BYLINE: Art Thomason
DATELINE: Chandler, Arizona
The Arizona Republic printed an editorial in which the writer describes a project that will create more noise at the Williams Gateway Airport in Chandler, Arizona starting in July. The project will be conducted by Boeing Co., and will involve refitting more than 500 noisy, supersonic T-38C jets with new avionics gear. The editorial writer says the nearby residents likely will be angry, but insists they should put up with the noise.
According to the editorial, the project will have up to 150 Boeing employees replacing old, round dials in the jet cockpits with high-tech, Air Force One-type digital displays. Boeing will turn out 7 1/2 of the refitted jets each month for the next six years, the editorial reports. The project will extend the training life of the jets into the next century, and will bring big paychecks to workers in the area, the editorial says. According to Daniel Pettyjohn, one of Boeing's executives in charge of the project, the jets will create more noise in the area when they are flown to check out the new equipment. He said, "It's going to generate some noise they're not used to around here." Pettyjohn added, "There will be quite a few flights generated locally. In addition, there will be planes running on the runways. That's why I'm working with the people at Williams. I don't want to alienate people. But we have to find a balance. We're all searching for a balance, I guess.
The editorial writer argues that the project won't have to make much noise to anger the residents living near the airport. The editorial says that the airport has been there for 57 years, but people who have lived there only a short time believe they shouldn't have to put up with the noise. The writer concludes that residents can either get angry at airport officials or be proud that our military jets are state-of-the-art.
PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald
DATE: April 21, 1998
SECTION: Comment; Rebuttal; Pg. A17
BYLINE: Jo Anne Pauling
DATELINE: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Calgary Herald printed an editorial regarding a recent city council decision in Calgary, Alberta to allow festival promoters to apply for exemptions from the noise bylaw to hold performances past 10 pm at Prince's Island Park. The editorial writer tells a fairy tale about the situation, with two possible outcomes: one in which the merchants encourage the loud concerts and the residents shun their businesses, and another in which large concerts are banned from the park, while several smaller concerts are allowed, and everyone is happy.
The editorial says that once upon a time there was a peaceful, small, green island, surrounded by a crowded city. The island was loved because it was the only quiet place to escape from the clamor of the busy city. The writer says that thousands of people looked to the island for refuge. But then someone noticed that things needed to be livened up with amplified music and noise so that everyone on the island and in the surrounding city can hear and feel it. And after that, the people were no longer as peaceful or contented on the island or anywhere within a seven-kilometer radius.
The editorial writer says that readers can accept either one of the following two endings, or can create an ending of their own.
Ending #1: The merchants near the island encouraged the loud noise because they thought it would bring them business and money. The merchants advertised the beautiful island and the concerts. And thousands of residents who had patronized the businesses for years became angry because the noise interrupted their sleep, and no longer went to the businesses. The merchants wondered where their local customers were. They had all moved away or were shopping somewhere else. The editorial writer says the merchants hadn't recognized the value of the peaceful island and the good-will of the regular customers.
Ending #2: The residents who loved the island talked to the merchants and the politicians and said they would compromise. They would support three or four concerts in the summer that wouldn't disturb their sleep or over-crowd the island. But if the present noise continued or increased, they would avoid the merchants and move. They asked the large concert promoters to find a larger location for the concerts. And, the editorial writer concludes, the island returned to its original calm, the merchants prospered, the large concert promoters were satisfied, and everyone lived happily ever after.
PUBLICATION: The Columbian (Vancouver, WA)
DATE: April 21, 1998
SECTION: A; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Thomas Ryll
DATELINE: Portland, Oregon
The Columbian reports that jets leaving the Portland (Oregon) International Airport will be flying over Clark County in Washington for two or three months starting Monday as part of an experiment to consider permanent flight path changes. The article notes that jets have not flown above this area before. Airport officials are trying the experimental flight path to find out if noise can be reduced over areas with growing populations, and to learn whether residents in Clark County will notice the jet traffic and will complain about the noise.
According to the article, jets departing east of the airport currently fly over the Columbia River until they reach 7,000 feet or 11 miles away from the airport, whichever comes first. At that point they can turn either north or south. Planes leaving to the west fly to 6,000 feet or eight miles before turning. But under the experimental flight path, some jets will turn north or south at 4,000 feet, regardless of how far they are from the airport. Thus, the plan will allow the jets to turn at a lower altitude than is currently required. The article explains that only passenger jets with the quieter, Stage 3 engines will be allowed to try the new flight path. About 80% of the air traffic at the airport uses Stage 3 engines.
The article reports that the experimental flight path is a project put forward by the Port Authority's Noise Abatement Advisory Committee, a group of representatives from neighborhood associations, government agencies, airlines, and other airport tenants. According to Glenn Woodman, manager of the airport's noise abatement program, the project is simply a test, and airport officials want to know what residents think of it. Currently, the article notes, aircraft noise complaints in Clark County come mostly from the Camas-Washougal area and west Vancouver.
The article goes on to say that if the project works as hoped, it will have the following impacts:
Create an incentive for pilots to reach higher altitudes as quickly as possible, thereby reducing noise on the ground.
Reduce the total aircraft noise exposure.
Reduce flights over populated areas, particularly by cutting the number of aircraft turning back over residences.
According to the article, when planes flying to Seattle currently take off to the east, they must backtrack over Clark County for a greater distance than will be the case under the experimental procedure. But officials with the Port Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration say they don't know where the planes will be under the experimental procedure when they turn over Clark County. Jerry Gerspach, a noise abatement technician, said airport staff members examined jet departures to see where the planes typically hit 4,000 feet, and found wide variations. In addition, the article notes, pilots currently have no incentive to climb quickly to 4,000 feet, so looking at current jet departures doesn't necessarily reflect what will happen during the experiment. Woodman of the noise abatement program said the new test will require air traffic controllers and pilots to change their 15-year habits. In addition, the wind and other weather conditions also will affect the experiment.
The article also says that Doug Roberts, a public affairs manager with Port Aviation, said the Noise Abatement Advisory Committee would review the community response to the experimental flight path, as well as the noise measurements from the airport's 10 monitoring stations (four in Clark County). At that point, the committee will make a recommendation on whether the flight procedure should be made permanent.
To register a complaint or ask a question about noise from the airport, call 800-938-6647.
PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: April 21, 1998
SECTION: Denver & The West; Pg. B-02
BYLINE: Stacie Oulton
DATELINE: Jefferson County, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dave Osborn, president, Crescent Park Homeowners Association
The Denver Post reports that residents in Jefferson County, Colorado are opposed to a proposed quarry at a site in Coal Creek Canyon that would mine up to 70 rail cars of rock a day. Residents from Crescent Park, a subdivision to the west of the quarry site, and Plainview, a rural community to the east, say their homes will be filled with noise and dust, and their wells will dry up if the quarry is built. Residents will meet tonight representatives of the quarry company to discuss the proposal.
According to the article, Asphalt Paving Company would mine rock, mostly for road construction, on all 142 acres of the site during peak operation. Workers would then crush and process the rock on a 25-acre section of the property and ship it out on one, 70-railcar train a day. An enclosed conveyor system would carry the rock from the quarry to the crushing site, and would have a "bag house" to filter dust. In addition, the loading area for the rail cars would be below ground.
The article says that according to Jeff Keller, the president of Asphalt Paving, "The residential community up there really won't feel, see or hear anything different than what they have right now." Keller added that the measures the quarry would take to enclose operations will significantly cut dust, and the homes would be separated from the site by a 240-acre buffer and Scar Top mountain. "The sheer remoteness (of the site) will mitigate a lot of impacts," Keller said. "These type of operations have and will co-exist with residential communities. They have to because that's where the resource is."
But residents are unconvinced, the article reports. Dave Osborn, president of the Crescent Park Homeowners Association, said, "That (quarry) is basically not compatible with the surrounding homes. Anybody who has been in a quarry will tell you it's not a quiet, pleasant place." Osborn said Crescent Park has 110 homes, and 85% of them are within one mile of the proposed quarry site. Bob Allen, an environmental engineer living in Crescent Park, said the mine could drain domestic well water away from the homes. But Keller said that wouldn't happen because Scar Top mountain is between the homes and the proposed quarry. Keller said that even so, the company would offer to drill residents' wells deeper or take other measures if residents sign up for well monitoring.
The article also notes that Jefferson County commissioners rejected a proposal for a similar quarry in 1983, saying it would degrade the mountain area, reduce property values, and preclude further residential development. Allen of Crescent Park said that the number of homes has increased threefold since then, and there is abundant wildlife in the area.
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
DATE: April 21, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Laurie Blake
DATELINE: Richfield, Minnesota
The Star Tribune reports that city officials in Richfield, Minnesota are proposing a $200 million redevelopment plan to mitigate ground noise that is expected from a new north-south runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The redevelopment plan would destroy 1,000 homes and apartments near Cedar Avenue South and replace them with bigger buildings that would insulate against jet noise. The article notes that city officials are trying to convince the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to pay for the plan. Meanwhile, the article says, about 50 residents attended a MAC meeting Monday hoping to discuss the matter with commissioners. But they left the meeting in anger, the article reports, after only one resident was allowed to address the Commission.
According to the article, construction on the new runway is expected to begin late this year on the west side of the airport along Cedar Avenue South, about 600 feet from Richfield's eastern border. The runway will be completed by 2003.
Richfield officials have identified the area west of Cedar Avenue as the area where ground noise from planes using the new runway will affect residents. According to officials and residents in Richfield, ground noise from jets is a deep, rumbling, low-frequency noise and vibration. It's already commonly heard in Richfield, but when the new runway is built, there will be a new area of exposure to ground noise along the city's entire eastern border, according to Jim Prosser, the Richfield City Manager. In addition, the noise will be closer than ever before. A study undertaken by the city stated that low-frequency ground noise can shake walls and windows, and can be as annoying to residents as jet noise overhead.
The article notes that the fight over what to do about ground noise has escalated between the city and MAC for almost two years. John Himle, chair of the MAC's Planning and Environment Committee, said he will invite Richfield to present its plan before the committee. But he said he is impatient with the city. He said, "MAC has been asking Richfield now for two years to come forward with a proposal that we can react to and try to find common ground and ultimately resolve their concerns. The Richfield city manager has not brought such a proposal. I find it interesting that we have been able to sit down and work with every other community near the airport and resolve their issues, yet Richfield has not been responsive."
But city manager Prosser said it should have been MAC's responsibility to study the impact of the ground noise and present the city with a plan to mitigate it. Instead, he said, Richfield officials had to hire a noise consultant and do their own study of the impact the runway would cause. Prosser said, "After we provided that information to them, they said they were not going to do anything with it. Then we began to prepare our own mitigation plan." The noise consultant advised Richfield that larger buildings would better absorb low-frequency noise, so the city has proposed replacing 500 single-family homes and 500 apartment buildings with larger townhouses and commercial buildings. Currently, the city is finalizing the plan after holding a series of public meetings attended by about 300 residents. Bill Kilian, a Richfield resident and member of the planning commission, said of the plan, "I think it's the only way we can keep the city whole. We would like a plan that would assure that Richfield would not become an area of blight starting at Cedar Avenue. We need a true buffer between the airport and the city."
The article reports that city manager Prosser said that airport officials should undertake a redevelopment plan for Richfield to address increased noise from the expansion, in the same way that they undertake home insulation projects. But officials from MAC said the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not set standards for low-frequency ground noise, which occurs when engines are revved before takeoff and when a plane slows as it lands. Nigel Finney, assistant deputy director of planning and environment for the MAC, said, "We are willing to look at the issue, but in the absence of recognized standards it is fairly difficult to come to a conclusion about what you should do or not do." Himle of MAC said, "Richfield has created a new environmental impact, which is not recognized or defined by either federal or state statute. It's hard to mitigate something that nobody recognizes or up to this point is able to define."
The article explains that the environmental impact statement for the runway that MAC has been working on with the FAA doesn't assess the impact of ground noise to Richfield's satisfaction. But airport officials say they're doing the environmental impact statement correctly. Tom Anderson, a MAC attorney, said, "The FAA says how you are supposed to analyze noise [in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)], and that's how we've done it." But Richfield's attorney, Chuck Dayton, said that MAC has a legal obligation to assess the impact of ground noise even if federal guidelines aren't there. Dayton said if the environmental impact statement does not do so, "then I believe Richfield would have a valid basis for challenging the EIS."
The article also notes that Richfield has already lost large pieces of land to the airport. The city had to relinquish more than 400 homes in the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods to make way for the runway, and it also will lose athletic fields and the Rich Acres Golf Course.
PUBLICATION: News Tribune (Tacoma, WA)
DATE: April 20, 1998
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A8
DATELINE: Tacoma, Washington area
The News Tribune printed an editorial which argues that residents living in the flight path of Sea-Tac Airport in the Tacoma, Washington area deserve a good explanation for the Federal Aviation Administration's recent decision not to adjust flight routes in order to mitigate jet noise.
The editorial says that representatives of Tacoma and Federal Way have been meeting with the FAA for eight years to create a plan that would adjust flight routes, mitigate jet noise, and meet safety standards. The FAA dragged its feet for five years, but in 1995 agreed to study the possibility of changing the flight routes. Two months ago, the agency appeared to be on the verge of agreeing to change the flight routes on a trial basis. The editorial explains that the proposal would have reduced the number of flights that make westward turns at 3,000 feet over Federal Way's South 320th Street from 75 flights to 34. The other 41 flights would have continued five miles farther south before turning westward at 9,000 feet over the Tacoma Tideflats. The editorial says that many believe these changes would have reduced the noise in both communities.
But, the editorial explains, the FAA informed Tacoma and Federal Way leaders last week that adjusting the airport's flight patterns would be "too dangerous" and would require Sea-Tac's air traffic controllers to keep track of too much traffic.
The editorial argues that the FAA didn't question safety in February when they all but agreed to give the proposal a trial run. The editorial says the reasons for the FAA's change are being attributed to turnover at the agency, in Congress, and in the cities. But, the editorial says, it's unclear what actually derailed the plan. A brief test of the proposed flight plan would be the best way to assess how good an idea it is, the editorial concludes.
PUBLICATION: Periscope Daily Defense News
DATE: April 20, 1998
DATELINE: Virginia Beach, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Hal Levenson, steering committee member, Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise; Herbert Stokely, member, Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise
The Periscope Daily Defense News reports that residents in Virginia Beach, Virginia and officials in North Carolina are opposing a plan by the U.S. Navy to move several jet squadrons to Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach. Residents believe the jets will increase noise over their neighborhoods, and North Carolina officials want some of the jets to go to an air base in their state. The article notes that members of the two groups have been working together, and could join forces in the future to more formally oppose the Navy's plans or sue.
According to the article, the Navy has considered five proposals for moving 180 F/A-18 Hornets from a soon-to-close air base in Florida to air bases on the East Coast. In a recent environmental impact statement, the Navy stated that its preference is to relocate all of the jets to Oceana. The Navy's second preference is to relocate two squadrons to a Marine Corps air station in Beaufort, South Carolina, and the rest of the planes to Oceana. The article notes that Monday is the last day for public comment on the report.
The article explains that both the citizens group and North Carolina officials believe the jets should be moved to three new sites: Oceana, Beaufort, and the Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station near Havelock, North Carolina. But, the Navy has rejected that option as too inefficient and expensive.
The citizens group, called Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise, believes noise from the military jets would negatively impact homes and schools near Oceana, which already houses all of the Navy's stateside F-14 Tomcat fighters. According to the Navy's report, if all the new jets were moved to Oceana, as many as 120,000 Virginia Beach and Chesapeake residents would live in high-noise zones. Members of the group say they have several possible actions: quit, wait, request an administrative solution from the Navy, or sue. At a meeting Thursday of the group's steering committee, the group agreed that quitting or waiting are unlikely. Herbert Stokely, a retired Navy pilot and member of the group, said, "Every time I look at the (Navy's plan), I see something that needs to be better addressed. We're trying to get as many things on the record as we can." The citizens group has collected 800 signatures in a petition drive, and believes that its research into the topic has raised enough questions that the Navy should reconsider its plan. For example, the group says, the Navy didn't address a recent study from Cornell University that found constant engine roar from jets can affect the health and psychological well-being of children. The group's members say they want their neighborhoods as quiet as possible, but they are willing to work toward a compromise. Hal Levenson, a member of the group's steering committee, said the group will stay active even after the Navy chooses a plan.
Meanwhile, the article explains, the North Carolinians working with the Virginia citizens group want the Cherry Point Air Station to get some of the planes because they say their local economy needs a boost. Siting two fleet squadrons near a town is estimated to put about $31 million a year into the town. Hugh Overholt, a retired Army Major General and an attorney who is leading North Carolina's legal effort, said Cherry Point is an ideal home for three to five squadrons because it has available runway space and living quarters, and a rural, isolated environment. He added, "Our folks down here would love to have the planes." Overholt also said that it's too early to talk about the possibility of a lawsuit, but he noted that Virginia Beach residents would be in the best position to challenge the Navy's decision.
The article notes that the Navy's final decision is expected around the first of May.
PUBLICATION: Orlando Sentinel Tribune
DATE: April 19, 1998
SECTION: Seminole Extra; Pg. K8
DATELINE: Oviedo, Florida
The Orlando Sentinel Tribune printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Bruce Olson, an Oviedo, Florida resident, regarding aircraft noise, especially in the Orlando area:
With regard to those Lake Mary residents complaining about airport noise -- I just hate to say it, but it's just part of growth. I have experienced it for most of my home-owning years.
It began when I lived in Palatine, Illinois, 28 miles from Chicago. An Air Force Reserve base was expanded into O'Hare -- the world's busiest airport. I moved to Orlando in the Fort Gatlin area. McCoy Air Force Base became Orlando International. I moved to Oviedo, which was dark at night with wildlife all around and quiet. But at last they found me. The GreeneWay, urban growth, runway expansion at OIA and, last (but not least), Orlando Sanford Airport has grown into an international airport.
Complain as much as you want. Holler at all the politicians. Call whomever you wish. It is here, and everyone calls it progress. By the way, I'm losing my hearing, so it's not so bad anymore.
PUBLICATION: The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News (Stuart, FL)
DATE: April 19, 1998
SECTION: At Home; Pg. G8
BYLINE: Gene Gary
DATELINE: U.S.
The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News printed a column in which the writer responds to a question by a reader about how to dampen noise from traffic, barking dogs, kids playing, late-night parties, etc. -- the general noise from a growing neighborhood. The columnist responds by discussing types of insulation, windows, walls, and other materials that can help deaden noise.
According to the columnist, there is almost no way to block exterior noise completely. However, a few soundproofing measures can provide some relief.
The article says that the most effective way to block street noise is to build a concrete block or brick wall at least 6-feet high. For people who live in a two story building, the wall would have to be higher to protect the second-floor level. The columnist notes that such a wall can block nearly 60 percent of the street sounds, but a wooden fence would reduce noise only by about 5%.
The article goes on to explain that improving wall and ceiling insulation might slightly reduce noise levels, but most noise enters homes through windows, doors, open areas, and the wooden framework of the house itself. Noise can be blocked from entering the house by sealing up holes around windows, electrical service entrances, and vents with caulking and weather stripping. In addition, the article recommends, adding air conditioning will allow you to close windows and shut out the noise. The columnist says if you get a window-mounted air conditioner, make sure it's mounted on and surrounded by EPDM gaskets to isolate vibrations from the wall.
The article explains that another option is to replace single pane windows with double-pane or triple-pane glass. This option is fairly expensive, but it can reduce noise levels by nearly 50% or more, depending on the type of window replacement. New windows also can reduce energy costs, the article notes. Windows with two or three layers of glass have an airspace between them which provides good sound insulation, the article says. Windows with two panes of glass have an R-value (insulation value) of 1.5 to 1.8, while windows with three panes of glass have R-values between 1.8 and 2.8. The width of the airspace will affect the performance of the windows, the columnist explains. The optimum airspace width is between 1/2 and 5/8 inches. Windows that have argon injected between the panes also have better insulation than those that have air between the panes. The columnist recommends selecting a window 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 these types of windows will intercept different sound frequencies. In addition, vinyl window frames will deaden sound more than aluminum frames. The article explains that some manufacturers specialize in windows that insulate against sound, and their products come with STC (Sound Transmission Coefficient) ratings in addition to R-value. These windows are similar to energy-saving windows, but use a few more sound dampening features in their design. The columnist mentions that you may not be able to find windows that fit your window openings. However, framing can be adapted to fit a new window, or custom windows can be built. If this is too expensive, the columnist recommends replacing windows only on the sides of the house that face the street or other noisy areas.
Another option, the article says, is to install interior storm windows if new windows are too expensive. These magnetically-mounted windows will help reduce exterior noise, they are easy to install, and they can be used in certain rooms or throughout the house.
The article goes on to discuss insulating around entrance doors. The columnist says a solid door with a tight-fitting threshold, weather-stripping, and a good storm door blocks out four times as much noise as a hollow-core door with no storm door. In addition, the article recommends, check the vents and ducts on your house that allow outside noise to come in. You can install an extra elbow or section of bent flexible duct to create an indirect sound path. Dampers or flaps on bath, kitchen, and laundry vents are important for blocking noise.
A final method to consider is purchasing an electronic appliance that creates "white noise," which is supposed to mask other noise. But, the article says, this could be a short-term solution if the white noise becomes as irritating as the noise you're trying to block.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: April 23, 1998
SECTION: News Fact Finder Pg.02b
DATELINE: Shivley, Kentucky
The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky, published the following question and answer in its News Fact Finder column, a service to readers who have questions about public works projects. Residents John and Irene Pircock of Shively asked about erecting noise barriers on Kentucky's Interstate 264:
Q: Since Interstate 264 has been constructed, we've had a lot of damage to our property. . . . The straw that broke the camel's back happened a few weeks ago. As one truck was passing by, it hit a bump or something, and the vibration was so bad that the family portrait from our 50th wedding anniversary came tumbling down off the wall. What we and many others in our neighborhood are asking is for the highway department to build a sound barrier along our area of the highway, as they've done in other locations.
A: The state highway department began building noise walls in about 1990, said Bill Monhollon, chief engineer for the Kentucky Department of Highways, District 5. The department's policy is to offer the walls in areas where noise is increased because of reconstruction, he said.
The department does not retrofit a pre-existing condition, such as the 20- year-old section of the interstate near you, because the cost of building walls for all those who request them is prohibitive.
But Monhollon said if you request the department to investigate, it can check for irregularities in the pavement that may be making the traffic louder than it needs to be. Or, it might suggest steps homeowners could take to improve comfort. Monhollon can be reached at 367-6411.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: April 22, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Freida N. Gad
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that in February, the Arlington Heights Village Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise voted against joining a coalition that supports building a third regional airport. However, committee discussions on the topic continue.
According to the article, "The (village) board is asking this committee to make a decision on a third airport," said Trustee Virginia Z. Kucera. "We don't have to choose a new airport." The committee did not believe an airport in Peotone would reduce noise in Arlington Heights. At the February meeting, the committee heard conflicting projections on whether the number of flights at O'Hare will increase in the future. A Federal Aviation Administration plan predicts a 30 percent increase in flights by 2010. On the other hand, executives for both American and United Airlines predicted no increase in flights because of larger, more advanced aircraft replacing older, smaller jets.
The article states principal Planner Stacy Sigman told the committee that the manager of the Rockford airport would like to meet with them in the future to speak against a third airport. But Kucera worried that Illinois money and jobs could move out of state. "Many of us object to sending airport funds outside the state. Where those flights originate or where the jobs are is important," said Kucera. "I'm not interested in pumping up Gary (Ind.) or Mitchell (airport in Milwaukee)." The board will continue discussing the third airport issue at its meeting on May 19.
PUBLICATION: Leicester Mercury (England)
DATE: April 20, 1998
SECTION: Business: Companies, Pg.2
BYLINE: Claire Jones
DATELINE: England
The Leicester Mercury of England reports that British Telephone has admitted liability in twenty cases of acoustic shock in workers.
According to the article, the firm's announcement follows a Leicester BT operator alleging she may have permanent hearing problems after suffering an acoustic shock. BT, however, is not admitting liability in this case. BT says the cases in which it was liable dated from 1989 to 1991. Since then, safety devices have been installed to prevent operators being injured. Spokesman Paul Dorrell said: "The equipment used in telephone exchanges, directory assistance and operator assistance, which incorporates both 100 and 999 calls, has changed. The workstations that operators work at have safeguards built into them." Suppressor cards are now installed that would not allow any noise through that is higher than 85 decibels - the equivalent of someone shouting. Operators' headsets also had volume controls that could be set by the individual employee, and cannot carry any noise in excess of 118 decibels should the suppressor cards fail. BT claims even 118 decibels is not high enough to cause permanent hearing damage in most people, although it admits it cannot account for individual sensitivity.
The article goes on to report on Saturday that Julie Daws, of Crown Hills, Leicester, says her right ear drum was perforated answering a call that came through too loud while working at the Leicester exchange. Daws is planning to sue BT for compensation for her hearing loss, with the support of the Communication Workers Union that is currently involved in 45 similar cases. Dorrell claims: "In Julie's case the suppressor did not fail. We know because it has been thoroughly checked. The headsets have been sent away to the manufacturers and came back with a bill of health."
Previous week: April 12, 1998
Next week: April 26, 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