Noise News for Week of August 16, 1998

Burbank Airport Expansion Plan Lamented and Praised by Editorialists

PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: August 22, 1998
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. N18
DATELINE: Burbank, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ron Vanderford, appointees to the FAA Noise Mitigation Study; Ernest R. Grant, Citizens United of Burbank

The Daily News of Los Angeles ran the following editorials regarding the fairness of the El Toro Airport plan and relocation of the terminal at Burbank Airport.

Ron Vanderford, an appointee to the FAA Noise Mitigation Study, is one of the many editorialists published. Vanderford believes many problems associated with the expansion of Burbank, LAX and other area airports could be solved if FAA Administrator Jane Garvey would simply freeze all FAA grants until a master plan for all airport expansion in Southern California was developed. "Cut off the flow of money and watch how quickly our local politicians can get together to develop a plan that makes more sense environmentally than the present one of grabbing every FAA dollar you can, any way you can." A noise map from the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority Daily News was published with the editorials. The map demonstrates the expected increase in noise pollution over the next 12 years. The editorials reads as follows:

My husband and I are stationed at Edwards Air Force Base, and after several long trips to LAX have switched to Burbank and won't go back to LAX. We have all of our family and friends fly into Burbank.

It's always been a pleasant experience with short lines, small crowds, close parking, and you only wait five to 10 minutes for your bags. If it's expanded, I would foresee some of those conveniences that we enjoy would disappear.

An expansion would definitely impact the neighborhoods surrounding the airport. From being in the Air Force, we saw contractors building homes too near the base, and next thing you know they're complaining about the noise.

I think curfews on night flights would help the neighborhood, but would hurt travelers. Burbank Airport is just perfect the way it is; I hope it's not changed. - Jane Lostumbo


I live in the Valley Village section of North Hollywood. We hear substantial noise from Burbank Airport, as do the neighborhoods to the immediate north, south and east - all of which are in the city of Los Angeles.

The prevailing "let them live elsewhere" attitude held by many in favor of increasing the airport capacity doesn't begin to honor the emotional ties we have to our community. Nor does the "soundproof your house" advice begin to acknowledge the expense and upheaval of retrofitting 50-year-old homes, which are typical of this area. Of course, it is easy to dispense arrogant and dismissive statements when one does not have to be held accountable to the residents suffering the damages.

Over the past few years, our homeowners association has supported the city of Burbank in its resistance. It's a city fighting on behalf of not only its own residents, but those of us in L.A. who, though directly affected, have no direct say.

We now appeal to Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Jane Garvey and others to find a solution that does not condemn us to being the dumping ground for increased airport noise. We can only hope that she agrees that cities not adversely affected by the airport noise have no right to determine the future of those who will, especially those who have been disenfranchised from the decision-making process. - Paula Humerick

North Hollywood

The issue regarding relocation of the terminal at Burbank Airport is primarily one of safety. The current location of the terminal, which dates back to the 1930s, puts some of the aircraft operations dangerously close to the terminal.

The convenience of the airport to local business and families is undeniable, and with almost exclusive use of newer, quieter aircraft at Burbank, noise levels are much lower than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Also, most pilots who operate out of Burbank are very conscious of trying to be good neighbors and are working hard to keep noise levels down.

In the interests of increasing safety and convenience to the community, I highly support efforts to relocate the terminal at Burbank. - Brian O'Connor


Yes, yes, yes, I would like to see Burbank Airport expanded to meet the travel needs of the ever-growing San Fernando Valley population. Not to go ahead with the growth would be a real disservice to those of us who use the airport facilities on a regular basis.

The services now available are so convenient and time-saving - parking is excellent and reasonably priced, and bus service to and from the lots is efficient, clean and easy to use. The flights are numerous and generally on time.

I am truly excited at the prospect of an even bigger and better airport to serve our community. - Diane Gaynor

Sherman Oaks

As we enter the 21st century and the age of new technology, our progress, success, growth and happiness require Burbank Airport, with its new terminal and the airport's convenience in the future.

The future projections for traffic speeds of automobiles due to increase in population and congestions are less than 10 mph. Try to get to LAX for your flight at that speed.

The new technology age is bringing new types of aircraft and air transportation methods, with emphasis on safety and noise reduction. How sad for our children and their business, pleasure and futures if we do not have a convenient, safe and modern technology airport at Burbank. - Timothy McGovern


As one of the Burbank appointees to the present FAA Noise Mitigation Study, my sincere thanks for devoting a Public Forum segment to the Burbank Airport expansion issue.

With plans for a terminal that will ultimately be four times as large as the present one, a mandatory curfew on night flights and cap on growth are necessary to protect the residential areas that surround the airport. The relocation of the terminal opens the possibility of rerouting some of the takeoff noise to the east. If this " noise sharing" does occur, those living south and west of the airport will still be worse off than they are today due to an increasing number of flights.

With the exception of automobiles in general, LAX is the single largest source of air pollution in the L.A. Basin. Since the eastern San Fernando Valley is home to some of the worst air in the region, it makes no sense to convert Burbank into a large international airport.

Every year, progress is made in lessening pollution from automobiles. The same is not true for airliners. No one has yet figured out how to put a catalytic converter on a jet engine.

What's the answer to providing air service for an increasing number of travelers? A passenger airport in Palmdale can be a large part of it. An excellent Daily News article July 13 noted that the population of the Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys is predicted to grow by 680,000 additional residents by 2010. If this projection holds true, these areas will be as heavily populated by 2010 as the San Fernando Valley is today.

Along with the predicted growth, rush-hour speeds on portions of the Golden State Freeway may drop to as low as 3 mph. To have air travelers stuck in traffic getting to Burbank when they could be driving against traffic to Palmdale is environmental lunacy.

Much of the $300 million or so to be spent on the new terminal will come from the FAA. One impetus for this large terminal seems to be to bring in as many FAA dollars as possible. FAA Administrator Jane Garvey could solve many of the problems with the expansion of Burbank, LAX and other area airports by simply freezing all FAA grants until a master plan for airport expansion is developed for all of Southern California.

Cut off the flow of money and watch how quickly our local politicians can get together to develop a plan that makes more sense environmentally than the present one of grabbing every FAA dollar you can, any way you can. - Ron Vanderford


Let's move forward now to build a safer, modern airport at Burbank. Any more delays will only mushroom the costs and prolong the hazards in operating a facility built to meet safety standards that are now antiquated.

The present terminal is barely able to handle the passenger load, much less the increases guaranteed by population growth.

Burbank politicians are spending millions in public funds by forcing litigation - grandstanding for the benefit of the small portion of voters who turned out for the last city election. - Steve Volz

Studio City

We are coming into a time when we believe the long-term future of Burbank is at stake.

We have to consider all means of transportation, both surface (freeways, roads, rail) and air, as present and future economic lifelines to the continued well-being of Burbank. We believe the logical and economical integration of these two modes of transportation, planning-wise, is paramount to the long-range financial stability and quality of life for Burbank. - Angus Desveaux


This battle over Burbank isn't about aircraft noise; it's about Burbank's greed and desire to take over the airport. The city has wasted more than $7 million of the taxpayers' money to pay lawyers and political consultants to wage a propaganda campaign to keep the public from learning the truth.

A modern, safe terminal with 19 gates to meet today's passenger demand is a modest, reasonable proposal. Anyone who has bothered to look at the facts knows that. The Burbank City Council is being unreasonable. It should stop wasting the taxpayers' money. - Stan Lynch


I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Garvey along with other homeowner representatives Aug. 11 regarding Burbank Airport. The following problems and solutions were brought up:

There should be a guideline for stronger enforcement and a better way to educate pilots as to regulations. Noise could be reduced significantly just by enforcing regulations already in place.

Some Burbank flights should take off to the east, thereby allowing Van Nuys flights to fly at a higher altitude.

The FAA should include Burbank and Van Nuys airports in its Southern California Task Force. A project would then be set up to determine the best routes and what would be done to have the least impact on residential neighborhoods.

A mandatory curfew (on all nonessential flights) between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. would allow affected communities to sleep at night and therefore make living near an airport more acceptable.

We need airports willing to make compromises with the public. If both sides would give in a little, we could again have a lovely community with profitable airports. - Anne Carver

Co-chair, Airport Committee

Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association

Sherman Oaks

I do think an expanded airport would severely affect not only Burbank residents but also Sun Valley residents. The noise from the runway on the northwest side is unbelievable - one plane after another ready for takeoff, some noisier than others.

When the Santa Ana winds blow, the planes all take off in the northwest direction, right over our houses - sometimes one plane every three minutes.

About the curfew: It's a good thing, but only if everybody follows it. So far it has not worked very well. We hear planes 24 hours a day - not just jetliners but small private planes as well. We have enough noise as it is; don't make it worse by expanding the airport. - Lillian Renderer

Sun Valley

Yes! An expanded airport would severely affect me and our entire city.

Although I'm not directly in the flight path, I hear every flight in and out, and am awakened by those flights violating the curfew.

I have been very vocal in letting my City Council know that I don't resent one penny we're paying in legal fees against this expansion. If the expansion goes forward with no guarantees on curfews and number of flights, we are forever doomed to a horrible quality of life.

Move the terminal, modernize it, make it safe - but don't expand it. - Doris Bennett


I support Burbank Airport's plans to bring its unsafe, horse-and-buggy terminal into the 21st century.

So should FAA boss Jane Garvey. In reality she has no choice. Included in the FAA's responsibility, spelled out in the law establishing it, are:

Fostering civil aeronautics and air commerce.

Ensuring the safe and efficient use of the nation's airspace.

Limiting access to Burbank Airport further by a locally imposed, mandatory curfew, flight caps or unsafe flight-path changes would fly in the face of Garvey's commitment to uphold the FAA's mission statement.

Let's err on safety's side. Don't pander to hysteria-driven eco-activists who have an ultimate goal of airport closure. - Don Dufford


Burbank Airport was just that until it recently became "Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport," with the FAA owning and operating the control tower. Political science recognizes this as a regional "council of governments."

It's a type of governmental cooperative to assure success for the defined operation. COGs are given a trial opportunity but not dictatorial control to change the host city's laws or the original scope of responsibility.

Due to the differences between the sponsoring cities, as well as an apparently authoritarian airport authority, there is just cause for dissolving the Glendale and Pasadena participation in this COG. As constituted, they are attempting to make policy against Burbank and California laws. Growth of the airport will redistribute our tax burdens.

Why should Burbank residents give up their quality of life for a nonprofit airport? As members of Citizens United of Burbank, we stand for an airport we can live with. Return it to the host city - Burbank. - Ernest R. Grant


I support relocation and construction of a modern replacement terminal at Burbank Airport, but definitely do not want expansion of airport operations. Increased flights with accompanying noise/ pollution and increased automobile traffic with accompanying wear and tear on Burbank's infrastructure will severely hurt the quality of life for my family, my neighborhood and all city residents. Curfews on night flights and growth caps are the only acceptable option.

I acknowledge the convenience of using Burbank Airport, but my family uses LAX because of lower rates on flights. The Airport Authority must begin to listen to its neighbors' serious concerns; we need an airport we can live with. - Carol Hoeschen


There are two groups of villains in the frustrating and expensive saga of Burbank Airport's sorely needed new terminal.

One is the real estate salesmen who, apparently using guns or thumbscrews, forced people to buy homes near an airportB that has been operating since 1930.

The other group consists of pandering politicians and local headline-grabbers who refuse to face the facts that the airport today produces only a small fraction of yesterday's noise, and that a thriving community needs a safe terminal that's roomy enough to handle the constantly growing number of passengers who prefer Burbank Airport.

Ending the multimillion-dollar squabble and getting on with building the terminal Burbank must have is long overdue. - James E. Foy

North Hollywood

With regard to the new terminal at Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, I feel that a larger terminal will not change the traffic situation, nor will it add more passengers.

The only thing that adds more passengers is supply and demand. The more population in the area, the more passengers. Building a larger terminal will supply conveniences to the airlines and the office staff with more space and modern equipment, plus the passengers waiting for flights will be able to sit in a chair instead of standing or sitting on the floor.

I feel that the people complaining about the new terminal are but a handful compared to the whole city. Most people have the common sense that building a larger facility is not going to make more flights.

We need a larger terminal now, not many years of court battles and wasting money on a no-win situation. - Sharon Silsby

North Hollywood

I travel regularly from Burbank Airport to Portland, Ore. For longer flights I use LAX. I live close to the Sherman Oaks Galleria, and can see my house on both the departure and arrival patterns. This also puts me in the flight pattern of Van Nuys Airport. I expected that I would have airplane noise when I chose this location.

Burbank is convenient and uncrowded. I cannot see the need for expansion beyond its regional focus. Regional flights can be done with curfews that are reasonable to both residents and travelers. The same can be said for noncommercial flights at Van Nuys.

LAX is already too large for its urban environment. If there were an international airport in Palmdale, I would use it. I believe such an airport would solve the problems of LAX by diverting long-distance fliers from the Valley and other outlying areas.

I have little sympathy for those who would drastically scale back operations at Burbank or Van Nuys. They live here because they like or need an urban environment. Most bought their houses under these conditions. Many found prosperity in the aerospace industry.

If the Valley is to become an independent city, it needs a strong commercial and industrial base, and a transportation infrastructure independent of Los Angeles to support it. - William S. Pirone

Sherman Oaks NOTES: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. For today's Public Forum, readers were asked to comment on whether they would like to see Burbank Airport expanded and what impacts that would have on the neighboring areas.


Burbank Airport could see an increase in noise pollution over the next 12 years.; 1998 noise footprint 2010 noise footprint;

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Airplanes are Unbearably Loud for Family Living Near Palm Beach International Airport

PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: August 22, 1998
SECTION: Opinion, Pg. 13A
DATELINE: Palm Beach, Florida

The Palm Beach Post published the following editorial from a resident living near Palm Beach International Airport (PBIA). The editorialist articulates his feelings of powerlessness amidst discussions of further PBIA expansion.

It's the so-called off-season for tourism now, but I would like to remind people and Palm Beach County officials that even though Palm Beach International Airport is not so busy, the jet traffic is still unbearably loud.

I called the PBIA noise line at 5:58 p.m. July 17 to report what seemed to me to be an unacceptable noise output from a plane taking off over my house in Prospect Park. Shannon Thomas, the county's noise abatement officer, wrote me a letter with the facts on this flight.

Apparently, the Boeing 737 Stage II aircraft (the noisiest kind) of US Airways Flight 1636 departed Runway 9L on a straight-out heading of 95 degrees, at an altitude of 1,047 feet and 1,344 feet from my home. It registered a noise level of 93.8 decibels at the noise monitor closest to my home.

I do not have a large business in Palm Beach County and do not have millions of dollars to fight the airport's planned expansion. I am just a working man with a wife and a child - and a giant that roars at my family whenever it wishes.

Johnny Kaye

West Palm Beach NOTES: Letters to the Editor

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

The City of Burbank Launches a 35-Page Attack on Airport Noise Study

PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: August 21, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N6
BYLINE: Deborah Sullivan
DATELINE: Burbank, California

The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that Burbank city officials have launched at 35-page attack on the Burbank Airport's noise study. City officials claim the document "fails to lay a foundation for real, effective aircraft noise abatement."

According to the article the city of Burbank is trying to eliminate airport expansion plans because of complaints from residents about noise.

The article says that the city's letter points out how the airport's study unfairly rejects the noise abatement measures the city has been advocating, including: a mandatory curfew, a cap on flights and a noise budget to spread a limited amount of noise among various airport users. The study reportedly found that these measures would be difficult, expensive or could provoke contention among airport users.

Peter Kirsh, the city's attorney on airport issues, is noted saying that the city's suggestions deserve, at a minimum, further investigation than the abrupt dismissal they were given in the airport's study.

The article quotes a similar message directly from the city's comment letter: "The draft impermissibly omits consideration of noise abatement options which provide substantial and meaningful noise abatement relief." The letter says further, "[The noise study] fails to approach the problem of noise abatement in a creative, positive, solution-oriented manner."

Airport spokesman Victor Gill accused the city of taking a negative and adversarial stance in its letter. The article quotes Gill saying, "I think the city is more anxious to manipulate public opinion than it is to assist the authority in addressing noise issues. Nonetheless, all of their comments will receive thorough review, and if there are good ideas in there, I'm sure the study will take a look at them." According to Gill the study's authors, Coffman Associates of Kansas City, will respond to all comments.

The article includes a specific list of recommendations made in the city's letter that the city says is needed to remedy problems with the study. They are as follows:

(1) Holding more "brainstorming sessions" with representatives of Burbank and affected community groups;

(2) Allowing members of the study's advisory committee to speak with the consultant and have access to all legal and technical analyses of noise abatement measures; and

(3) Using noise-exposure maps to identify which operations contribute most to airport noise, such as nighttime vs. daytime flights, earlier "Stage 2" jets vs. newer "Stage 3" jets, or air carriers vs. business jets.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Eagle Town, Wisconsin Needs State Action to Stop Clay Shooting Noise

PUBLICATION: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: August 21, 1998
SECTION: Aukesha Pg. 2
BYLINE: Sam Martino
DATELINE: Town of Eagle, Wisconsin

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that a new state law prohibits the restriction of gunfire noise at the McMiller Sports Center in Eagle Town, Wisconsin. The article says Wisconsin's Range Protection Bill prohibits local governments from using noise as an issue to regulate existing shooting ranges.

Town Chairman Don Wilton deferred the issue to the state saying it will have to find a solution to the problem of gunfire noise generated from the sports center.

Wilton's comments were made Thursday after he and other local officials were told by Town Attorney Betty Adelman that the town could not take any legal action to combat the new law. According to the article the law prohibits the town from limiting gunfire at a clay pigeon shooting range.

The article says the range first opened in 1994 at the McMiller Sports Center and has been the source of noise complaints from the town and center neighbors for some time. A sportsman's shooting club called Wern Vally operates the clay pigeon range and other gun ranges for pistols, rifles and shotguns. The state Department of Natural Resources leases the center to Wern Valley Inc. The DNR insists they want to be good neighbors.

Town Chairman Don Wilton is quoted saying, "If they (state officials) are sincere in wanting to be good neighbors, they will rectify the noise. The ball is in their court."

But the article indicates that according to DNR spokesperson, Jim Morrissey, a report recently completed by the DNR and a citizens advisory committee discussing the future of the range offered no new measures to reduce the gunfire noise.

Earlier efforts to quiet the gunfire noise by creating new structures failed.

Later the town denied the DNR an extension of a conditional use permit for operation of the sporting clay range forcing the sporting clay range to close in August of 1997.

Six months after that, a Waukesha County Circuit Court reversed the town's decision and upheld the DNR's position.

Then in May, 1998 the state Legislature passed legislation that prohibits local governments from using noise as an issue to regulate existing shooting ranges.

The sporting clay range opened again in June and residents near the center are again disturbed by the gunfire noise.

Town Attorney Betty Adelman is noted in the article saying that the residents' issues with the noise are not unreasonable. "The residents were there before the sporting clays. It's not that the residents were moving in and subjecting themselves to a nuisance. Its clear to me that the noise is significantly excessive."

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Steel Company Hires Noise Consultants to Identify Source of Noise Problems

PUBLICATION: Journal Sentinel
DATE: August 21, 1998
SECTION: Ozaukee Washington Pg. 2
BYLINE: Pat Raab
DATELINE: Saukville, Wisconsin

The Journal Sentinel reports that the Charter Steel Manufacturing plant in Saukville, Wisconsin has hired a consultant to evaluate and recommend solutions to noise problems.

The announcement was made at a meeting organized by Town Chairman Terry Hoffman. According to the article complaints to the company officials have failed to solicit any response. Hoffman reportedly arranged the meeting to bring residents and company representatives together and so company officials could hear the neighbors' concerns.

But neighbors who attended the meeting say that although they appreciated the opportunity to air their frustrations about the noise, they are wary that any action will be forthcoming.

One resident, Donald Race Sr., reportedly brought a 3-inch-tall file of letters and other data tracking the problems since 1990. Race Sr. was noted saying his complaints "fell on deaf ears."

Race Sr. said the company had put up noise barriers on three sides, but left the north side wide open for the sound to blast out like a band she ll. "Why must we put up with that?" the article said, quoting Race Sr.

His son, Donald Race Jr., is noted saying the noise as "just horrendous." He described how the noise makes the windows in his house rattle. The younger Race conveyed that his frustration is aggravated by the fact that he and the neighbors have been through this once before. He was referring to an earlier study that ended without any action.

The article noted that company vice president and general manager Louis Allegra acknowledged the earlier study but clarified that it was a college student's project. Allegra announced that the company hired a noise consultant to take noise measurements, identify the source of the noise and make recommendations on how to correct or minimize the problem.

The news article stated that a second meeting has been scheduled for Oct. 21 at Town Hall as suggested by Allegra. The meeting is intended to review the consultant's report.

According to the article, Allegra also stated that the company has instructed their consultant to target noise measurements at a time that coincides with specific noisy functions at the plant, which is when prevailing winds could carry the sound northward into the town.

Neighbors were told by Allegra to call (414) 268-2387 to report noise problems and the times they occurred. Their reports may assist the company in tracking the specific manufacturing process that is triggering the complaints.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Residents Complain about a Low-frequency Noise at Paper Recycling Plant in Northampton, Pennsylvania

PUBLICATION: The Morning Call
DATE: August 21, 1998
SECTION: Bethlehem, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Christian D. Berg
DATELINE: Northampton, Pennsylvania

The Morning Call reports that residents of Northampton, Pennsylvania are turning to local government to eliminate the low-frequency noise that rattles their windows, vibrates their homes and wakes them up at night.

Residents say Ponderosa Fibres paper recycling plant is the source of the noise. The council responded to the residents' complaints by voting unanimously to conduct professional tests to determine the source of the noise.

According to the article about 25 residents showed up at the Thursday night Borough Council meeting. They spoke to the council for about an hour about the problems they have been facing from the low-frequency noise and vibrations. One resident described in the article, Alex Fardis, said, "The noise that I hear is worse than it ever was. You can't sleep. This plant should be closed down."

Doug Margraf, a neighbor of Fardis, likened the noise to a helicopter or loud motor that becomes worse between 3 and 6 a.m. Margraf is reported saying that he must sleep in his basement in order to get a good night's sleep and indicated that the noise often awakens his 18-month-old son.

According to the article Ponderosa plant manager James E. Flynn sent a letter to Borough Manager Gene Zarayko, saying Ponderosa did an overview of its entire operation and found no low-frequency noise. Flynn's words are quoted as, "If Ponderosa is the source, we will take steps to control it."

The council's unanimous vote unanimously to conduct random sound tests is intended to determine the noise source. Rollin Inc., an industrial engineering firm from Stroudsburg, has been hired to do the testing, the article said.

According to the article, noise is not the only complaint residents have with the Ponderosa plant. Residents have been registering their complaints about Ponderosa's odors at council meeting since the plant first began operations in July 1997.

The article provides further information about Ponderosa's numerous attempts to eliminate the odors and the odor control plan that it recently submitted to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Residents Let out Their Fury Regarding Noise at Manchester Airport

PUBLICATION: The Union Leader
DATE: August 21, 1998
SECTION: Section A Pg.
BYLINE: Derek Rose
DATELINE: Manchester, New Hampshire

The Union Leader report that a raucous and angry crowd released their fury about noise from New Hampshire's Manchester Airport at last night's meeting. Promises from airport officials to begin a new noise survey failed to quieten their anger.

The survey promised by Assistant Airport Director Richard Fixler would take about six months to complete, the article said. Residents, on the other hand, are finding the daily blasts and stench of planes landing and taking off intolerable for daily life.

Several South end residents quoted in the article depict the degree of intrusion in daily life.

"We literally have to put our fingers in our ears when we go outside," the article said quoting Jackie Zeits of 208 Mystic St. She described how the noise makes talking to neighbors or playing out in the yard nearly impossible.

Patricia Russell of 315 Mystic St. described how the noise disrupts even the use and enjoyment of modern technology, "You can't hold a telephone conversation for most parts of the day, because sometime a plane is going to go over," she said. "You can't watch a TV program, because you'll miss part of it."

Another resident, Andre Gelinas of 315 Mystic St, showed a 12-minute video of planes nearly skimming the treetops over his home. "The planes are noisy, they're unbearable. We get waken up in all times of the night. We can't live with it no longer." the article said quoting Gelinas, who, according to the article, who received a standing ovation from the crowd of around 150.

The noise survey promised by airport officials would place monitors in residents' yards, to develop data that would be used to update "noise contours" which are used to determine which houses are eligible for federally funded soundproofing. The contours were last updated in 1995.

It was just this past February, however, that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) accepted the latest contours, which purported to show a decrease in airport noise.

The crowd ridiculed this suggestion and complained bitterly about how their homes had suddenly been passed over and become ineligible for the soundproofing under the most recent data.

FAA's Environmental programs manager, John C. Silva, said the new noise contours assumed that runway 6-24, the east-west runway, had been lengthened to permit more planes to land. But the extension of the 6-24 runway won't actually take place until the end of 2000; and when it does, the usage of the runway will increase 15 to 40 percent. According to the article runway 6-24 avoids most residential areas by taking planes over the Great Cohas Swamp and the Mall of New Hampshire.

Although these facts were apparently not in dispute, the question of eligibility for soundproofing funds was a point of contention. Silva argued that if residents are only going to have to hear the added noise for two years, The federal government should not be paying for the soundproofing. The soundproofing costs between $23,000 and $25,000.

According to the article Silvia was in the hot seat for much of the three-hour meeting. He is quoted saying, "I say it's going to get quieter, and they laugh at me."

The article also points out that the present noise contours were made before Southwest and Northwest airlines began using the airport. Residents feel the noise is much greater now that the new airlines have started using the runways.

Silva on the other hand emphasized that homeowners would not necessarily fare any better even if a noise survey demonstrated there is increased airport noise. "We can show what's eligible (for soundproofing) but what's eligible is not what's going to get the funds," the article said quoting Silva's words after the meeting.

Silva referred to the 17-year wait that homeowners in Providence put up with simply because the amount the airport receives (2.5 million a year) from the federal government for sound abatement is limited.

Silva's message to the crowd, concisely given was summed up in the quote, "The point is - I don't establish these funds. They come from Congress. Without being flippant, the answer is, see your congressman."

Residents attending the meeting also reportedly harped on the fact that residents living in less-noisy areas were receiving soundproofing funds while they are not. They also complained about the plane routes saying that while airport officials claim planes are flying over a railroad bed and power lines, they're really flying directly over their homes.

Finally there is the problem of jet fuel stench and the complaint that the noise contours were changed without public knowledge. The Assistant Airport Director Richard Fixler, countered and indicated that some 40 public meetings had been held on the topic.

According to the article the meeting was organized and moderated by Ward 9 Alderman Robert J. Pariseau. Airport Director Fred Testa did not attend the meeting because of a family emergency.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Offers No Relief for Lisle, Illinois

PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: August 21, 1998
SECTION: Metro Du Page; Pg. 3; Zone: D
BYLINE: Laura Zahn Pohl.
DATELINE: Lisle, Illinois

Chicago Tribune reports that residents and village officials in Lisle, Illinois are irritated with the noise generated from Interstate Highway 355 and Interstate Highway 88. No action for relief is forthcoming, however, from the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority.

According to the article, the Authority's Executive Director, Ralph Wehner, issued a memo saying that a noise barrier 20 feet tall would not achieve enough improvement. The East-West toll road may be considered for noise barriers but only when the roadway is widened.

The highway authority position is based in part on a recently completed "modeling" study of Interstate 355 noise levels using computerized data from 1996 and highway speeds of 55 m.p.h.

Lisle trustees took issue with the use of 55 m.p.h. as a typical speed and decided this week to express their concerns to Wehner.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Final Hearing for Maine's Ban of Personal Watercraft Concentrates on Residents of Tunk and Donnell Lakes

PUBLICATION: Bangor Daily News
DATE: August 20, 1998
BYLINE: Jeff Tuttle
DATELINE: Ellsworth, Maine

The Bangor Daily News reports that the recent law banning personal watercraft from 245 lakes and ponds under Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission's (LURC) jurisdiction came before the Commission for a final hearing. Landowners on two of the larger Hancock County lakes turned out in force both for and against the ban on personal watercraft.

The landowners were from Tunk Lake and Donnell Pond - both lakes were tacked on the list in a House amendment to the original bill. Persons favoring the ban highlighted noise pollution, environmental stability and safety as key issues. Those against the ban said owners of personal watercraft owners were being subject to unfair treatment under the law, regardless of their behavior or operation the vehicles, known as jet skis.

The article highlights the words of several of the over 100 persons in attendance at the Commission's final hearing. Ruth Colgrove, for example is described as being resident of New York City who has summered with her family on Tunk Lake for decades. Colgrove believes the ban will preserve the lake's tranquility and the safety of its swimmers. The article notes that it is her belief that those who live on the remote lake and own personal watercraft are careful but persons from out of town are not so considerate. According to the article, Colgrove described an occurrence where two personal watercraft operators were playing a dangerous game of chicken with one another near the shore. "We have to put a stop to this before somebody really gets hurt or killed," the article said quoting Colgrove.

The article also highlighted the words of Kim Bishop, a summer resident on Donnell Pond in Franklin, who spoke against the ban. Bishop and her family have safely operated personal watercraft on the pond for years. She expressed her frustration that the Legislature included Donnell Pond in the list without a public hearing.

"Whoever added Donnell Pond to the list obviously has never been to Donnell Pond," the article said, quoting Bishop. The lake, she said is not a busy one and there are rarely more than a handful of boats at any one time. Donnell was quoted saying, "Residents did not have a say,"

The law prohibits the use of the small watercraft on any of four different types of lakes and ponds, mostly remote and pristine lakes and ponds. Larger lakes such as Donnel Pond, and Tunk Lake fall under the fourth category and were added after legislative public hearings were closed.

Rep. William Pinkham, a Lamoine Republican, was according to the article, one who voted against the House amendment. Pinkham is a retired Marine Patrol officer. He argued that existing regulations were already fashioned to respond to the landowners concerns. According to the article he was referring to regulations about personal watercraft riding too close to shore and making too much noise. He believes that enforcing those regulations was difficult because there aren't enough wardens to patrol adequately all of the lakes in question.

The article notes that the law does not regulate lakes outside of LURC jurisdiction. Landowners must approach the individual towns in which the lake or pond is located to ban personal watercraft in these locations.

Another resident, John Kalkow, from Jones Pond in Gouldsboro said he was concerned for the safety of children swimming in the small lake, and for the wildlife that must endure the constant noise of the jet skis. Kalkow has lived on Jones Pond for 45 years with his wife. He is quoted saying, "It makes me happy to see families and their kids swimming in the lake, but it makes me sick to see one of these go so fast within 25 feet of the beach. It's an accident waiting to happen."

Like others, Kalkow was mentioned saying that many of the offending watercraft belongs to people who do not own land on the lake. "It's the people who a lot of the time go out for a couple hours and disrupt the whole environment, and when they leave, they leave the camp owners in a state of anxiety."

According to the director of LURC, John Williams, these final hearings were intended to inform the commission on the subject of which lakes and ponds might be added or subtracted from the list of 245 next year.

The article notes that written comments will be received until Sept. 3 and the record will remain open until Sept. 10 for rebuttal of statements filed during the written comment period. Recommendations from the LURC will be combined and voted on as a final list. The article indicated that the commission may wait to adopt the final list at its October meeting since the September meeting date was so close to the cutoff date for written comments.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

No New Noise Monitor for Chicago Area's Fly Quiet Program

PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: August 20, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Jon Davis
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois

The Chicago Daily Herald reports that a noise committee for the village of Arlington Heights debated whether to get a second stationary monitor from the city of Chicago. According to Trustee Virginia Kucera, the committee's vice chairwoman, failure to reach a consensus meant the village would not be getting a second monitor for tracking O'Hara aircraft noise.

According to the article committee member Margaret Cahill had asked that a second monitor be placed near Dryden School. But another committee member, Larry Niemann, said a single monitor is enough at least until a new sound contour map based on 1997 data is released. One more monitor in Arlington Heights isn't going to do much more than fine-tune the differences between decibels, the article said, referring to Neimann's statements.

Monitors are critical for tracking the progress of the year-old "Fly Quiet" program. The program prescribes take offs and landings at O'Hare International Airport in accordance with strict flight instructions between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Planes are specifically directed under the program to take off over highways, forest preserves, industrial parks and other non-residential areas.

Aviation officials from the city of Chicago started the program after increased complaints by Northwest suburban residents about overnight takeoffs and landings.

According to the article, a June 25 village staff memo announced that the program was failing in its first few months. The memo, from village planner Stacy Sigman cited the way runways were being used during November and December 1997.

The Chicago Tribune article quotes directly from the memo which states that more overnight departures were sent above the village in December, indicating that Chicago and Federal Aviation Administration officials "are not complying with the spirit and letter of the Fly Quiet Program and the Nighttime Tower Order, which would place these departures over less densely populated areas during the nighttime hours."

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Neighbors and School Districts near Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport Need Answers; FAA Sources Say They'll Have to Wait

PUBLICATION: The Cincinnati Enquirer
DATE: August 20, 1998
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B01
BYLINE: Gregory A. Hall and Andrea Tortora
DATELINE: Hebron, Ohio

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that about 400 residents and school officials from Boone County filled a public meeting room to express concerns about how improvements to the runways at the Cincinnati - Northern Kentucky International Airport would affect their homes and classrooms.

Much of the plans for the runway expansion are still under investigation, the article said, frustrating the decisionmaking and planning efforts of both homeowners and school administrators.

Homeowner Dale Dixon, for example, is mentioned in the article as an individual who knew he might have to move if the airport extended its runway(s) when he bought a house less than a year ago but now he just doesn't want to go. "I love the area I'm living in," the article said quoting Dixon.

While many residents could concede to the inevitability of the airport expansion they were frustrated about the lack of answers as to when and how it will take place. "We're kind of in limbo," the article said quoting homeowner, Jill Pickett, "You don't know whether to buy new carpet or paint your house."

But the FAA project manager Peggy S. Kelley made it clear that there could be no answers until the study was completed. The article quoted her saying, "We can't give definitive answers. We have to do the study. We don't have any answers right now."

The meeting is the second of two Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hearings to discuss proposed construction projects in the airport's master plan. The hearings are part of a two-year study for an environmental impact statement which will determine whether the airport may proceed.

According to the article the most extensive of the plans is a 8,000-foot north-south runway and a 2,000- foot extension of the east-west runway. The extension is estimated to cost $15 million to $20 million. The estimated $85 million runway would displace 150-200 Kentucky homeowners living on or near the proposed site.

Persons living in an area called Orchard Estates questioned why homes are still being built in that area if eventually they'll be bought out by the airport. Airport officials however, indicated that the preliminary noise estimates indicate homes there won't be taken.

The article discusses in particular the dilemma facing school board members and administrators for Boone County school district's Conner campus. The article explains that the Conner campus, which includes Conner High School, Conner Middle School, Chester Goodridge Elementary and the Boone County Vocational Center, is overcrowed and overdue for additions and expansions. One gym serves all middle and high school students. Sometimes athletic competitions run until 11 p.m. because so many teams need to use the space.

School officials are noted in the article stating that no improvements or expansions to the schools can be made until runway expansion plans are evaluated and school officials know how the campus will be affected.

Airport officials say the preliminary noise estimates show the Conner schools won't have decibel levels that trigger buyouts of homes, airport officials said.

School officials say the proposed location for the north-south runway could place more than 3,100 students in danger of major noise pollution. Under the existing runway system the schools are only 2,000 feet from that noise levels that trigger buyouts [Editor's italics].

School administrators and board members fear in particular that future airport expansion would claim classrooms located northwest of the airfield. School board member Carrie Dickmann says "[The expanded runway] would be less than one mile away. Less than one mile."

"We're left with extensive growth in Boone County, and we're running out of land," the article stated, continuing is quotation of Dickmann. "The FAA doesn't set land aside ahead of time, and they could decide to take the campus."

Another runway on the east side of the airport is included in the airport's master plan. It, however, is not expected to be needed until after 2011.

According to the article school officials were briefed by airport and FAA personnel at a closed meeting the day preceding the public hearing.

Superintendent of Boone Schools Bryan Blavatt articulated his and the school board's frustration when he said, "The problem is it's a done deal. If they're going to build this runway, then it's time for them to say, 'OK, it's too close to the school. We'll buy the school.' But I can't find a place to put 3,000 students."

The article featured several opinions from students at the Conner schools who expressed mixed opinions.

Superintendent Blavatt said what he really wants is for airport officials to agree to buy the property and help the school system find another suitable location. The article included Blavatt's inquiry, "How do I know where to build it? Will they get rid of the Conner campus? And other land in the area is either in the noise contour or (the airport) owns the property."

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport May Have to Close for Several

DATE: August 19, 1998
SECTION: International News
DATELINE: Amsterdam, Netherlands

AP Worldstream reports that Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, the busiest airport in the Netherlands, may have to close down for weeks at the end of this year if the government doesn't relax noise pollution guidelines.

According to the article the warning came from Hennie Wijkhuizen, a senior flight planner, who works as a government-appointed official allocating landing and takeoff spots for airlines using Schiphol. Wijkhuizen said that closure was a possibility in order to prevent Amsterdam Schiphol Airport from breaking noise pollution limits this year.

Wijkhuizen made his announcement on Dutch radio and added that it would be "a disaster" if the government refuses to relax the limits.

But airport spokesperson Ingrid Pouw, rebuked Wijkhuizen's comments describing them as "speculation or exaggeration." "We do not know where he is getting his information," the article said, quoting Pouw.

Last year the government and a local court agreed to tolerate Schiphol's violation of the noise pollution guidelines, the article said, but this year no such infringements would be permitted.

The total number of takeoffs and landings at Schiphol, is up 20,000 this year.

An environmental group called Milieudefensie is noted in the article as describing Wijkhuizen's suggestion that Schiphol may have to close as "misleading nonsense." Milieudefensie said the airport should only have to scrap some flights.

Schiphol is located just outside the Dutch capital.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise Want Compliance with Night-time Flight Rules

PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: August 19, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Jon Davis
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois

The Chicago Daily Herald reports that the Village of Arlington Heights is fuming about O'Hare's noncompliance with nightime-flying rules.

According to the article the village's Advisory Committee voted Tuesday night to ask Mayor Arlene Mulder to deliver a letter to Chicago's O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, requesting an explanation for the increased air traffic over the village. A recommendation to quit the Noise Compatibility Commission was narrowly rejected. The committee opted instead to consider the matter once the desired answers have been received.

For some reason, air traffic controllers in the last two months have been sending most departing airplanes over Arlington Heights, even during the so-called "Fly Quiet" hours, the article said referring to words of committee member Glenn Lehnert.

Still more frustrating to Lehnert is the lack of answers coming from Chicago aviation officials.

Lehnert is quoted in the article saying, "We are getting almost 100 percent (of all) departures, and my recommendation is we suspend our participation in the commission until Arlington Heights gets some relief. Something has to be done to get their attention."

Having Mayor Mulder raise the question at the commission's next meeting will accomplish more than breaking all contact with Chicago, the article said, referring to committee vice chair Trustee Virginia Kucera.

Both Lehnert and Margaret Cahill voted to quit the city's noise commission. Persons voting against the recommendation were Trustee Virginia Kucera, Larry Niemann and Bert Rosenberg.

Final say for the advisory committee's recommendation lies in the hands of the village board of trustees, which meets in September.

Committee member Larry Neimann is noted saying that it is air traffic controllers, who are ultimately responsible for enforcing night-time flight rules designed to reduce noise. "The city has to hold these air traffic controllers' feet to the fire so these flights don't go over Arlington Heights," the article said, quoting Neimann.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Police Crackdown on Street Noise in Santa Ana, California

PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: August 19, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Jason Kandel
DATELINE: Santa Ana, California

The Los Angeles Times reports that police in Santa Ana, California may begin fining repeat noise offenders or even confiscating their amplifiers.

The article notes that after looking into the way police spend their time, it was revealed that they responded to 2,000 noise complaints -- occupying as long as 45 minutes for two officers for each call -- in the first half of the year. Police say that is inefficient. Two officers are dispatched to noise complaints because with alcohol involved, offenders may start an argument. 43 complaints of loud music were received on one average Saturday night.

The article goes on to say that fines -- which can be as high as $105 -- and confiscation of equipment is allowed in the noise ordinance for the community. After a second call, offenders can even be charged for the police time required to resolve the problem. Police will begin taking advantage of that because there are so many violations. Fair warning of the enforcement change will be given in a police letter enclosed in water bills this month, noting that the ordinance "prohibits loud and raucous noise from sound-making or amplifying devices."

The article goes on to say that one downtown business owner voiced his support, and another resident -- who is also a Latino rights activist -- said the change would be good if enforced without prejudice. He said that enforcement must not target neighborhoods due to their racial population, saying "This is something that could add to the quality of life' if done correctly."

According to the article noise usually comes from weekend events, which include a loud stereo, DJ, or band.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Appellate Court Denies City its Noise Lawsuit against the Minneapolis Metropolitan Airport.

DATE: August 19, 1998
BYLINE: John Windrow
DATELINE: Minneapolis, Minnesota

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the city of Richfield its noise lawsuit against the Metropolitan Airport. The suit contested the validity of the environmental impact statement that the airport used to win federal approval for the airport's crosswind runway.

Richfield argued that the airport commission could not use its crosswind runway to send more planes over Richfield and Bloomington, thereby shifting noise away from south Minneapolis.

According to the article, Richfield's attorney argued that redistributing the flights would require $30 million of home soundproofing on the southwest side of the airport, money that would be better distributed if it was used for homes to the northwest, where soundproofing is underway.

Airports Commission attorney Tom Anderson argued that the majority of soundproofing money will still be spent on homes on the northwest side.

According to the article the city of Richfield is mulling its next move to fight the noise. City Manager James Prosser is quoted with the following words, "Our attorney will be evaluating the merits of filing an appeal to the [U.S.] Supreme Court or filing for action in the state courts."

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Ordinance Tries to Suppress Noise in Hamburg, New York

PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: August 18, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 4B
BYLINE: Barbara O'Brien
DATELINE: Hamburg, New York

The Buffalo News reports that the Village of Hamburg has adopted an eight-page noise ordinance. The ordinance prohibits a person from intentionally causing "public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof by making unreasonable noise. "

The ordinance aims to preserve "the public health, peace, welfare and good order by suppressing the making, creation or maintenance of excessive, unnecessary, unnatural or unusually loud noises. "

The article quotes Police Chief John J. Jablonski saying, "This is the greatest working law we've ever had."

According to the article two persons, both Dreschler Court residents, spoke in favor of the ordinance. One woman is quoted saying, "I think this is a great ordinance. It's about time."

According to the article, the woman wanted to see the ordinance amended to specify noise prohibitions of businesses operating within 500 feet of residences. "We're less than 100 feet away from businesses," she was quoted saying.

Her response came from Village Attorney Robert J. Walsh who said, "We're saying you cannot make an unreasonable noise, no matter what time of day. There's all sorts of things a business can do to ameliorate noise. Any time you would think it is unreasonable, you make a complaint and we can take it to court."

According to the article the ordinance provides that violators can be subject to a fine of up to $250 or up to 15 days in jail or both. The possible fine rises to $500 for a second conviction within three years, and to $750 for a third conviction within three years.

The ordinance as amended covers noise produced by radios, television sets and similar devices, parties and social events, hawkers and peddlers, machinery and construction.

The article also discusses other village business and alterations to the village code.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Planes Flying Below Recommended Altitudes Thwart Noise Control Efforts near Baltimore Washington International Airport

DATE: August 18, 1998
SECTION: Severna Park; Pg. A5
BYLINE: Laura Green
DATELINE: Severna Park, Maryland

The Capital reports that a state study concludes that about one-third of planes flying over Severna Park to Baltimore Washington International Airport are flying lower than the altitude recommended by the state to control noise.

The noise survey covered the period from January through June and found that 32 percent of planes flying over the area were below 3,000 feet, the goal set by the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) to mitigate noise disturbance to nearby residents.

MAA spokesperson Sharon Perry said poor flying conditions and other factors may require a pilot to maneuver the plane lower than 3,000 feet and contributed to the percentage of planes flying low over Severna Park. The fact that 67.3 percent of planes stay within the goal, however, indicates that the MAA's efforts are working. Perry was quoted in the article saying, "We've been working hard with the airlines and the community," she said. "(The goal of 3,000 feet) is what we're shooting for. We're not going to be there 100 percent of the time."

Pilots who flew below 3,000 did not violate any Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations, the article said.

According to the article, residents from several Severna Park neighborhoods have met with airport officials on several occasions to discuss their complaints. BWI officials indicated last March that many pilots dip 500 to 600 feet below the recommended altitude when approaching the airport for a landing. That level of droppage, can, according to state officials, make a significant difference in noise as pilots "power up" to maintain the plane's altitude.

The MAA began using a recorded message in March to remind pilots to stay above 3,000 feet on their approach to the airport.

Four residences served as noise monitoring sites for a period of 12 days each during one month of the survey. The homes on Cactus Court, Devonshire Lane, Severndale Road and Whittier Parkway are considered outside the airport noise zone yet they experience from 10 to 119 aircraft noise events over the course of a single day.

The MAA not only set the altitude goal, it also limits noise by monitoring use of certain runways and encouraging airlines to use quieter commercial jet aircraft. The MAA also continuously monitors noise with a computerized system. And within the airport noise zone, it has completed soundproofing of homes.

The article includes a telephone number to reach the MAA for noise complaints: (410) 859-7021. The number is a noise abatement hotline.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

County Commissioners To Work to Keep Airport Noise Levels in Check near Northern Kentucky International Airport

PUBLICATION: The Cincinnati Enquirer
DATE: August 18, 1998
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B01
BYLINE: Gregory A. Hall
DATELINE: Hebron, Ohio

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports monitors show that Northern Kentucky International Airport has slightly exceeded noise limits set out in an agreement between the airport and the Sisters of Charity.

The monitors that indicate the infraction are located at the order's motherhouse near Mount St. Joseph College in Delhi Township.

A committee in Hamilton County, however, decided the data could not be verified, due to technical problems. And, according to the article, the readings were so close to the limit, the committee concluded it would be better to work with airport officials to improve the situation, rather than fight them.

The county committee is charged with monitoring noise from the Northern Kentucky International Airport. The committee chair, County Commissioner John Dowlin, is quoted saying, "We know that the airport is important. You certainly want to have good relations."

But the data between the airport and the county committee does differ.

The article discusses how the county's noise study demonstrates that the airport exceeded noise levels at the motherhouse. The report focuses on averages derived over the last six months of 1997 through February 2-4, 1998.

The article points out that the airport's own monitoring, on the other hand, indicates that on average the noise levels did not exceed the limit during the last six months of 1997. The airport notes that the county's data includes non-airport noise and double-counts some flights. (Airport data does show the noise was over the limit February 3-4.)

Even though the differences are present, they are not statistically significant, the article said. "From a technical standpoint, you can't even say that they're out of compliance" the article says quoting County Commissioner John Dowlin. That is because the airport monitors three days a month, while the county monitors operate 24 hours a day.

The article explains that the agreement between the sisters and the airport requires that departing planes take off to the south unless weather conditions necessitate a takeoff to the north.

"The real problem with that agreement," the paper said quoting Mr. Dowlin, "is the fact that there is no penalty to it. The only penalty to it is you dissolve the agreement." That would be harmful to western Hamilton County residents, the report said because without the agreement, planes could take off to the north even more than they do now.

A meeting was scheduled for next week between the Hamilton County committee and airport officials to go over their data and suggest improvements.

According to the article both sides agree the airport does not exceed a louder federal limit that triggers airports to compensate property owners.

The Airport Deputy Director of Aviation Dale Huber is noted in the article affirming the report and calling it "balanced" and "fair." "That's some in-depth thinking that went into this report, and I'm pleased. Too often we see too much shooting from the hip and emotional (appeals) overriding the logical."

The article discusses additional business related to airport operation including board composition and recent expenditures.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Los Angeles' Department of Water and Power Develop a Electric-Powered Leaf Blower that's Quiet

PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: August 18, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Rick Orlov
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California

The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power have developed a new electric-powered leaf blower. The new machine is hoped to resolve problems related to the disputed ban on leaf blowers and earn the city money.

According to the article the electric-powered leaf blower was presented to City Council members and is touted as the answer to the disputed ban because it produces no pollution, makes little noise, and generates as much force as the gas-fueled machines.

DWP General Manager David Freeman is quoted stating his belief that the machine is a viable solution because it meets the varying needs of the city's residents. ''Everyone is eager to advance this prototype into the commercialization stage.

In fact the city hopes to cash in on the proposition. The article quotes Angelina Galiteva, who was in charge of the project for the DWP, to explain how the city hopes to convince a manufacturer to produce and sell the machines nationwide and then provide the city of Los Angeles the royalty: "We think there will be a market for these blowers across the country."

The article says the electric blower consists of red and blue wires coiled along a plastic tube. A battery pack weighing up to 27 pounds powers the device.

The decibel level for the proposed electric model is about 64 at 50 feet, which is considered two or three times louder than normal conversation. Gasoline-powered leaf blowers by comparison have a 70 decibel level and can be compared to a loud party.

According to Galiteva the DWP will agree to buy a number of the machines to replace its own gasoline-powered leaf blowers.

Gardeners have recently gotten around the ban on gas-powered leaf blowers in residential areas by using methanol fuel to run the blowers. According to the article prosecutors say gardeners must give a declaration of their own and a second declaration from the person who modified the machine so it can run on methanol.

The article states that the councilperson that pushed for the ban is trying to close the loophole. Councilperson Cindy Miscikowski is reportedly waiting to hear from the California Air Resources Board to find out if the city can issue a ban on the use of methanol. According to the article Miscikowski is pleased about the development of the electric leaf blower.

The article states that AeroVironment Inc. of Monrovia developed the devised in consultation with the DWP and a Leaf Blower Task Force appointed by the City Council. AeroVironment developed the model for $60,000 under its public benefits program - a required program under new state laws deregulating the electric industry.

An additional $1 million has been set out by the Board of Water and Power Commissioners for the next two years.

The article notes however, that not all persons are pleased with the outcome. Task Force member Jack Allen is quoted saying, "It solves the problem of noise and emissions, but it still doesn't deal with the dust that is blown. We still are going to have the problem of gardeners blowing leaves and dust on neighboring properties and then driving off."

Allen is also quoted complaining about the task force's lack of impact. "It's almost like we were window dressing. We didn't look at all the alternatives."

Galiteva on the other hand is quoted emphasizing the group's success in considering alternatives they felt would be competitive. "The goal was to come up with a machine that has zero emissions and the same power as the ones now in use. We did that. The existing electric machines don't generate enough power unless they are noisier than what's out there."

According to the article gardeners who would be operating such machines are quoted praising the development but continue expressing their concerns out the current prohibition. For example the article quoted Adrian Alvarez of the Latin American Gardeners Association saying, "We support anything that will let us do our job. But, we want to keep our jobs now. We have families to feed. We aren't your opponents, but we want some kind of compromise."

Alvarez urged the council to suspend its existing law until the new machine can be developed.

A representative for AeroVironment, Thomas Zambrano, said his firm wanted at least a month to test the product and would need through December to develop specifications for a manufacturer. He estimated that is would take an additional three to six months to produce the machine for the general market.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Homeowners' Sentiments Concerning the Proposed Federal Express Hub Aired at Public Meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina

PUBLICATION: News & Record
DATE: August 18, 1998
SECTION: Triad/State, Pg. B1
BYLINE: John A. Nagy
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina

News & Record in Greensboro, North Carolina reports that a public meeting brought out a torrent of public sentiments concerning the proposed Federal Express hub and third runway for Piedmont Triad International Airport.

The public hearing was conducted by Federal Aviation Administration and consultants leading a study of the projects and was attended by more than 500 homeowners, business executives and observers last Monday.

The article states the hearing marks the first stage of a two-year study to determine whether the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority should be allowed to build a $300 million package hub for FedEx and a runway parallel to the existing north-south runway.

According to the article federal law requires that the consultants conducting the hearing account for each person's comments as they proceed with the study. That means there is ample opportunity to influence the study's outcome, the article said.

The debate between supporters and opponents of the FedEx project rose to spirited and sometime angry levels. The article reported that persons who live northwest of the airport were among the opponents who attended. According to the article they frequently shouted out comments at business executives and politicians who were speaking out about their support of the project.

One opposing homeowner shouted "We need a new mayor!" when Greensboro Mayor Carolyn Allen finished reading the resolution the City Council passed in support of the FedEx hub.

Homeowners also shouted at John Greuling, Greensboro Area Chamber of Commerce's vice president for economic development and conducted a massive walk out when he ended his remarks. Pauline Austin, who led the walkout was quoted in the article saying, "I just had to do it. I just had to do it."

The FedEx project has garnered plenty of support the article said from business executives and politicians who, like the homeowners, also turned out in strong attendance to register their support. Stokes County Commissioner Willis Overby articulated that he and others support the project because the 1,500 jobs it will bring. "With our factories closing and unemployment rising, we rejoice in the possibility of additional employment," the article noted quoting Willis.

The words of the Chairman of the High Point Chamber of Commerce, Nido Qubein, were also quoted: "I cannot think of a reason why we'd not rise tall and encourage such a fine corporate citizen as FedEx to come to our community. We'd be somewhat foolish to resist it."

Finally, vice chancellor at Winston-Salem State University, Lee Hampton was mentioned for pointing out that 80 percent of his 3,000 students receive financial aid and could gain from a nearby employer that actively recruits college students. "The opportunity to partner with FedEx is much anticipated," the article said quoting Hampton.

Homeowners, however, communicated that the harm would outweigh the good to the community. "You can talk about economic bliss all day long, but you can't compensate for the misery of the people," said Andrea Walls, a homeowner whose home would lie within a half-mile of the proposed runway.

According to the article residents are particularly concerned about noise from planes flying between midnight and 4 a.m. The FAA typically averages out the noise levels over the course of a day. Residents complained that this way of measuring doesn't account for a single loud airplane at night waking them up.

The article quoted one parent, Mark Miller, making the following lament: "Telling our small children, who are awakened at night crying in their beds because they can't sleep and are frightened by the roar of overhead jet engines, that the noise is not so bad if you average it out over a 24-hour period won't get them to sleep at 3 in the morning."

Other homeowner concerns are: water and air quality, property values in their neighborhoods, and the safety of having an air cargo hub near more than 10,000 residents.

According to the article FAA consultant Laddie Irion, who heads the FedEx and runway study, said each person's statement would be analyzed to help identify areas requiring further study.

The article reported that consultants would spend the next few weeks collecting comments from Monday's hearings. Afterwards, they will begin to design the study of the FedEx hub and runway.

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Community Policing Effort Reduces Traffic Noise in Fall River, Massachusetts

PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: August 18, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Julie Goodman
DATELINE: Fall River, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Audrey Poitras, Niagara Neighborhood Association

The Providence Journal-Bulletin describes a community policing effort to eradicate blaring car stereos, loud mufflers, roaring motorcycles, and other traffic nuisances from a cruising strip in Fall River, Massachusetts.

The story describes how cyclist Steven Gagne has to pay a $50 ticket for the loud roar of his Harley-Davidson, called "Highly Dangerous." Gagne is quoted saying, "It used to be America," as the officer measured the decibel level.

According to the article officers use a hand-held decibel meter in an area with no obstructions within a 16-foot radius. Cyclists whose bikes exceed high noise levels get ticketed.

Officer Gary Furtado is quoted in the article saying, "People are trying to eat, put their kids to bed, and all they hear is stereos and exhaust." The article describes him pointing to two Harley-Davidsons and saying, "That's a perfect example of why we're out here. You're trying to have supper or something and those two are at a light or zipping by. It's a nuisance."

The enforcement effort focuses on a mile-and-a-half stretch of homes, fast-food joints and sit-down restaurants that has historically been the cruising strip for Fall River's restless teenagers and roaming adults. Ticketing of motorcyclists began last year, while automobile citations began three summers ago. According to the article the Police Department issued more than 1,100 citations last summer, and ticketed more than 600 so far this summer.

Motorists with loud stereo systems are also targeted. Sgt Keven Tetrault is noted saying, "They're cruising all the time. If they're going to cruise, keep their radios down, they won't be bothered."

One problem has been the use of "kickers," or the large speakers that motorists prop up in the back of cars to amplify music. "Some of them go to extremes. They take out the rear seat and put these big bass speakers in," the article said quoting Lt. Stephen Ramos. "It's not the fault of technology, it's just today, they can put the equivalent of a home stereo system in their car."

According to the article officers report that most offenders are cooperative when pulled over but some try to remove the detachable faces off their radios and ask officers if they are sure they have the right car. Other motorists have reportedly argued that because their stereo products were "factory bought," it shouldn't be illegal to put the volume up to their greatest capacity.

Neighbors were reportedly responsible for prompting the police to initiate the enforcement effort. Audrey Poitras heads the Niagara Neighborhood Association and is one of the neighbors who got the enforcement practices in motion.

Neighbors, the article said, feel the barrage of noises compromises the quality of life.

Poitras is quoted saying, "In the summer, it gets horrendous on the avenue. People actually move out of the avenue because it's just so noisy between motorcycles and cars going up and down tooting their horns and just yelling and screaming."

The routine continues from around 9 p.m. to midnight every night, with activity increasing on the weekends. "You can see the same cars over and over, cars of kids," the article noted, continuing its quote from Poitras.

But since the police started initiating citations, Poitras says her summers have been quieter.

Gagne, on the other hand, is also quoted lamenting that motorcyclists shouldn't be ticketed for buying exhaust parts that are "street legal." "I've had one ever since I was 17, and this is the quietest one I've had," the article said, quoting Gagne. According to the article he would have to spend $200 for a new unit.

Another motorcyclist, Jamie Williamson, 47, was also ticketed. He had reportedly been out enjoying a ride with a friend when he got cited. Williamson is quoted saying, "If I was out making a lot of noise, then I deserve it, but we weren't doing anything. It's not like we're little kids riding around trying to make noise. We're just going out for a little ride."

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Seniors Articulate Divergent Views on the Need for Noise Regulations

PUBLICATION: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
DATE: August 16, 1998
SECTION: Metro, Pg. Vn-3
BYLINE: Jeanne Dutel-Martino
DATELINE: Pine, Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that the Pittsburgh City Council has passed a noise-pollution ordinance. Correspondent Jeanne Dutel-Martino interviews residents at a Retirement Center in the suburban community of Pine about the need for a noise-pollution ordinance in their community. Residents responded to the question: "Would you like to see similar [noise] ordinances in the suburbs?"

"I don't think the law is necessary at all - not here, not in Pittsburgh."

Dorothy Gagnon, 85

"I don't think there needs to be a law to regulate noise. I think it's unfair to the young people."

Margaret Lewis, 91

"I agree with the new law, and that's that."

Jean Voll, 78

"Yes, I believe the new law is needed because the noise disrupts other people. I used to own a bar and restaurant in the city, and often the noise was a big problem."

Julia Kelly, 81

"I believe the new law is necessary and will, hopefully, quiet things a bit. Homes in the city are so close together, and it means a lot to city residents to have their peace and quiet."

Mary D'Angelo, 88

"I think city officials should first try to talk to the parents of noisy kids, instead of slapping such a heavy fine on them. Teen-agers are loud and disruptive, but they also need to know right from wrong."

Hazel Williams, 86

NPC Noise News
NPC Home

Previous week: August 9, 1998
Next week: August 23, 1998



Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
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

NPC Menu Bar NPC Home Page Ask NPC Support NPC Search the NPC Home Page NPC QuietNet NPC Resources NPC Hearing Loss and Occupational Noise Library NPC Noise News NPC Law Library NPC Library