PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: March 4, 1998
SECTION: Section B; Page 1; Column 2; Metropolitan Desk
BYLINE: David Herszenhorn
DATELINE: Stafford Township, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Arline Bronzaft, member of New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's Council on the Environment and chair of its noise committee
The New York Times reports that the Town Council in Stafford Township, New Jersey passed an ordinance tonight by a vote of 4-2 to ban amplified sound on ice cream trucks. The ordinance allows ice cream vendors to use hand bells in place of musical tunes, the article notes.
According to the article, the new ordinance states: "At no time shall a vendor be permitted to use a sound device, mechanical bell, mechanical music, mechanical noise, speakers, amplifiers or any other similar type of sound device." The ordinance also prohibits vendors from shouting or blowing horns, but says that "vendors may only equip their vehicles with hand bells or bells operated by human hands."
The article goes on to say that residents had repeatedly complained about noisy ice cream trucks. Before the council's vote, more than 30 people made public comments on the ordinance, which according to Mayor Carl Block was the highest attendance at a council meeting in the past five years. Some residents said that on some afternoons, it sounded like ice cream vendors hired 2-year-olds to seek the world record for continuous cranking of a jack-in-the-box. Resident Olivio Giardella said, "We're in a residential area. I'm opposed to the loud playing of music that is disrupting a way of life down here that is beautiful."
The article notes that the new ordinance is similar to laws across the country that have banned music from ice cream trucks. Towns with similar ordinances include Upper St. Clair, Pennsylvania; Lake Villa, Illinois; Long Beach Township, New York, and Costa Mesa, California. Stafford's law is modeled after the one in Long Beach Township. Thomas Kathe, the city attorney in Costa Mesa, said the town's noise ordinance has worked. "Noise levels have reduced in the sense that we don't have the complaints," he said. "Our children are getting their ice cream."
According to the article, Stafford already has a law that limits daytime noise to 65 decibels, but because the ice cream trucks move around, their decibel levels are harder to measure than noise levels from a party or a construction site. Officials in Stafford said they hadn't measured the noise level of the ice cream music, but there was general agreement at tonight's meeting that it is consistently louder than 65 decibels. Officials in Boulder, Colorado, which limits ice cream truck noise to 55 decibels, said ice cream music was regularly measured at between 70 and 90 decibels. The article also notes that courts have held that if ordinances limiting noise are applied without regard to content, they don't infringe on constitutional rights.
Arline Bronzaft, an environmental psychologist and a member of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's Council on the Environment and chair of its noise committee, said Stafford's ordinance addresses a larger issue of increased noise in our society. She said, "People are getting very tired of intrusive sounds. Noise as an issue now is very sensitive in New Jersey. Society has gotten noisier, as a result people are more sensitive to it and they just don't want all these intrusions."
Meanwhile, the article reports, some ice cream vendors have quietly accepted the ban on amplified music, while others have opposed it. Jeffrey Cabaniss, the owner of Jef-Freeze Treats, fought the ban and circulated petitions. He asked the council not to ban him from playing his signature tune "Turkey in the Straw." "If you take away my music," he said, "you're taking away my identity and you're taking away my competitive edge that I've worked seven years to develop." The International Association of Ice Cream Vendors, based in Philadelphia, has not yet become involved in the issue, according to its president, Steve Feldman. He said, "It would become a huge issue if there were a lot of communities that decided to regulate to the degree that would prohibit us from doing business." Feldman added that the Association recommends that ice cream vendors play music only when the trucks are moving. He said, "I understand what the city fathers are doing. There is noise pollution and they are trying to regulate it. But what they are doing is eliminating this pleasant music. When a truck goes down a street and the music is playing you'll see children dancing and adults smiling. It's a happiness thing."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: March 3, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 12
BYLINE: Becky Beaupre
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Morris Miller, resident
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that village trustees in Arlington Heights, Illinois met Monday to discuss whether they should support a group that is lobbying for a third regional airport at Peotone in an attempt to lessen noise problems at O'Hare International Airport. About 25 people attended the meeting, and politicians outside the village sent their comments.
According to the article, the Arlington Heights noise committee, consisting of two trustees and five residents, voted not to support the Peotone airport on Feb. 17. The effort to support the airport was founded last fall by Representatives Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.). More than a dozen suburbs have joined the effort, which advocates building a third regional airport in the south suburbs and halting expansion at O'Hare.
But, the article says, trustees on the Arlington Heights noise committee were divided on the issue. Trustee Stephen Daday said he didn't believe a third airport would reduce noise in the northwest suburbs, but he did believe such an airport would take business away from O'Hare. He said, "I think there is a potential detriment to the area if [a third airport] were to be built." Another trustee, Virginia Kucera, said she supports the effort because without a third airport, O'Hare either will lose business to neighboring states or will expand and create more noise.
Meanwhile, the article reports, politicians outside Arlington Heights are making their opinions known. Representative Hyde, in a letter dated Feb. 24, urged Arlington Heights Mayor Arlene Mulder and the trustees to join the effort to support a third airport. Hyde wrote, "If Arlington Heights refuses to support construction of the new regional airport, the pressure to expand O'Hare and build new runways will be enormous." Ronald Wietecha, the mayor of Park Ridge, issued a statement Feb. 19 urging Arlington Heights officials to "look at the facts." He wrote, "Arlington Heights officials know that if a new runway is added to O'Hare, more take-offs will be aimed at Arlington Heights, flying over Arlington Heights neighborhoods, increasing their noise problems."
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: March 3, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A13
BYLINE: Carolyne Zinko
DATELINE: Menlo Park, California
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that gardeners in the San Francisco area will stage three demonstrations this week and one next week to protest a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers by the city of Menlo Park. The gardeners claim the ban is racially biased.
The article reports that the Menlo Park City Council tentatively approved the ban two weeks ago and will take a final vote next Tuesday. Electric leaf blowers will still be allowed under the new ordinance.
According to the article, the gardeners are planning three protests this week, at noon on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at Menlo Park City Hall. A larger protest is scheduled for Monday, the night before the council's final vote. Gardeners insist they can solve the noise problem by educating other gardeners and by purchasing new gas-powered leaf blowers, which are quieter than lawn mowers. Ramon Quezada, a Redwood City gardener and leader of a new, 200-member gardeners' association, said, "We know there's a problem. We're just asking for a chance. Give us three or six months. If some gardener does something wrong, call us, and we'll take care of it." Quezada and the gardeners' association members, most of whom are Latino, insist that the ban is racially motivated. Quezada said, "Just look at every gardener you see.... We've been thinking if the gardeners were somebody else -- another racial group -- this wouldn't be happening."
Meanwhile, some City Councilors don't agree that the issue is racially motivated. Menlo Park Mayor Chuck Kinney said, "I don't see that at all -- it's a noise issue, that's all. Since the gardeners have been involved, there have been a lot of letters and e-mails against [the ban], but an equal number or slightly larger number for the ban."
The article goes on to say that if the City Council approves the ban next week, Menlo Park will be the latest in a group of cities that have banned gas-powered leaf blowers, including Los Altos, Carmel, and Santa Barbara. In Los Angeles, where a ban on the blowers went into effect February 14, Latino gardeners demonstrated and held a hunger strike. Los Angeles gardeners and two landscape contracting associations have filed a lawsuit challenging the ban. According to Ron Van Buskirk, an attorney who is representing the gardeners, the lawsuit argues that the ban violates due process and equal protection laws -- that a city does not need to ban a business activity or product that can be regulated instead. The case is scheduled to be heard March 13 in Los Angeles Superior Court. Meanwhile, Quezada said that if the ban in Menlo Park goes into effect, the gardeners' association will also consider filing a lawsuit.
The article notes that some cities have passed ordinances that regulate the hours that gas-powered leaf blowers can be used instead of banning them. For example, San Mateo and Foster City have restricted the hours that gardeners and homeowners can use leaf blowers, especially on weekends. According to San Mateo City Councilor Jerry Hill, San Mateo and its neighborhood associations formed a compromise with the San Mateo Gardeners Association which stipulates that gardeners will police themselves on leaf blower noise.
Robin Pendergast, public affairs and marketing for Echo Inc. which manufactures leaf blowers, said the bans won't work, the article reports. Workers from the company performed a recent survey in Los Altos, where gas-powered leaf blowers have been banned since 1991, and found that 62 landscapers over a two-day period were using leaf blowers. Pendergast said, "I wasn't doing [the survey] to be a jerk. It's nice to have a little reality when it comes to ordinances like this."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: March 3, 1998
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 2; Zone: NW; Overnight News
BYLINE: Dean Geroulis
DATELINE: Park Ridge, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that Ron Wietecha, the mayor of Park Ridge, Illinois, announced Monday that a citizens advisory council will be formed to provide a forum on noise from Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. The six-member council will be made up of residents from the areas hit hardest by jet noise, the article notes, and will meet monthly to review and interpret the results from permanent jet- noise monitors located in Park Ridge.
According to the article, Mayor Wietecha said, "I believe this is the first such council that has been set up by any community around O'Hare." He appointed Mark Fishman as chair of the council. The article notes that the city of Chicago must provide monthly reports to Park Ridge containing data from the noise monitors, Wietecha said.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: March 2, 1998
SECTION: Northwest Valley Community; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Jeffry Nelson
DATELINE: Peoria, Arizona
The Arizona Republic reports that the City Council in Peoria, Arizona unanimously passed a new ordinance on Feb. 17 that limits construction to certain hours in order to cut down on noise. The ordinance was passed in an effort to respond to the increasing number of complaints about construction noise in the fast-growing city, according to Ibrahim Maslamani, the city's building safety manager.
According to the article, the new ordinance stipulates that construction crews will be restricted to working certain hours, but those hours will vary depending on the time of year, type of work, and how close the work is to a residential area. Between Sept. 30 and April 1, work on a home in a residential area can take place only between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Under the ordinance, construction companies can apply for permits requesting earlier starting and stopping times, but those permits can be revoked if the city receives too many complaints.
City Councilor Ken Forgia, district in north Peoria is seeing the most construction, said he wanted to require construction companies and home builders to notify nearby residents when they applied for a permit. But the rest of the councilors would not agree to add the provision.
The article reports that the new ordinance takes effect March 19, and will be enforced by the Police Department. Contractors who violate the ordinance likely will be given a warning first, and then a citation, according to Maslamani. Later, violators could face a maximum fine of $1,000 and/or six months in jail. The article notes that the ordinance was modeled after a similar one in Glendale.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: March 2, 1998
SECTION: Northwest Valley Community; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Lori Baker
DATELINE: Surprise, Arizona
The Arizona Republic reports that a residential development with up to 1,500 homes is being proposed in Surprise, Arizona, near the Luke Air Force Base. If built, the homes would be on the fringe of the air force base noise contour area in which the average noise exceeds 65 decibels, an area where residential developments are discouraged.
According to the article, the proposed development, called Roseview, is near Greenway and Dysart roads, only a few miles from one of the base's runways. The developers, Surprise 320 L.L.C. and Lennar Communities Development Inc., have requested that 320 acres be rezoned from R1-43, single-family residential with one house per acre, to planned area development. The plans call for the development's density to be an average of five houses per acre, according to Mario Suarez, the city's senior planner. No date has been set for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the plans, the article notes.
The article goes on to say that Diane McCarthy, executive director of Westmarc (a group of business, government, and chamber leaders), said that residential developments that could pose a problem for the air force base shouldn't be considered until the Spectrum Group completes its study in mid-April regarding encroachment around Luke. The $200,000 study was launched by the Arizona Military Airport Preservation Committee, formed by the state Legislature in 1995. The study will examine encroachment and other issues in an effort to protect Luke and the state's other three military installations, the article explains.
According to the article, the air force base conducted two noise studies over the past 12 years, and both studies recommended no residential development in the 65-decibel areas. No homes are within the noise contours currently, but many, like Roseview, are nearby. Resident Karen Creighton said, "We know that people will complain about the noise even though they will be outside the noise contour area. That will impact Luke's future."
PUBLICATION: M2 Presswire
DATE: March 2, 1998
DATELINE: United Kingdom
M2 Presswire released a press release that reports a new consultation paper was issued today by Glenda Jackson, Britain's Minister for Shipping and Aviation, regarding night restrictions on aircraft movements at Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted Airports. Jackson also announced that a research trial will take place on sleep disturbance patterns by aircraft. The press release goes on to quote Jackson's answer to a Parliamentary Question from a Member of Parliament on the issue.
According to the press release, Jackson said she wants the consultation to be as open and accessible as possible, and there will be two stages to the consultation. The first stage will be the preliminary consultation, and will gather views on all aspects of the regime. In response to those comments, there will be a detailed proposal for the next regime, after which there will be another consultation and then the decision, Jackson said. She added that she hopes the two stage process will help achieve the right balance between environmental and economic interests. In order to give time for people to make responses to the consultation, the night restrictions regime will be delayed beyond October 1998, she said. For winter 1998-99, the movements limits and noise quotas for the three airports will be the same as they are for winter 1997-98; and for summer 1999, the movements limits and noise quotas are proposed to be the same as those for summer 1998, but comments are being accepted on that proposal. In addition, the hours of the restrictions, the system for classifying aircraft, and other aspects of the regime will remain as they now until the new regime is introduced.
The press release says that Jackson went on to say that a report on night noise contours is being published today. She said, "Its main conclusion is that there is not enough research evidence at present to underpin scientifically robust night contours relating noise to annoyance. One major area that the report identifies for further investigation is the effect of sleep disturbance at the beginning and end of the night, in particular, the significance of sleep disturbance in determining annoyance. I am therefore announcing today a research trial on sleep disturbance. Its aim will be to assess methodology and analytical techniques, to determine whether to proceed to a full scale study of either sleep prevention or total sleep loss."
The press release notes that a copy of the consultation paper "Night Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, a Preliminary Consultation" is available from Department of Environment, Transport, and Regions, Aviation Environmental Division, Zone 2/24, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR. Responses to the consultation paper must be made by May 29, 1998. Another report, titled "Night noise contours: a feasibility study" is published today by the National Physical Laboratory and is available from the Laboratory at Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 OLW.
PUBLICATION: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: March 2, 1998
SECTION: News Pg. 1
BYLINE: Lori Holly
DATELINE: Waukesha, Wisconsin
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kerry Krueger, County Supervisor and County Airport Commissioner
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that residents living near the Waukesha County Airport in Waukesha, Wisconsin are angry about early-morning takeoffs and landings at the airport. To respond to the problem, one airport commissioner has suggested that officials consider limiting the airport's hours.
According to the article, Kerry Krueger, a County Supervisor and County Airport Commissioner, said the early-morning flights should be examined and consideration should be given to the neighborhood. Krueger represents residents on the west side of the airport, and he said he has received complaints from residents who have been awakened as early as 4:45 a.m. by jets. Krueger has requested that the Waukesha city attorney attend the commission's next meeting March 18 to explain the city's noise ordinance, and to give an opinion about whether the flights are violating that ordinance, he said. Krueger called for residents who are disturbed by jet noise to attend the meeting as well. He said, "Somebody has to say, 'We've had enough of this. We like the airport over there, but by the same token we're not going to have the rights of the residents that live over there violated.'" He said reasonable restrictions should not pose a problem for businesses -- they will just have to "better plan their trips."
Meanwhile, the article says, airport manager Glenn Januska said that he doesn't want any restrictions on the airport's hours. He said that because the airport serves many businesses, "we have a need to be as flexible as we can." He added, "At the same time, you have a facility supported by taxpayers, so you certainly don't want to say you don't care about the taxpayers and the people around here."
Januska noted that the airport has experienced an increase in air traffic during the past several years, including a 27% jump from 1996 to 1997. Much of the increase is from corporate jet flights, the article says. The airport has also gotten $15 million in improvements in recent years, including a $2 million terminal set to open this spring. The County Board has strongly supported the airport's expansion, the article notes. Januska admitted that the increase in air traffic has brought more noise complaints, but said they are sporadic. He said, "Do I think that we have a noise problem here? I don't think we have a serious problem, but we want to look at what we can do to keep it from becoming a problem." Airport officials have tried to put procedures in place that would eliminate the need for restrictions on when flights can occur. For example, Januska said, pilots are encouraged to fly over I-94 instead of residential neighborhoods as they approach and depart from the airport.
PUBLICATION: Industrial Health & Hazards Update
DATE: March 1, 1998
SECTION: No. 03, Vol. 98; Issn: 0890-3018
DATELINE: U.S.
The Industrial Health & Hazards Update says that a report is available about noise control and abatement in the transportation industry and heavy industrial environments. The publication goes on to list what the report covers and how it can be obtained.
According to the publication, the report, from the ISME Database, covers: the application of environmental engineering to human factors, such as fatigue resulting from industrial noise exposure; the relationship between physical fatigue and worker safety; and more. The report consists of up to 250 abstracts of the latest available reports, studies, papers, and other documentation. It tells how to acquire the reports and contains indexes to find what you want.
To order this report, contact: InfoTeam Inc., P.O. Box 15640, Plantation, FL 33318-5640; Phone: (954) 473-9560; Fax: (954) 473- 0544; ask for report number H980330; latest 50-250 citations, updated to the date of your order; price is $299, pre-paid.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: March 1, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 17; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Bonnie Herman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association
DATELINE: Van Nuys, California
The Los Angeles Times printed an editorial by Bonnie Herman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association. She says that further restrictions on Stage II jets at Van Nuys Airport will be an economic problem for the community, which will lose jobs and money.
According to the editorial, the airport draws millions of dollars into the community and supports many jobs. She says that selfish residents would shut down this airport, limiting flights for "emergency late-night mercy and organ donors, city fire and police helicopter rescue operations, and public safety activities."
The writer argues that a recent extension of the flight curfew, which now begins at 10 p.m. instead of 11 p.m., was supported by the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (of which the writer is president). Also, decibel measurements at the airport have been decreasing.
The writer says additional proposals to ban new Stage II jets from using the airport, by inserting new restrictions into a noise ordinance, are unacceptable. She opposes the new restrictions on a legal basis because "any and all aircraft" are supposed to be allowed at the airport, and because the changes would be "costly."
The writer defines costly as a loss of $2-million in revenue and 12 jobs for each aircraft lost: about $100-million each year in total.
The writer concludes by noting successful noise-mitigation efforts: curfew extension, a "fly friendly" program, decreasing noise levels, and plans for a engine testing "hush house." She says time will take care of a replacing the Stage II jets, since quieter engines are already gaining more use.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: March 1, 1998
SECTION: Part A; Page 3; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Shelby Grad and Lorenza Munoz
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Susan Johnston, Irvine resident; Liz Garnholz, El Segundo resident
The Los Angeles Times reports that air traffic demand in Southern California is expected to double in the next 15 years, and pressure to expand Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and open El Toro's former military airport for commercial use is mounting. Residents near both airport sites are fighting that pressure. Some say that expansion should happen at March Air Force Base and Palmdale Airport instead; both sites are north of Los Angeles. The article discusses the specific problems at each airport that expansion would cause.
According to the article, population density is important to support a healthy airport, but that same population density means that there are many residents who may be bothered by jet noise. Opponents of LAX expansion and El Toro conversion say that while the March and Palmdale airports don't have much population density, high-speed rail routes between those airports and the Los Angeles area could make them feasible. Director of the western branch of the Air Transport Association, which represents airlines' interests, disagreed. He said "In order to have demand, you have to have population density. And when you have population density you have conflict." Residents near Palmdale and March hope that their airports will get a chance if the El Toro and LAX plans are rejected.
The article contends that aviation interests say expansion at both airports is needed to keep pace with the economy. Currently, LAX is responsible for $44-billion of economic activity and 400,000 jobs in the area. Extrapolations suggest that if both airports are expanded, activity will increase to $64-billion and 472,000 jobs. If the airports remain as they are, anticipated air capacity for the region's 14 biggest airports by 2020 would drop 16 percent from 157.4 million passengers. The rail systems proposed by LAX and El Toro opponents would cost $6-billion.
The article notes that opponents of LAX and El Toro airport development say that resident desire for an airport should determine the site. He said energy shouldn't be wasted on pushing for airports in one area when "there are other areas in the region that would love an airport." Other opponents say that the costs of soundproofing and potential lawsuits from citizens groups and municipalities haven't been figured in to cost estimates.
The article notes that residents opposing LAX expansion or El Toro conversion to a commercial airport have become comrades in a common fight. They all believe that noise, pollution, traffic, and public safety problems will be worsened by the respective plans. They also worry about decreases in property value.
The article goes on to say that residents around March Air Force Base, which is trying to become a cargo center, have not complained about increased air traffic. The airport's passenger capacity has increased over five-fold to 6.4 million in the last 23 years. If the proposed expansion happened, 15.9 passengers could use the airport. Competition would come from an El Toro Airport -- if that plan goes through -- and nearby Ontario International Airport which is planning a $250-million expansion for later this year.
The article says that proponents of a larger airport in Palmdale say that although it is not in the middle of a high-density area now, it will be as the outskirts of population centers continue to expand. A city councilwoman cites Washington, D.C.'s Dulles Airport as a facility that experienced just that kind of growth in nearby communities.
The article goes on to say that airline consultants, and the Air Transport Association (ATA), continued to be skeptical about Palmdale and March as possible alternative sites. One woman at a consulting firm in Chicago says "You need to find something that, while on the fringes of development, it still services the area well. It has to be on that very fine line between convenience and non-intrusion. El Toro is such a perfect match in fitting all of those criteria." An Air Transport Association representative said "We have looked and looked at Palmdale, and it's not very viable. We haven't been thinking about March very much."
The article concludes, noting that LAX expansion consists of an additional runway, a commuter terminal, and reconfiguration of overall design at a cost of $8-billion to $12-billion. El Toro conversion would cost $1.6-billion.
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
DATE: March 1, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Mark Brunswick
DATELINE: Minneapolis and St. Louis Park, Minnesota
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Eric Anderson, Jacque Nelson, St. Louis Park residents; David Shirley, Cedar-Isles-Dean neighborhood resident
The Star Tribune reports that two neighborhoods in the Minneapolis, Minnesota area are fighting to ensure that train traffic increases, not in their own, but in the other neighborhood. The Twin Cities & Western freight trains pass through both the working class Blackstone Avenue neighborhood in St. Louis Park and the exclusive Kenwood and Cedar-Isles-Dean neighborhoods in Minneapolis, but only one of the towns will be experiencing a permanent increase in rail traffic. The next vote on the issue will occur Monday in St. Louis Park, the article reports, when the City Council will consider an agreement in which the town gets funds to clean up a contaminated Superfund site in exchange for eventually having the trains pass through their city.
The article reports that the confrontation is developing as a fight between the "haves" and the "have-even-mores." Jacque Nelson, a St. Louis Park resident who lives a few blocks from the tracks, said, "What it all gets down to is that the fat wallets live in their neighborhoods, not in ours." The article says that whichever alternative is chosen, the livability of one area will be enhanced at the expense of the other.
The increase in train traffic is coming as a result of a domino effect, the article explains. Miles away from the neighborhoods, on Hiawatha Avenue, work is about to begin on a $17.1 million road project that includes closing an east-west rail crossing. Meanwhile, a new bike path called the Midtown Greenway is being built along 29th, which means that several trains a day now using the 29th Street Corridor across south Minneapolis must be rerouted north to the Burlington Northern line that skirts downtown Minneapolis. These changes mean that a number of trains will need an alternate route from near the western edge of Minneapolis to St. Paul. The alternate route can occur in two ways: trains can pass through the Milwaukee Junction, which connects in St. Louis Park at Hwy. 7 and goes north to near Interstate Hwy. 394, or through the Cedar Lake Junction in Minneapolis, also known as the Kenilworth Corridor, which connects near Lake Street and goes north between Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles to just south of I-394. If the train is rerouted through St. Louis Park, several thousand property owners will be affected, compared with only several hundred in the Minneapolis neighborhoods. Whichever route the trains take, the nearby neighborhood will experience an increase from two trains per day to as many as twelve per day. In addition, the trains will be longer. Currently, trains have an average length of 15 to 20 cars, while after the change, some will have as many as 100 cars. The trains will block more street traffic, and will operate 24 hours a day, instead of mostly during morning and evening hours currently.
The City Councils in both Minneapolis and St. Louis Park have fought to keep train traffic down in the neighborhoods, the article says. The Minneapolis City Council passed a resolution opposing the more train traffic through the Kenilworth Corridor last year, saying it would cause safety problems and traffic delays. The resolution stated that the proposed train route "would significantly degrade the quality of life in the valuable residential area immediately adjacent to Minneapolis' Chain of Lakes."
Meanwhile, the St. Louis Park City Council passed two resolutions. The first resolution, in May 1996, opposed any new train traffic and raised safety concerns. Six months later, after a neighborhood railroad task force delivered its report, the City Council passed a less sweeping resolution, which still raised concerns about safety and noise but offered four options to deal with the trains. All but one of the options allowed that some additional train traffic might pass through St. Louis Park.
Then, the following year, the state Legislature considered an omnibus tax bill that included a provision that would help St. Louis Park clean up its infamous National Lead Superfund site near Milwaukee Junction. The city has long wanted to develop the property, but funding for cleanup is required before development could occur. State Representative Dee Long (DFL-Minneapolis) proposed the bill's provision, which would set aside as much as $5 million from a tax imposed on Hennepin County deeds and mortgage registries for an environmental cleanup fund, with the National Lead site as a priority. However, Long, who represents the Kenwood area, required that St. Louis Park must take the trains if the provision goes through. And, the county's ability to impose the tax, which generates about $100,000 a month in Hennepin County, expires at the end of 2002. While remediation at the contaminated site was being completed in St. Louis Park for two to six years, the trains would run through the Kenilworth Corridor. Under the plan, St. Louis Park will eventually develop the National lead site, and Hennepin County will build the new rail connection there. Long said that the provision was intended to seek a compromise, but it was also intended to make sure the trains don't permanently pass through her district. She said, "That's why we dumped that kind of money over there. It was a win-win situation."
According to the article, Gail Dorfman, the mayor of St. Louis Park, said that no deal has been struck, but added that the politics of the legislative vote were not on her city's side and that she supports the plan as a way to make the most out of a less-than-ideal situation. The article notes that the city may also be able to move a noisy switching station out of a residential neighborhood and win assurances that the tracks will be made quieter and safer, in addition to getting the site cleanup money. Dorfman said, "There was some hope at one time that this would end up as a win-win situation, but I no longer expect that to be the case." Dorfman doesn't buy the environmental justice argument, however. She said, "I've heard people say that here, and I don't buy it. Trains have been in St. Louis Park for a long time; the city is named after a railroad. Our issue shouldn't be with another city; it should be with the railroads. Throughout this whole thing they have told us nothing about what their plans are."
Meanwhile, residents in St. Louis Park aren't happy about the Representative Long's deal. Resident Eric Anderson knew the trains ran 30 feet from his home when he bought it three years ago, but his real-estate agent assured him there were only a couple a day. Now, he said he's used to that level of train traffic, but is worried about the long-term effects of vibration on his house if the train traffic increases. He said, "It seems to me that if you have the tracks available over there in Minneapolis already, you should use them. Cleaning up the contaminated site sounds like blackmail." Residents are also concerned about the type of freight on the trains (mostly grain, but fertilizers, propane, and some other hazardous materials are possibilities), noise issues, and other potential problems. Many residents in the Kenilworth Corridor area are sympathetic about what's happening to the St. Louis Park residents. David Shirley, a neighborhood activist in the Cedar-Isles-Dean neighborhood, said, "This whole thing has been a mess right from the start. I tell people to take no pleasure in what might happen in St. Louis Park." Shirley is suspicious of Long's plan to temporarily locate the trains in his area as well. He said after temporary improvements are made to the Kenilworth Corridor, it might be seen as more economically feasible for the railroad to continue trains there rather than reroute them through St. Louis Park.
The various political state, county, and city officials are struggling with the issues and coming down on different sides as well, the article says. The railroad has been noncommittal about which route it prefers, but county and state transportation officials have indicated that the St. Louis Park route is preferred. Meanwhile, Mark Andrew, a Hennepin County Board Member who represents both the St. Louis Park and Minneapolis neighborhoods, said this is "the toughest political decision I've ever had to make about an issue inside my district." Andrew supports routing the trains through St. Louis Park, because, he says the city lakes area and new bike and pedestrian paths are regional resources. But Susan Sanger, a St. Louis Park City Councilor, is worried that after the contaminated site is cleaned and developed, the city will be left to pay for the costs to mitigate the increased train traffic. The article notes that most of the 13 St. Louis Park neighborhoods that will be affected by the train traffic have given the city a list of safety issues and noise mitigation proposals that could exceed $13 million. Sanger said, "I don't like dividing a problem for one neighborhood and giving it to a bunch of other neighborhoods."
The latest vote on the issue will come this Monday, when the St. Louis Park City Council is expected to vote on a preliminary agreement with Hennepin County that allows for more investigative work to be completed in the contaminated site cleanup plan. Elected officials are telling residents that the vote is only preliminary, but many St. Louis Park residents are feeling like the deal is done. The article says at a recent neighborhood meeting, Mayor Dorfman said that Representative Long has vowed to put her body in front of any trains that might come through her neighborhood. In response, a neighborhood leader yelled, "All those in favor, say, 'Aye,'" and hands shot up around the room.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: March 1, 1998
SECTION: Southern Maryland Extra; Pg. M01
BYLINE: Todd Shields
DATELINE: Charles County, Maryland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Hans and Linda Svane, residents; R. Peter Cooksey Jr., vice president, Neighbors of the Zekiah Swamp; Patricia Drummond, lawyer for mining opponents
The Washington Post reports that residents in Charles County, Maryland are lobbying for restrictions on the entrenched gravel mining industry in the county. The article says that as homes increasingly spread across formerly rural land, homeowners' interests are at odds with the mining industry's practice of routinely strip mining for gravel.
According to the article, much of Southern Maryland has gravel deposits, and the county regularly approves strip mines to gather the gravel. But mining opponents say that the more than two dozen permitted strip mines in the county hurt property values, consume groundwater better reserved for drinking purposes, and send dangerous heavy trucks onto roads increasingly shared by commuters and school buses. R. Peter Cooksey Jr., vice president of Neighbors of the Zekiah Swamp, a group formed last year to fight a proposal to mine a 500-acre tract, said, "It's out of control. The citizens of this county know there needs to be change in the way this business is done."
The article explains that residents Hans and Linda Svane are fighting an open gravel pit behind their home. Chaney Enterprises, the mining company, provided the Svanes with the Sound Soother, a gadget that produces the sound of rain or waves or waterfall to overcome the drone of earth-moving equipment outside. But the device just didn't cover the noise, Hans Svane said. Chaney now wants permission to process sand and gravel on additional sites in the area, the article says. But the Svanes and other residents believe the water-intensive process could send harmful sediment into streams that feed the ecologically important Zekiah Swamp. Mining opponents took part in a hearing last week before the county board to determine whether the mine's expansion would have this effect. Patricia Drummond, a lawyer hired by mining opponents, said politicians risk a backlash if they fail to pay attention to residents' concerns. She said, "The people who have moved to the county are entitled to some say" about mining operations. "And they're angry."
Meanwhile, officials in the mining industry insist the temporary mining operations have no lasting effects on property values, that mined land is carefully restored, and the environment is protected. But, the article explains, the mining industry is becoming less important in Charles County as retail trade grows. Mining accounted for about 200 of the county's 45,000 jobs in 1995, according to state estimates. The mining industry is losing clout, the article says, as more residents become bothered by its operations. Recently, mining industry executives withdrew two bids for gravel mines, one a 500-acres proposal for Dentsville, and another proposal for a mine amid residential neighborhoods off Mill Hill Road east of Waldorf. Robert Stahl, an executive with Chaney Enterprises, a Waldorf company that mines sand and gravel, said, "We understand, and we're willing to change. But we need to work with people who aren't out to cut our throat." Although the jobs provided by mining in Charles County is relatively small, the county provides an increasing proportion of Maryland's sand and gravel, partly because sand and gravel production has dropped in Prince George's and Anne Arundel counties. According to state figures, Charles County supplied almost 20% of the state's supply in 1996, compared with about 14% in 1987.
The article explains that the population in Charles County has increased about 12% this decade, which places it among the region's fastest-growing areas. In the past, mining operations could strip mine 10 or 20 acres of land without disturbing the neighbors, but now subdivisions are growing in the once-rural landscape. Much of the new population is prosperous commuters, the article notes. Many residents want to protect their home values that run to $200,000 and more, and are not pleased when earth-movers and dump trucks come to rural land adjacent to their neighborhoods.
According to the article, gravel mining typically strips off 10 feet or more of dirt to get at sand and gravel veins that can run 10 to 15 feet thick and spread over acres. The gravel and dirt is scooped onto trucks, and because trucking the material is expensive, the mines try to operate as close as possible to their urban and suburban markets. A busy mine can produce 100 truckloads a day, the article says.
PUBLICATION: Evening News (Edinburgh, Scotland)
DATE: March 7, 1998
SECTION: Letters;Pg. 10
DATELINE: Edinburgh, Scotland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Denise Scott, Southside resident
The Evening News of Edinburgh, Scotland, printed the following letter from a resident about which agency should enforce noise laws:
I was very interested to read your article Action Plan for Neighbors and Calum MacDonald's quote regarding the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill "for a specific police power to seize sound equipment that is causing a nuisance." The police have power already to seize sound equipment under the Civic Scotland Act 1982 Section 54. And furthermore they use it.
The police are already overstretched as it is and officers do not have a tangible measurement as to what constitutes noise nuisance. It is only their opinion based on a few minutes' listening. This does not account for situations whereby people have to put up with hours of penetrating, space invading noise before feeling guilty about having to call in police. Unless the nuisance is a "one-off" such as a party, it is an Environmental Health Department problem.
The Environmental Health Department have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enforce the law regarding persistent noise nuisance. It is also the same department that has noise -monitoring equipment and although they may tell you the equipment is attuned for business and industry, it can be used for domestic purposes. After all, a decibel is a decibel anywhere. I am concerned at the ease with which the Environmental Health Department have passed the buck of enforcement onto the police.
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, CA)
DATE: March 3, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A13
BYLINE: Carolyne Zinko
DATELINE: Menlo Park, California
The San Francisco Chronicle Tuesday reports gardeners in the Menlo Park area are planning a series of protests against the proposed ban on leaf blowers, alleging the ban is racially and economically motivated.
According to the article, gardeners are characterizing the proposed ban as a racial issue that pits affluent white homeowners against lower-income Latinos. City Council members don't agree. "I don't see that at all -- it's a noise issue, that's all," said Menlo Park Mayor Chuck Kinney. "Since the gardeners have been involved, there have been a lot of letters and e-mails against (the ban), but an equal number or slightly larger number for the ban." The Menlo Park gardeners say they can solve the noise problem by educating members about the proper use of equipment and by purchasing new-model leaf blowers, which are quieter than lawn mowers. Gardeners also are pledging to police themselves. "We know there's a problem. We're just asking for a chance," Quezada said. "Give us three or six months. If some gardener does something wrong, call us, and we'll take care of it."
The article reports if the council gives final approval to the ban next week, Menlo Park would become the latest in a string of cities that have banned the machines, including Los Altos, Carmel and Santa Barbara. Menlo Park would also become the next staging ground for protests. Three protests are planned this week, at noon on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, at Menlo Park City Hall. A larger protest is scheduled for Monday, the night before the council's final vote. Los Angeles' ban on gas-powered leaf blowers went into effect February 14, preceded by a series of demonstrations and a hunger strike by Latino gardeners. Quezada of Redwood City said that should the ban go into effect, the local gardeners' association will consider filing a lawsuit against Menlo Park. Los Angeles gardeners, along with two landscape contracting associations and a leaf- blower manufacturer, have filed a lawsuit challenging their city's ban. The suit contends that the ban violates due process and equal protection laws -- that a city does not need to ban a business activity or product that can be regulated instead, said Ron Van Buskirk, an attorney for Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, which is representing the coalition. The suit is scheduled to be heard March 13 in Los Angeles Superior Court.
The article says not all cities bothered by noise from leaf blowers have banned the machines. San Mateo and Foster City restricted the hours that gardeners and homeowners can use leaf blowers, especially on weekends. Foster City mailed brochures about the new regulations in English and Spanish to landscape contractors. San Mateo and its neighborhood associations came up with a compromise with the San Mateo Gardeners Association that requires gardeners to police themselves on leaf-blower noise.
The article reports that Robin Pendergast, public affairs and marketing for Echo Inc. of Lake Zurich, Ill., the nation's largest manufacturer of handheld, backpack-style leaf blowers, says bans don't work. The company monitors Los Altos, which banned gas-powered leaf blowers in 1991. In a recent survey, the company found 62 landscapers over a two-day period using leaf blowers. Most of them were operating the blowers at 50 percent to 75 percent of full power. "I wasn't doing (the survey) to be a jerk," Pendergast said. "It's nice to have a little reality when it comes to ordinances like this."
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: March 7, 1998
SECTION: News Pg.06a
BYLINE: Mark Schaver
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
The Courier-Journal reports that some U.S. cities that have airports close to heavily populated areas have established committees and programs to monitor and mitigate noise for neighbors. The article examines the measures that San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Memphis have undertaken, and discusses how the noise problems are similar to the airport noise issues in Louisville, Kentucky.
According to the article, officials at the San Francisco International Airport signed an agreement with surrounding communities in 1992 to reduce aircraft noise in order to get permission to build a $2.4 billion international terminal. According to Lisbet Engberg, a spokesperson for the airport, the agreement included a $120 million plan to insulate homes within a 15-mile radius from noise. By the year 2000, the airport expects to have installed soundproof doors, windows, and noise insulation in more than 10,000 homes, Engberg said. In addition, the airport has installed noise-monitoring equipment in neighborhoods that identifies airplanes that violate noise limits. Engberg said that when airlines violate the noise limits, they are sent letters asking for an explanation. Typically, airlines are "very cooperative" in correcting mistakes, Engberg said.
The article goes on to say that the San Francisco Airport also created a roundtable advisory group of industry and community representatives who advise on ways to reduce noise. For example, the advisory group petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration to require United Airlines to fly 1,000 feet higher over one community, Woodside. According to Engberg, "It's made a tremendous difference in the community. The bottom line is ... we've really taken the noise issue seriously."
The article reports that the Minneapolis airport is similar to the Louisville airport in that it is surrounded by a mix of businesses and homes. The commission that runs the Minneapolis airport formed a the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, an advisory group, in 1969. The council meets monthly and is made up of 19 airline industry representatives and 19 community representatives, according to Dick Keinz, the commission's director of environment. The council has suggested actions such as restricting overnight flights and engine tests. The article notes that some of those changes might not be possible in Louisville, because United Parcel Service does most of its work at night. But, according to Keinz, other recommended actions would be applicable, including building earthen berms between the airport and neighborhoods, training pilots to be more sensitive to noise issues, and routing airplanes over commercial rather than residential areas.
Keinz went on to say that when airport officials and community members started looking for ways to reduce noise, it was relatively easy. He said, "The obvious things you can do pretty fast. Now it's more difficult. It's incremental improvements, if anything." In recent years, the airport has been insulating nearby homes. So far, the article says, more than 3,400 homes have been insulated at a cost of $25,000 each. The insulation program adds insulation and soundproof doors and windows, and installs central air- conditioning systems so doors and windows can be kept closed during the summer. According to Joe Shortreed, the Minneapolis airport commission's construction manager, the goal is to reduce the noise level in homes by 5 decibels. Shortreed added that the airport had bought out a few homes, but has emphasized insulation in order to "preserve the integrity of neighborhoods."
The article also discusses the airport in Memphis, Tennessee. That airport has problems similar to Louisville's because it is the headquarters of Federal Express, the article says. According to Larry Cox, the president of the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority, the authority has undertaken a project to purchase and demolish 1,400 homes. The project started in 1987 and is almost complete, the article reports.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: March 7, 1998
SECTION: News Pg.01a
BYLINE: Nina Walfoort
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Virginia Embry, resident; Mary Rose Evans, chair, Airport Neighbors' Alliance; Reverend Louis Coleman, community activist; Denise Bentley, Alderman; Greg Handy, Alderman
The Courier-Journal reports that residents living near the Louisville (Kentucky) International Airport are worried that making the airport a mega-hub for United Parcel Service will increase the already disturbing noise produced by aircraft. As Regional Airport Authority and Jefferson County officials revise the airport's noise-reduction plan, residents are preparing to voice their concerns.
According to the article, some residents and leaders think the aircraft noise problem is currently unbearable. Virginia Embry, who lives in Parkway Village near Old Louisville, said UPS planes shake her house so much they wake her up at night. She added, "The pictures on my wall never stay straight. When you can't sit in your house and hear the TV or hear your neighbors when you're sitting on the porch, it's pretty bad." Embry said the UPS expansion could destroy her neighborhood.
The article reports that even before UPS announced its expansion, noise from changed flight paths and new runways have exposed more neighborhoods to jet-engine noise. Mary Rose Evans, chairwoman of the Airport Neighbors' Alliance, said at least six neighborhoods, including Shelby Park, Oakdale, East Russell and Wilder Park, have expressed an interest in joining her group since the second runway opened in December. The Rev. Louis Coleman, a community activist, asked at an airport authority board meeting last month about noise problems, and Ninth Ward Alderman Denise Bentley announced that she's been getting complaints from her west Louisville constituents since the west runway opened. "It's not just a slight problem," she said. "We're getting neighbors calling to say their house is rattling." Bentley said she's determined to get the airport to deal with these noise problems. "I will not stand by and watch another community be destroyed by airport noise. "
The article goes on to report that those reluctant in the past to address noise concerns are coming forward. Alderman Greg Handy said he has been trying with little success to get the airport authority to do more about noise for seven years. But the new runway configuration has changed that. "Some of the aldermen who have been reluctant to support what I have advocated are starting to see it makes a lot of sense," he said. In August, the aldermen decided to hire a California-based consultant to develop noise -reduction strategies, and the Airport Neighbors' Alliance sound committee has been reconstituted and re-energized, Evans said. Evans expressed the Alliance's goals in a nutshell: "We would like to get the flight paths narrowed down, buyouts for the people under them, and insulation for the people around them."
Eliot Cutler, a Washington, DC attorney who worked with Louisville residents who opposed the airport expansion in the 1980s, said most of the airports that have responded to residents' concerns have done so under strict agreements attached to airport construction or expansion. The horse is out of the barn in Louisville, he said, because the community didn't get any agreements about noise mitigation as part of the expansion plan. In Louisville, it will be up to the local leadership to press the airport authority to make changes, he said. "I've never seen an airport - and I've seen hundreds of them - where changes can't be made that would mitigate impacts on people who live nearby, " he said. "The question is always whether the cost of making those changes. . . is a cost the people who run the airport want to or are willing to pay."
According to the article, Doug Stern, spokesman for the airport's expansion project, says residents will get their say. The Regional Airport Authority is preparing a timetable for updating the federally mandated noise plan that was adopted in 1993. Once that process in under way, probably later this year, there will be discussion among community leaders, the airport authority and residents about what can be done, using updated flight projections and new noise models, he said. "That's where the community will work on an agreement about how to deal with noise, " he said. The current plan, adopted in 1993, is to buy out 1, 600 homes in the neighborhoods where the effects of noise were found to be significant. That plan also called for soundproofing of Minor Lane Heights Elementary School. Among other agreements was one that said, as much as possible, the airport would schedule noisier departing flights during the day to the south which is a less populated area. The plan also stipulated that UPS would schedule as many night flights as weather permitted to come in from the south and depart to the south. The plan also stipulates that engine testing be limited to the south part of the runways, and that planes adhere to certain pathways after takeoff before turning.
The article reports that UPS spokesman Ken Shapero said UPS wants to be a good neighbor and keep noise to a minimum. The company has spent a half-billion dollars on quieter engines and converted its fleet ahead of the deadline set by the federal government. Shapero said the addition of the mega-hub will likely cause an increase in flights, but it's impossible now to say how many. Given the design of the new facility's parking docks, UPS can't add more than 44 flights to its current number of about 105, he said. But far fewer than 44 may be necessary since the additional volume in packages can be accommodated to some extent by larger planes. Shapero said flight patterns are sometimes constrained by safety considerations, but new technology in flight programming could give airports more flexibility to route planes over less-residential areas.
The article goes on to say it is at least one politician's belief that ultimately the airport may outgrow its location. Ultimately, if UPS and other carriers project continued growth, all or part of the airport may have to be moved, said state Rep. Jim Wayne, D- Louisville. "We need to look regionally for a new location. The present location may be OK for the short-term, but let's look at 20 years from now."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: March 7, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 2; Orange County Focus Desk
BYLINE: Frank Messina
DATELINE: Lake Forest, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that because of resident complaints about noise from traffic increases along Bake Parkway in Lake Forest, California, the city council has decided to plant trees between residences and the highway. The effort is intended to quiet the neighborhood, and residents seem happy about the idea. The traffic increased because of a highway expansion project two years ago.
The Los Angeles Times reports that because of resident complaints about noise from traffic increases along Bake Parkway in Lake Forest, California, the city council has decided to plant trees between residences and the highway. The effort is intended to quiet the neighborhood, and residents seem happy about the idea. The traffic increased because of a highway expansion project two years ago.
PUBLICATION: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: March 7, 1998
SECTION: Aukesha Pg. 2
DATELINE: Manitowoc, Wisconsin
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Steve Weinert, a Manitowoc, Wisconsin, resident, regarding homeowners who complain about noise from the Waukesha airport:
Flight operations in residential areas have been a problem for many communities ("Waukesha airport hours limit proposed," March 2). The local residents often forget after purchasing housing directly affected by flight operations that their housing costs were downwardly adjusted by the marketplace perception of the expected impact. The aircraft operators, who often have multimillion-dollar investments in aircraft, hangars, crews and training, are obligated to operate in the safest possible fashion, taking into consideration winds, weather, runway length and runway surface conditions.
In the balance, who should prevail? The aircraft operator. It is his very life that may be put at risk in complying with unwarranted airport operation restrictions. The community has affirmed its willingness to accept this by the use of governmental funding, which provides an obligation to allow free and ready airport access.
Can a voluntary compliance program be instituted, with area pilots requested to comply when safety allows? Yes. But no regulatory rules should be attempted that place safety behind the noise concerns of those who bought the equivalent of the "cheap seats."
PUBLICATION: The Northern Echo
DATE: March 7, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 7
BYLINE: Bruce Unwin
DATELINE: United Kingdom
The United Kingdom's Northern Echo reports a court hearing has been scheduled for June to address noise levels at a popular motorsport center in Sunderland.
According to the article, Manor House Leisure is appealing a noise abatement order issued by Sunderland City Council following complaints from people living near the track. Thirteen residents in neighboring hamlets of Warden Law and Burdon claim they suffer from continuous noise from the two-stroke engines of motorcycles and carts when the track is in use. The abatement order was issued by the council last May. Since then meetings have been held to try to reach a compromise agreement over acceptable noise levels.
The article states representatives of both Manor House Leisure and Sunderland council came before Houghton-le-Spring magistrates yesterday. The court was told a compromise could not be reached. Council solicitor Lynne Bennett said: "It has been going on for such a long time it is now appropriate to bring it to a conclusion." Lewis Grove, for Manor House Leisure, said: "I have been waiting for a response from the council since January. It's a slow procedure."
A two-day hearing has now been scheduled to hear the appeal. The motorsport company's director, Ian Lawson, said the track would continue to operate under the terms of its existing management agreement until the outcome of the hearing, because the company has a contractual obligation with the council, which is the site landlord. Lawson added that the company has been involved in "an enormous amount of dialogue" to reach a satisfactory agreement, as well as taking action to reduce noise levels from the site."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: March 7, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 5; Zone: NW
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois area
The Chicago Tribune reports that the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission marked its first anniversary Friday by noting its achievements.
According to the article, the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission consists of a panel of suburban and city officials working to abate airport noise. One of the Commission's greatest accomplishments so far may be getting all the players to the table to discuss noise and educating commissioners on the complexities of operations at O'Hare International Airport. Arlington Heights Mayor Arlene Mulder was re-elected chairman of the panel Friday.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: March 6, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N4
BYLINE: Sherry Joe Crosby
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lori Dinkin, president of the Valley Village Homeowners Association; Zev Yaroslavsky, county supervisor; Joel Wachs and Michael Feuer, city council members
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports MTA officials have abandoned plans to place a temporary welding facility and accompanying 16-foot-high sound walls in the Valley Village neighborhood.
According to the article, a group of residents was declaring victory Thursday. "Ecstatic is the word," said Lori Dinkin, president of the Valley Village Homeowners Association, which led a letter-writing campaign against the $20 million Metropolitan Transportation Authority project. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said the decision made it a "great day for Valley Village." It's a win-win situation for everybody," said Yaroslavsky, who, with City Council members Joel Wachs and Michael Feuer worked with MTA officials to reach a compromise. "The residents get an unsightly 16-foot-high sound wall and storage facility out of their neighborhood where it never belonged. The MTA saves money, taxpayers save money, and it makes the construction project a little bit more compact."
The article reports that initially, MTA officials had planned to erect the sound walls on either side of Chandler Boulevard between Colfax and Tujunga avenues. The walls would reduce noise and dust from a temporary welding facility and storage yard for construction of the Red Line subway. Now, the agency plans to move the entire project east of the Hollywood Freeway where the temporary welding facility will be located, said MTA spokesman Stephan Pippen. Yaroslavsky said the MTA was able to move the project by reducing the length of rail segments being manufactured at the welding site and relocating the planned storage yard.
PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: March 6, 1998
SECTION: Denver & The West; Pg. B-01
BYLINE: Julia Martinez
DATELINE: Denver, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kim Katz, resident
The Denver Post reports Denver officials are hoping a study that says it is possible to reduce noise around Denver International Airport will persuade Congress to release funds for a sixth runway.
According to the article, the study, released Thursday, concludes that DIA noise could be reduced by changing the flight paths of airplanes and using quieter aircraft. It also found that building a sixth runway at DIA would not increase noise beyond current levels for about 90,000 people who live in homes where noise levels top 65 decibels. But the runway could increase noise levels for people whose noise level is now between 45 and 65 decibels, the study found. The study, supported by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, will be used to persuade Congress to lift a funding ban imposed in 1994 that has prevented construction of a new runway. The funding ban, prompted by complaints from residents, prevented Denver from competing for federal funds.
The article reports Adams County residents who live closest to DIA, and who put up with the loudest noise levels, fear they will suffer even more if another runway is constructed. "A sixth runway will still hurt us. There are probably 200 homes that would be severely impacted by the sixth runway," said Kim Katz, whose house is about 2 miles from the closest existing runway. Katz is among 22 residents who have sued over the noise and the airport's failure to either buy them out or compensate them for lost property values. Katz believes that even a change in flight paths would probably raise the noise level. "There are only so many directions that they can come in and out," she said of the aircraft. "And if they try to take off at a steeper incline, they will be powering up even more." Katz residents in her area can't sell their homes. "I have a cracked window on the house from the noise. We haven't been able to get a horse bred since (the airport) opened" because they are bothered by the noise, she said.
The article states that Christopher Paulson, chief executive of Policy Advantage Inc., a consulting firm in Denver, believes that adding a sixth runway will actually reduce noise for nearby residents. He said that 198 people now are exposed to noise levels above 65 decibels and that doing nothing would increase that number to 329 in 2002. Changing flight plans, adding quieter aircraft and building the sixth runway, on the other hand, would reduce that number to 51, the study found. "The purpose of this study was to show that over time, even though airport operations expand and traffic increases, you still can come out ahead of where you are now," Paulson said. "That's what's so good about this study." The study was funded by Denver, Douglas, Arapahoe, Weld, Boulder, Elbert, Jefferson and Larimer counties. It focused on aircraft operations at DIA, Buckley Air National Guard Base and Centennial Airport. The study focused only on the noise impact. The study did not look at issues of air-traffic safety, efficiency, economy, and environmental impacts.
PUBLICATION: M2 Presswire (United Kingdom)
DATE: March 6, 1998
DATELINE: United Kingdom
M2 Presswire issued a press release that reports trials held with British Airways 747-400 aircraft leaving Heathrow confirm that "best-practice" flying procedures during take-off produce the least possible disturbance to local communities.
The trials - believed to be first of their kind in the world - were carried out by British Airways and BAA Heathrow last summer, with technical advice from Boeing and in consultation with Heathrow's Noise and Track Keeping Working Group, comprising community and aviation industry representatives.
During the trials changes were made to take-off and climb procedures. These changes involved modifying the rate of climb, changing the height at which power is reduced, and altering the point where aircraft accelerate after take-off.
The trials showed that, for 747-400 aircraft, subtle variations to current procedures could achieve noise reductions of 1 to 1.5 decibels (dBA) at 6.5 kms from "start of roll," without detriment to noise performance further out. Further analysis showed that the environmental benefit of the noise reductions achieved outweighed additional fuel consumption and engine emissions.
If the new procedures are endorsed by the Noise and Track Keeping Working Group, British Airways will make them standard on all 747-400 departures from Heathrow. It will also apply them at other airports world-wide, where local conditions permit.
Hugh Somerville, British Airways Head of Environment said: "These trials show how strong is the commitment of both British Airways and BAA to achieving the lowest possible noise levels and the best possible environment for local communities. The trials did not produce big changes in noise levels, but it would have been surprising if they had, as we have always striven for best practice."
Other trials with older 747s were less conclusive and suggested that any improvements at 6.5 kms would be achieved at the expense of increasing noise levels further out. These trials are continuing. The successful results from the 747-400 trials open the way to further studies with other aircraft types, to see if benefits could be achieved across the British Airways fleet
The departure noise trials were part of a much wider program of noise initiatives being taken by BAA Heathrow and British Airways to reduce aircraft noise at Heathrow and elsewhere.
These include: Work with airlines and ATC to achieve compliance with noise preferential departure routes; studies on further benefits that could be achieved from continuous descent approaches, especially at night; research on "active noise" at Cranfield University - a long term project which is looking at scientific ways to cancel out noise from aircraft engines; phasing out of British Airways' noisiest 747s two years ahead of the regulatory deadline; and planned investment by British Airways of GBP 2.8 billion over the next four years on new aircraft with much improved environmental performance
Paul Fox, Safety and Security Director of BAA Heathrow commented: "BAA Heathrow is committed to working in partnership with the Noise and Track Keeping Working Group and its local authority and business partners to seek ways of minimizing the impact of Heathrow on local people. The departures noise study is just one element in a large program of initiatives which BAA Heathrow is pursuing to reduce the effects of noise resulting from Heathrow's operations."
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
DATE: March 6, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Lynn Bonner and Matthew Eisley
DATELINE: Raleigh, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rich Wessel, resident; Tim McBrayer, representative of North Raleigh Association of Neighborhoods
The News and Observer reports overnight delivery of packages is becoming a political issue in Wake County, North Carolina, as the controversy over the proposed Federal Express hub at Raleigh-Durham International Airport gains momentum.
According to the article, the controversy is threatening to force the county Board of Commissioners to take sides between a Fortune 500 company that promises jobs and vocal residents opposed to its location at RDI. Residents contend the hub's nuisance factor would outweigh the financial benefits. The FedEx facility would bring up to 1,500 new jobs to the Triangle, but residents worried about increased airplane noise and truck traffic near the airport are asking the county and other local governments to adopt resolutions opposing it. FedEx is expected to pick a site this spring. The commissioners are divided over the question and are avoiding a formal declaration.
The article reports angry residents have demanded details from commissioners about the proposed $300 million FedEx hub. Commissioner Yevonne Brannon, a hub opponent, was one of the first elected officials to demand more information from the airport authority. She said she sympathizes with residents who want details and who don't think their concerns are being addressed. "The citizens are really tired of that mentality that they're not allowed to be involved in making decisions," she said. "The public is beginning to feel like they can't trust public officials because deals are made without their input." Brannon voiced many of the opponents' arguments about the hub as a nuisance threat. "I'm not real impressed with this proposal myself," she said. "I'm really concerned about the trucking part of it. I'm concerned about the gridlock we're already in on I-40."
According to the article, Commissioners Stewart Adcock and Betty Lou Ward said the airport authority, which voted 6-1 in favor of the FedEx bid, has the final say. "We appoint those people to make decisions just like we appoint other boards," Adcock said. But a vote against the hub by the governing board of Wake County, which owns the airport with Durham County and the cities of Raleigh and Durham, could have far-reaching consequences. It would pit Wake against Durham, whose City Council has endorsed the shipping center. And local opposition to the hub would give an advantage to RDU's competitors for the facility: the Global TransPark at Kinston and the airports at Charlotte, Greensboro, and Greenville-Spartanburg and Columbia in South Carolina. But a vote for the hub would anger people in northwest Raleigh, Cary, and Morrisville who are worried about nighttime airplane noise and truck traffic. Morrisville leaders passed a resolution last month against the FedEx center. And the North Raleigh Association of Neighborhoods, formed by more than a dozen subdivisions, urged the Raleigh City Council on Tuesday to oppose the hub. Hub opponents have asked for a public hearing on the proposal, and association representative Tim McBrayer bluntly warned the council members that whatever position they take on the hub could affect their political future.
The article reports the council has taken no official position, though Mayor Tom Fetzer and others support the project while acknowledging the noise issue must be addressed. At the suggestion of council member Kieran Shanahan, the council agreed Tuesday to request a report on the hub noise issue from the airport's noise committee. Airport Authority Chairman Ronald Gregory said FedEx will consider government opposition when it chooses a site for the hub. "I'm certain that resolutions from the governments of our region saying 'We don't want you here' certainly are going to have some effect," Gregory said. But hub opponents want more than second thoughts by FedEx. Rich Wessel, a Raleigh resident, hopes the political pressure will force the airport authority to withdraw its bid.
PUBLICATION: OC Weekly
DATE: March 6, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 14
BYLINE: Anthony Pignataro
DATELINE: Newport Beach, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Paul Eckles, executive director of South County cities group
According to OC Weekly, a report written last year but only now released under court order contradicts statements from Newport Beach, California, county officials that runways at the proposed El Toro International Airport will go unchanged.
The article says in early March, Supervisor Jim Silva told residents that the county had no reason to deceive the public in its El Toro airport planning. "We can get it in on its merits," he told the mostly pro-airport audience of Newport residents. But according to a county report written by P & D Consultants and released under court pressure in January, Silva is wrong. The report--titled "Simulation Assumptions" and dated Aug. 26, 1997--contradicts statements from county officials that runways at the proposed El Toro International Airport will remain unchanged. In fact, the report says, the current El Toro runway and terminal configuration will most likely change radically and that the changes may require expansion of John Wayne Airport as well.
The article says the report, which was released to a group of South County cities after a lawsuit, lays out four potential El Toro configurations. Directly contradicting county statements that all simulations were based on the current runway configuration, the paper includes three plans that involve closing Runway 7 entirely and routing all departures on Runway 34. That would mean that all El Toro commercial flights would head out over North County cities--areas of traditional support for the airport. The three new El Toro configurations--which don't appear in a more recent "draft" version dated Jan. 23, 1998--involve separating the two remaining north-south runways. In such a configuration, the proposed terminal--originally slated to cover the base's western area--would move into the space between the two runways. That could mean billions of additional dollars in new runway construction costs.
According to the article, Paul Eckles, executive director of the South County cities fighting the airport, became privy to the existence of alternative plans last November when he visited Washington, DC, to meet with federal officials. He says the Air Line Pilots Association told him then that county officials had abandoned Runway 7 in their plans. When Eckles asked the county for an explanation, county planners expressed confusion about the pilots' claim, and have insisted Eckles was wrong. But the fact that the original paper was dated August 1997 means county officials knew exactly what the pilots meant. "The county is doing a shell game," said Eckles at a March 2 press conference. "They've got different plans for different purposes. But if we can ever get this thing to sit still, it will fall of its own weight." The South County cities took the county to court to force the release of the reports. A Superior Court Judge ruled that the county had to turn over both draft and final versions of the reports. The elimination of Runway 7 would have far-reaching implications for the proposed airport. With just two runways instead of four, it's doubtful El Toro could handle anywhere near the 38 million annual passengers (MAP) county officials promised back in January 1996. Limiting El Toro to just two runways would do little more than duplicate the current John Wayne Airport.
The article goes on to point out that sending all departures northward will radically alter which cities are affected by jet noise and pollution. There are no noise buffers north of El Toro, so Villa Park, Tustin, Orange and Fullerton will have no protection from El Toro's thousands of departures every month. Newport Beach--already overflown by John Wayne--will be subjected to more noise in this scenario. According to commercial pilots and notes from a meeting between the Federal Aviation Administration and county officials on April 30, 1996, many planes departing El Toro to the north will have to head out to sea after taking off, crossing the coast over Corona del Mar.
PUBLICATION: The Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
DATE: March 6, 1998
SECTION: Local; Ed. F; Pg. 4A
BYLINE: Carla Crowder
DATELINE: Denver, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Elaine Valente, Adams County Commissioner
The Rocky Mountain News reports changes in flight paths at Denver International Airport could ease noise problems for 90,000 people, according to a study released Wednesday. The study drew attention because it's the first time anyone has suggested so many people in the area are bothered by airport noise.
The article reports that the federal government considers 65 decibels to be the threshold for the most serious noise problems for airport neighbors. DIA has 198 people living in its 65-decibel area, and the study says this could be cut to 51. The majority of the 90,000 people who might benefit from changes in flight paths, which must be implemented by the Federal Aviation Administration, live in areas with more than 55 decibels. The study also says that quieter new jets, required to replace loud ones by 2002, will help cut noise. Nearly all of the noise complaints at Denver International Airport are prompted by the older jets to be phased out of use. The study also says that because the new planes will be quieter, more planes won't make much difference, nor would a proposed sixth runway. "The sixth runway can be built without increasing noise, " because the new jets will be quieter, said Chris Paulson, a consultant who headed up the study.
The article reports Adams County Commissioner Elaine Valente isn't convinced things are getting any better even though the total number of households complaining about noise from DIA has dropped by more than two-thirds in the last two years. Valente is cautious about the study's results. "When all is said and done, airports make noise and the noise has to go somewhere," Valente said. Adams County didn't help fund the study and recently filed a lawsuit against Denver seeking more than $ 3.5 million for noise violations. "We'll reserve judgment until we see something to assure us the addition of a sixth runway isn't going to exacerbate us," Valente said. In the next few weeks, the task force that commissioned the study, will analyze it and make recommendations to Congress and the FAA.
According to the article, the study is being called impartial because Denver and neighboring counties paid for it. Most of the officials working on the noise issue hadn't read the study before it was released. Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Joel Hefley, the two Republican congressmen who've fought the sixth runway, say the study looks encouraging but it's too soon to draw any conclusions about a new runway. City Aviation Director Jim DeLong said he believes the study shows solutions to the noise problem reach beyond DIA's power. For example, flight patterns at DIA can't be changed without altering the flight paths at Centennial Airport and Buckley Air National Guard Base. "Until someone looks at the entire airspace system . . . it's going to be difficult to make significant noise improvements," said DeLong.
PUBLICATION: Albuquerque Journal
DATE: March 5, 1998
SECTION: Pg. A1
BYLINE: Sherri Chunn
DATELINE: Albuquerque, New Mexico
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Sue Welch, resident
The Albuquerque Journal reports residents of an Albuquerque, New Mexico, neighborhood claim they've lost their peace and quiet to television-news helicopters that frequently fly over their homes.
According to the article, television stations KOB Channel 4 and KRQE Channel 13 have built heliports near the Albuquerque Country Club neighborhood. Residents say they want the choppers - along with the noise, fumes and potential danger that come with them -- out of their back yards. Officials from both stations say they try to be good neighbors and avoid flying over the residential area as much as possible.
But complaints from residents have prompted the city to begin monitoring noise levels around television stations and hospitals that use helicopters. "For the next month the city will measure noise levels at residential properties closest to the point source," said Greg Wheeler, assistant city attorney. "We need to figure out whether there is a violation." The city's zoning law allows heliports on television station property. But if the helicopters exceed the areas' noise level over 50 decibels, or 10 decibels over normal noise levels, the city can fine the heliport operator up to $900 for each violation, Wheeler said.
Helicopters have become an integral part of Albuquerque's broadcast news scene because they can quickly transmit pictures from far-away locations. City officials at first questioned whether the city had jurisdiction over the private heliports. "Generally the FAA regulates anything that flies," Wheeler said. But Federal Aviation Administration officials have said the city is responsible for regulation of heliports, said Richard Mitzelfelt, manager of the Environmental Health Department's Consumer Protection Division.
Residents say they are happy that the city is at least investigating whether the choppers violate the noise law. But Escalante resident Sue Welch says the safety issue concerns her more than the noise. "We were very upset about Channel 13's (helicopter)," Welch said. "It was always a noise factor. Then KOB plops one right on street level. Only a chain link fence separates the neighborhood from (the heliport.)." Welch won't let her children play outside when KOB's chopper prepares to leave or land at the heliport. "Basically they're landing and lifting off a half a block from our house," she said. "Sometimes they take off over our neighborhood and that's very dangerous."
KRQE-TV news director Tauna Lange said Channel 13 hasn't received any complaints about helicopter noise. "We have purposely put our flight path over the Rio Grande. We take off from our roof. We've tried very diligently to be good neighbors," she said. Remington said KOB-TV also tries to be an unobtrusive neighbor. "We rarely fly at night. We rarely fly early in the morning. Most of the flying is done in regular business hours," he said. The helicopter typically avoids flying over the homes, said Remington, but weather conditions sometimes force the helicopter to fly over the neighborhood.
The article states the Environmental Health Department's Consumer Protection Division next week will begin surveying residents near six heliports, Mitzelfelt said. "If they do consider it a problem, we're going to ask them to keep a log of when these flights occur, including the time, date and noise impact. That will help us determine a pattern," he said. City employees will collect the logs and then assign surveillance employees to problem areas.
PUBLICATION: Asbury Park Press (Neptune, NJ)
DATE: March 5, 1998
SECTION: A, Pg. 18, Editorial
DATELINE: Stafford, New Jersey
The Asbury Park Press published an editorial about the decision Tuesday night by the Stafford, New Jersey, Township Committee to ban amplified music from ice cream trucks.
The editorial says Mayor Carl W. Block tried to work things out through better enforcement of the township's noise ordinance, but in the end he cast the deciding vote to institute the ban. Ice cream vendors may still ring bells. Some township residents told the committee they found the amplified strains of children's tunes such as "Turkey in the Straw" annoying. It's possible Stafford residents may be taken to court by the American Civil Liberties Union or the International Ice Cream Vendors Association. The issue should not be the music, but the noise level. If, as Block indicated yesterday, the township isn't sure it can measure the noise from the ice cream trucks, the noise ordinance on its books isn't much good.
The editorial says the target of the ban is Jeffrey Cabannis, the owner of the only licensed soft ice cream truck in Stafford. If township officials believed he was violating the noise ordinance, they should have asked him to reduce the volume or to play his tune a little less frequently. But the objections, however, go beyond noise alone. "I don't think it's the loudness of the music. It's the music," council member Virginia Alman said. Alman's comments fuel those who would challenge the new rule. "It seems to me they're getting too involved in the content of the expression instead of saying it's too loud," said Ed Martone, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the ACLU. "Would they say you can play instrumentals but not vocals, or opera but not rock?"
PUBLICATION: The Charleston Gazette
DATE: March 5, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. P9a
BYLINE: Phil Kabler
DATELINE: Mineral County, West Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Robert "Ringo" Nelson, resident
The Charleston Gazette reports a bill that could help secure a little peace and quiet for a West Virginia resident was approved by a Senate Judiciary subcommittee Wednesday. However, the deadline is fast-approaching for the Senate to act on its own bills, and this bill may not make it through in time.
According to the article, Robert "Ringo" Nelson, who lives in Elk Garden, Mineral County, has been fighting for noise control legislation ever since a quasi-military training facility moved in on 200 acres of neighboring property. Members of the Storm Mountain Training Facility, Nelson complains, fire automatic weapons during "tactical training sessions," which sometimes run late into the night. Because only municipalities in West Virginia currently have noise control laws, Nelson is battling with the facility owners in Mineral County Circuit Court to get a permanent restraining order against them.
The article states that for about a week earlier in the session, Nelson was a fixture at the Legislature, trying to convince any senator or delegate who would listen that noise control legislation is needed. "Would you enjoy having this behind your residence?" he said of Storm Mountain. The retired General Motors employee has been forced to abandon plans to build a house on the property. "I'm not against firing ranges, but they should abide by the rules and regulations." The subcommittee bill would authorize counties to enact noise ordinances. Sen. Frank Deem, R-Wood, proposed the amendment to a bill introduced by Sen. Harry Dugan, R-Berkeley. That bill sets fines of $25 to $100 for making "any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise, " or any noise that endangers the comfort, health or safety of others. However, since today is the earliest the full committee will have an opportunity to consider the bill, its future is uncertain.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: March 5, 1998
SECTION: News Pg.18a
BYLINE: Nina Walfoort and Sheldon Shafer
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Marianne Lesher, resident; Glenn Bright, resident; Fred Williams, Mayor of Minor Lane Heights
The Courier-Journal reports Louisville, Kentucky, residents who live near the airport or under the flight path, worry that the UPS expansion announced yesterday will mean more noise and other harmful effects.
According to the article, two or three times a month, Marianne Lesher says, she is awakened in the middle of the night by the roar of planes overhead. Lesher, owner of the Old Louisville Inn, said that on one occasion she got up at 2:30 a.m. and watched the planes from her parlor window. She was shocked by how close they were. "I could see the individual windows of the planes flying over," she said. Lesher, like many people who live near the airport or under the flight path, is concerned that the UPS expansion announced yesterday will mean more sleepless hours. She's also worried about the possibility of a plane crash in her neighborhood and the effect of sound vibrations on the historic homes. The expansion is good for the economy, she said, but "I'd like more information. I'd like to know that UPS as a corporation will work with the different concerns the neighborhoods do have." Resident Glenn Bright, who describes himself as a light sleeper, is less tolerant of the night-time intrusions. "It would be good if they could take the airport and move it about 10,000 miles from here," he said.
The article reports UPS officials were able to answer only some of the questions that residents asked yesterday. President Tom Weidemeyer said the expansion will mean more flights, though he didn't know how many more than the current schedule of about 110 arrivals and 110 departures a day. UPS spokesman Ken Shapero said many aircraft now fly with less than a full load and will be able to handle many more packages before additional flights are added. He also said UPS might use more large jets.
The article goes on to report two local legislators will be keeping track of the impact of the expansion. Rep. Jim Wayne, D-Louisville, who represents areas near Louisville International Airport, said he welcomes new jobs. But he also said he will try to ensure that the community has a chance to debate issues related to the expansion. "There are a lot of unanswered questions," Wayne said. "How many planes will there be? What about the noise and the impact on neighborhoods? . . . All this was done behind closed doors." Eighth Ward Alderman Greg Handy, who represents Old Louisville and parts of the South End, has been working with the Regional Airport Authority on noise - reduction efforts for years, and the Board of Aldermen has hired a consultant to study what can be done. Handy charges that the airport authority board has generally done the minimum required by the Federal Aviation Administration to mitigate noise, and now the community is embracing the UPS expansion without considering the cost to the airport's neighbors. "Yes, we will have jobs. Yes, we will have tax dollars. But we're not going to have any people living in the homes in the city because they won't be able to stand the noise, " he said.
According to the article, Doug Stern, spokesman for the Louisville International Airport expansion project, said the airport's sound-reduction efforts are laid out in a plan that was developed with community input five years ago. That plan is scheduled to be updated this year. "We have a plan that was agreed to," he said. "That's what we follow. It's not a question of doing more or less. We do our best to implement the plan." Jefferson County Judge-Executive Dave Armstrong said that, although the project won't require the relocation of additional airport-area residents, the increased air traffic makes it more important for the legislature to approve $ 20 million for relocations already in the pipeline. That idea was seconded by Minor Lane Heights Mayor Fred Williams, whose residents are in line for relocation. "If they get the planes in here like they say, it will impact us greatly," he said. "They better get on the ball and get us out of here."
PUBLICATION: The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec)
DATE: March 5, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A5
BYLINE: Elizabeth Thompson
DATELINE: Montreal, Quebec
The Gazette of Montreal, Quebec, reports the Quebec government announced a $35-million plan to improve the road system around Highway 25. Those improvements will make life quieter for thousands of residents of Montreal's east end, Mayor Pierre Bourque said yesterday.
According to the article, the plan calls for the province to erect sound barriers along the highway, which carries traffic to and from the Lafontaine Tunnel, divert truck traffic away from nearby residential streets, and build a boulevard to connect Highway 25 to Perras Blvd. in the north end of the island. Speaking at a joint news conference to unveil the projects, Transport Minister Jacques Brassard said Quebec will pay for most of the improvements while Montreal and Anjou will contribute the remaining costs.
The article states both of the projects announced yesterday resolve long-standing problems that have plagued the area. For years residents of Curatteau St. and other residential roads near the busy Highway 25 have complained about noise levels that have exceeded the allowable limits by an average 10 decibels. Also for years, a planned extension of Highway 25 to connect the south end with the north end of the island has stood still. Local officials have complained that the delay in building that connector route has hampered economic development in the east end. Under the first project, construction of sound barriers along Highway 25 between Notre Dame St. and the Montreal city limits will start this fall. Brassard pledged that the estimated 7,000 residents of the area will be consulted on the design and landscaping before the work goes ahead. "We should have done those screens 30 years ago," Bourque later told reporters. "This was the first highway in Quebec and it is the last to be protected against the noise. " Meanwhile sound pollution will be further reduced by diverting truck traffic away from Curatteau St. Instead, it will be directed to a new three-lane route around Souligny Ave. between Highway 25 and Dickson.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant (Hartford, CT)
DATE: March 5, 1998
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B4
BYLINE: Tracy Gordon Fox
DATELINE: Colchester, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Al Ouellette, leader of Colchester Concerned Citizens; Robert Washburn, business owner
The Hartford Courant reports that a group of vocal opponents circulated a petition Wednesday to voice their concerns about a proposed asphalt plant near Colchester, Connecticut. Meanwhile, a representative of the Department of Environmental Protection visited the site to make a recommendation about granting a permit to the company.
According to the article, Deborah Green, a DEP hearing officer, conducted the site walk of the Old Hartford Road property in preparation for the final hearing next Wednesday, after which she will decide whether to grant an operating permit to Fedus Associates. After managers of Fedus showed Green where the facilities would be located, residents pointed out how close the plant is to their homes, their businesses, and a brook that runs nearby. Robert Washburn, who owns a machine shop that abuts the asphalt plant site, brought Green inside his building, which is located on a ledge that overlooks the site. "You tell me this isn't a danger," he said. "With the ground vibrations, this building will slide right down."
The article reports that while workers at the site erected the asphalt plant's batch tower, now visible from Route 2, residents met nearby and planned to circulate a new petition that asks selectmen to hold a town meeting to regulate the asphalt plant's activity. Al Ouellette, leader of the Colchester Concerned Citizens, a group that has been fighting the plant for eight years, said residents must be part of the process. About 30 residents met Tuesday night and wrote the new petition, Ouellette said. Here are some things we can do to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people," Ouellette said. "[The plant] is sitting right on top of businesses, right on top of residences." The citizens' petition asks selectmen to hold a town meeting to discuss several changes in the asphalt company's initial plans. The residents say the original site plan was approved for 1,200 tons of asphalt per day, but the plan given to the DEP is for 300 tons an hour. The original plan had one exhaust stack, the final one has two. The first plan approved by the town had a 20,000-gallon fuel tank; the one filed with the DEP shows a 70,000-gallon tank will be stored.
PUBLICATION: Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV)
DATE: March 5, 1998
SECTION: B; Pg. 1B
BYLINE: John Smith
DATELINE: Las Vegas, Nevada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lee Gagnon, resident
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports a Las Vegas family lost their peace and quiet and ability to sleep at night when a massive drilling rig set up operation in their backyard. The residents are frustrated with the response they've received from project officials. When the drilling stops, new wells will provide water for area golf courses.
The article reports the four-story-high drilling rig stands only a few feet from Lee Gagnon's home on the northwest side of the valley. The rig's purpose is to sink the Las Vegas Valley Water District's Recharge/Recovery Well No. 118. But the noise from the rig threatens the quality of life for Gagnon, his wife, Marie, and their two young children. Even when the drill is not moving, the sound of the machinery is deafening. In addition to the noise, there's the diesel smell, the stagnant pond created when the street's natural drainage was blocked, and the unsightly 20-feet-high soundproofing blankets which appear ineffective.
The article states the recharge well is located on the city of Las Vegas Water resource Center property off Cheyenne Road. Once completed, recycled gray water will be pumped into the aquifer for use on area golf courses. The wells will help increase the amount of treated water available for bathing and drinking and will stabilize the supply for golf courses, water district Community Affairs Specialist Steve Phillips explained. Well No. 118 isn't scheduled for completion until Aug. 16. The article states Gagnon can't bear the thought of five more months of noise outside his window. "I have a 5- and 4-year-old," Gagnon said. "They need their sleep. I need my sleep. This is ridiculous. They finally stopped drilling 24 hours a day. I was told they'd stop working at night, but the other night one of the workers was hitting a pipe with a sledge all night long. They shout over the noise of the machine. We can't sleep on that side of the house. We all go into one bedroom to sleep."
According to the article, the contractor has agreed to work from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. seven days a week. The crew finished drilling a week ahead of schedule, added extra sound panels around the drilling equipment and wrapped up its air compressor to attempt to muffle the noise. But Gagnon has told the water district these measures have not done much good. Phillips assures skeptics the contractor has been exceedingly sensitive to the noise and inconvenience caused by the project. "We knew it was going to be not a good situation as far as where that well had to be located," Phillips said. "We've done everything that we can to minimize the noise coming from that well. We know that it's noisy. We moved the well 10 feet east. It was as far as we could to get it away from his house." Gagnon responded, "What is in the past is in the past. Our concern is, what is going to happen in March, April, May, June, July and August? Every week there seems to be a new surprise." He said, "It seems like they kind of do what they want."
PUBLICATION: News Tribune (Tacoma, WA)
DATE: March 5, 1998
SECTION: Front Page; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Debbie Cafazzo
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Doug Applegate, resident; Anna Denton, teacher; Joe McGeehan, Highline Superintendent
The News Tribune reports the Highline School District of Seattle, Washington, whose schools encircle the airport, recently discussed the impact of airport noise on schools and funding for studies. At the meeting residents heard from Sea-Tac Airport director, Gina Marie Lindsey.
According to the article, Lindsey acknowledged that the airport does have an impact on the schools. She said the Port of Seattle, which operates Sea-Tac, isn't trying to dodge its obligation to alleviate some of those impacts. "There's also no question whose responsibility it is," Lindsey said. "It is the responsibility of the Port of Seattle." Members of the community also spoke out. Doug Applegate, father of a fourth-grader, said teachers often need to repeat themselves because of the interruption from low-flying aircraft. "It makes spelling and math particularly difficult," he said. Anna Denton, a retired teacher in the district who still volunteers in schools, said aircraft noise makes it necessary for teachers to continually start and stop their conversations with students. She said it takes time "to bring those little minds back" every time noise drowns out the teacher.
The article states that last month, the school district announced that it would launch a $330,000 school-by-school noise study. But the district says that's not enough money to examine every school. So officials asked community members Wednesday night to help them determine which schools need help the most. School officials said they need the study to assess the cost of noise abatement measures. Half the cost of the study is being paid for by the school district, the other half by the state. When Laura Sweaney, whose oldest child will begin school in the Highline district next year, wanted to know why the district didn't accept the Port's offer to fund the study, someone in the audience shouted out: "That would be like the fox guarding the henhouse."
The article reports airport officials have emphasized in public statements that the airport has a standing offer of $50 million to the school district to pay for noise abatement measures. But Highline Superintendent Joe McGeehan said Wednesday night that may not be enough. "The $50 million which is supposedly on the table for the taking will not ensure all our students have the same learning environment as other students in the region," McGeehan said. He said he fears taking that money would mean there would be no more to follow. "Some would have us take whatever limited money is available now and be done with it," McGeehan said. "But we don't know how much it will cost to fully mitigate the airport's effect on our schools." Countered Lindsey: "There is no cap at $50 million." Lindsey agreed that there might be a need to gather noise data on a school-by-school basis. But she also urged those at the meeting to put their energy into fixing the problem.
According to the article, another area of dispute between the school district and the Port of Seattle has been whether the port would pay for air ventilation or air conditioning in schools that are sealed up tight against noise. Lindsey said that if ventilation systems can't be modified to satisfaction, then it would be time to consider adding air conditioning.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: March 5, 1998
SECTION: Opinion, Pg. 15A
DATELINE: West Palm Beach, Florida
The Palm Beach Post published the following letter in its Letters to the Editor section from West Palm Beach resident, Noelle Smith. Smith says dealing with noise from the Palm Beach International Airport is a choice she makes. Others, she says, need to take responsibility for their choice of residence. Ms Smith writes:
I live in the flight path of Palm Beach International Airport. My friends and family members are well accustomed to phone calls punctuated by pauses and "I've got one going over. Hang on a second." I keep my television remote control close by so I can easily punch up the volume a few notches when a particularly loud jet is taking off. And every single detail of the above is - very clearly - my choice.
I appreciate living in a pleasant residential area. I appreciate being a three-minute walk from glorious sunrises over the Intracoastal Waterway. I appreciate being seven minutes' drive from the airport, which I do use for travel.
Lawsuit threats against Palm Beach County by people who would seek money to compensate for the loss of enjoyment of their homes are a waste of their and other taxpayers' money, as big a waste as the project that is destroying wildlife and wetlands along Summit Boulevard and Congress Avenue, another ugly byproduct of airport noise lawsuits (that one threatened by Donald Trump). In these litigation-crazy times, when people always blame someone or something else for perceived misery, we forget four precious words that living in this wonderful country allows us: We have a choice.
I could move if I wanted to. I choose not to. With that choice comes personal responsibility for my own acts and my own choices. Let us never forget that there are always options.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic (Phoenix, AZ)
DATE: March 4, 1998
SECTION: Northwest Valley Community; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Lori Baker
DATELINE: El Mirage, Arizona
The Arizona Republic reports that developers plans to build up to 2,200 residences in El Mirage, Arizona, have been put on hold because it's unclear whether the properties are in the flight path of planes from Luke Air Force Base.
According to the article, El Mirage City Council last week tabled consideration of rezoning for two housing developments. A third development is being reviewed by city planners but has not been scheduled for public hearing. Diane McCarthy, executive director of Westmarc, a coalition of political and business leaders, told council members that the Spectrum Group is doing a study about noise from Luke planes and encroachment. She asked the council to wait for the report, expected to be issued in April. "All of us are concerned about Luke and want to make sure that it will remain here well into the next century," she said.
The article states the El Mirage Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the two unrelated rezoning requests in February. McCarthy said she wasn't aware of the planning commission meeting and she asked the council to consider the effect on Luke. In addition, Jose Rivera, El Mirage city attorney, said El Mirage did not notify the Arizona Military Preservation Committee about the public hearings regarding the proposed zoning cases, as required by state law. Kaufman & Broad Inc. plans to build Arizona Brisas, a 937-lot subdivision at the northeast corner of 119th Avenue and Cactus Road. Broad Land Properties proposes to build B & P, a 600-lot development at the southwest corner of Thunderbird and El Mirage roads.
The article reports that McCarthy said both proposed housing developments would be within the 1988 Luke Air Force Base noise contour area where the average noise exceeds 65 decibels - about as loud as listening to a neighbor mow his lawn. Residential developments are discouraged in 65-decibel areas. However, Steven Cross of Kaufman & Broad and Jack Hudson of Broad Land Properties Inc. both said their properties were outside the 65-decibel area. The third developer is PBS&J which plans to build 708 residences adjacent to the west border of the Broad Land Properties development.
PUBLICATION: The Cincinnati Enquirer
DATE: March 4, 1998
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B03
BYLINE: Maria Berninger
DATELINE: Union Township, Ohio
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports Union Township leaders are considering erecting noise barriers in anticipation of increased traffic along Interstate 75 near West Chester.
According to the article, the new Union Center Boulevard interchange planned along I- 75 means township residents may see traffic on the interstate rise to between 80,000 and 90,000 vehicles daily by the year 2000, state officials said. Because the new interchange is already seen as a magnet for commercial and residential development, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) plans to add one lane in each direction on I-75 between Glendale Milford Road and Ohio 63 in 2002.
The article reports that the widening of the highway and the increase in traffic will also mean more noise for those living nearby, according to Township Administrator David Gully. "An extra lane in each direction brings the interstate closer to the homes, and more cars," he said. In response, Union Township officials are considering walls that would line parts of I-75 and reduce the penetration of its noise by about five decibels. A change of three decibels is the minimum difference that an average person can detect, said Karel Cubick, of MS Consulting. The Youngstown-based firm did a study of projected noise levels in Union Township for the Butler County Transportation Improvement District, which is managing the ODOT project. Federal Highway Administration guidelines required the study.
The article states that a public hearing will be held to discuss the noise barriers although no date has yet been set. So far, no formal complaints have been made, township officials said. But the noise hasn't increased yet either. Those who would benefit from the 12- to 16-foot walls are people who live within 400 feet of them, such as residents of the Saratoga Farms subdivision to the east of I-75 or those who live to the west of the interstate in the Cherry Lane Farms subdivision, where houses are still being built.
The article goes on to report the appearance of the noise barrier walls is an issue as well. "It's a trade-off," Mr. Gully said. "You're trading quiet for ugly." But township trustees, who reviewed the plan last week said it should be up to the residents near the highway to decide. "I think the bottom line for us is that if the people affected by the noise want them, we'll probably go for it," said Township Trustee Catherine Stoker. Officials estimate the walls, installed on state land and maintained by ODOT, would cost about $1 million a mile. The costs would be covered through state and federal funds, township officials said.
PUBLICATION: The Ledger (Lakeland, FL)
DATE: March 4, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Chris Brennan
DATELINE: Bartow, Florida
The Ledger of Lakeland, Florida, reports a new law placing restrictions on outdoor concerts in Polk County was approved recently after last year's all-night dance festival outraged neighbors.
According to the article, last Labor Day weekend, music rattled window panes, frightened people from their beds, and sent vibrations resounding for miles. The source of the disturbance was "techno" music pulsating from a 50,000-watt speaker system at an all-night "rave" dance party held at the Polk County Fairgrounds. On Tuesday, the County Commission unanimously approved a new law banning outdoor concerts after 11 p.m. or before 10 a.m. County Attorney Mark Carpanini said the law was prompted by the Zen Festival, an all-night dance party attended by 16,000 people. The rave outraged more than 125 neighbors, who complained to the Sheriff's Office and County Commission, demanding a law to prevent similar events.
The article reports Tuesday's new law will be followed by a stronger law to keep raves out of Polk County. "This is a stop-gap measure while the Sheriff's Office works out the details of a more comprehensive ordinance," Carpanini said. Sheriff's Col. Grady Judd on Tuesday said attorneys from his agency are working with Carpanini to modify an existing noise ordinance. Anyone who violates the new ordinance, which only applies in the unincorporated county, could be punished by a fine of up to $500 or up to 60 days in the county jail or both.
According to the article, the Sheriff's Office asked Carpanini before last year's rave if there was a legal way to stop it from happening. But the rave was legal by local laws, held on private Florida Citrus Showcase property at the Polk County Fairgrounds. The promoters received county permits to erect tents and install portable toilets. But the event itself did not require a permit. Carpanini and the Sheriff's Office researched anti-rave ordinances from other Florida cities and counties but found few dealing with outdoor concerts. Orlando banned indoor raves in September after a series of deaths due to drug overdoses at the concerts. Parents of a 21-year-old DeLand man who attended the Polk rave and died later from a drug overdose filed a notice in September, saying they may sue Polk County for allowing the Zen Festival to happen. That notice gives the county six months to respond before a lawsuit can be filed. Information about Polk and the County Commission is available through the Internet in the web site at the following address: www.ci.polk.fl.us
PUBLICATION: BC Cycle
DATE: March 4, 1998
SECTION: Domestic News
DATELINE: Manahawkin, New Jersey
BC Cycle reports Stafford Township, New Jersey, has become the latest community to ban ice cream trucks from playing music to attract their customers.
According to the article, Stafford Township administrator Paul Shives says beginning today, the town's six vendors can only use hand-operated bells as they drive along the streets of the Ocean County township. There were approximately 100 complaints last summer about the touring vendors. Shives says: "There are two issues: t he repetitive nature of the music and the loudness of it. You can hear the music several blocks away." The ordinance passed by a 4-2 vote was based on the one neighboring Long Beach adopted. The ordinance says: "At no time shall a vendor be permitted to use a sound device, mechanical bell, mechanical music, mechanical noise, speakers, amplifiers or any other similar type of sound device." Shouting is banned as well. Shives says: "The fashion years ago with the Good Humor trucks were bells on a string. I pretty much expect that's what we'll have." Shives said whatever non-amplified devices the vendors use must meet the township limits on noise of 55 decibels, as heard from a property line. He says two vendors already use bells.
The article reports that Jeffrey Cabaniss, owner of Jef-Freeze Treats, brought a petition signed by 200 people opposing the ban. Cabaniss, reports the New York Times, told the meeting, "If you take away my music, you're taking away my identity...my competitive edge that I've worked seven years to develop."
PUBLICATION: BC Cycle
DATE: March 4, 1998
SECTION: Domestic News
DATELINE: Ithaca, New York
BC Cycle reports Cornell researchers say that airport noise puts stress on children that may have lifelong effects. The article details the physiological effects of airport noise on a group of children living in Germany over a period of two years.
According to the article, the study finds that children living near a busy airport had a significant rise in blood pressure and stress hormones, while their counterparts in quiet zones experienced no changes. Gary Evans, a professor of design and environmental stress at Cornell's College of Human Ecology, along with his European colleagues, Monika Bullinger and Staffan Hygge, tracked 217 third- and fourth-graders who live in a rural area near Munich, Germany, before and after a new airport was opened nearby. Half of the children lived under the airport's flight path and the other half lived in quiet areas. The researchers tested the children's blood pressure, stress hormone levels and quality of life six months before the airport opened and then again six and eighteen months after the international travel hub was completed.
The article reports only the children who live under the flight path had "modest but significant" increases in blood pressure and the stress hormones epinephrine, norepinephrine and cortisol. The elevated levels of those hormones indicate that noise causes physiological stress. They also can be linked to adult illnesses, including high cholesterol, heart disease and a decrease in the body's supply of disease-fighting immune cells. Evans said these children may suffer from high blood pressure throughout their adult lives. In addition, a year and half after the airport was completed, the young subjects told researchers that their quality of life had declined. Last year, in a comparable study, Evans reported that New York children living near an international airport tended to be poor listeners and did not read as well as children in quiet schools.
PUBLICATION: The Capital (Annapolis, MD)
DATE: March 3, 1998
SECTION: Severna Park; Pg. A6
BYLINE: Nicole Gaudiano
DATELINE: Severna Park, Maryland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Larry Masterson, president of Greater Severna Park Council; Craig Poms, president of the Chartwell Community Association
The Capital reports the Baltimore-Washington International Airport is taking steps to reduce low-flying, loud aircraft that disturb residents. BWI will begin employing a new technique to remind pilots to fly higher and, therefore, quieter.
According to the article, when pilots fly over Severna Park this month, a little voice in their headphones will tell them "shush." The reminder is part of a response by BWI Airport to residents who say that pilots' flight patterns are causing a racket over Chartwell, Chartwood, and sections of the McKinsey Road area. "Occasionally, we've had them where it seems they're coming down to the treetops," said Craig Poms, president of the Chartwell Community Association.
The article states that a Federal Aviation Administration recorded message, which BWI will begin using this month, will remind pilots to keep their altitudes on arrival close to 3,000 feet. That is the altitude the Maryland Aviation Administration's 1988 noise abatement procedure recommends. "We will keep monitoring approach altitudes to see if we can get all pilots up to (3,000 feet)," Michael West, associate administrator for planning and engineering at the airport, said. Studies by BWI's Noise and Abatement Office indicate some pilots have been dipping about 500 to 600 feet below recommended altitude when approaching the airport for landing. That difference can be significant, especially if the pilot has to "power up" to maintain the plane's altitude, said Wayne Bryant, director of Noise and Abatement.
The article reports that Greater Severna Park Council President Larry Masterson arranged a meeting in December with MAA officials that gave residents a chance to air their complaints. In response, airport officials discussed the problem in January with air traffic controllers and chief pilots, who were surprised by the complaints, Mr. West said. But a second study revealed some pilots fly too low. West said he wants to continue meeting with members of the GSPC and, if residents wish, the airport will place noise monitors in some communities. But there is no current enforcement mechanism in place to ensure the pilots will fly higher. "This is a long-term effort," he said. "We will always have to monitor the altitude and remind pilots to stay above 3,000 feet."
The article goes on to say pilots are willing to work closely with the MAA to improve adherence to noise abatement procedures, Theodore E. Mathison, the airport's executive director, wrote in a letter to the GSPC. Some airlines, such as US Air, maintain a "keep 'em high" approach, while other airlines plan to provide all of their pilots with information on noise abatement flight procedures for their inflight manuals, he wrote. Masterson seemed pleased with the airport officials' response. "If it does change the noise level, it's certainly a step in the right direction," he said. "I think their intentions are very good to eliminate this problem as much as possible."
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: March 3, 1998
SECTION: St. Charles Post, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Margaret Gillerman
DATELINE: St. Louis, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Sara Barwinski, member of Airport Coordinating Committee and member of People Building Community; Floyd Blackwell, alderman; Pat McDonnell resident; John Krekeler, resident; Judith Barnett, councilwoman
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports of a meeting that took place last week between the St. Louis Airport Authority and area residents with noise grievances. The article details residents' concerns and an airport representative's responses.
According to the article, Sara Barwinski, a pastor's wife, mother and community activist in Bridgeton, dislikes being jolted out of her sleep by a low flying jet. Last week, she had an opportunity to ask Airport Director Leonard Griggs to correct the problem. Barwinski was taking part in a meeting of a newly formed group called the Airport Coordinating Committee. The airport's noise reduction plan, required by the Federal Aviation Administration, recommended that the new committee be formed. Griggs and others from the Airport Authority met with dozens of residents and officials of nearby towns and school districts to hear their problems of living around Lambert Field. Airlines and air traffic controllers also participated. The one message that came across clearly from the meeting's participants was that they'd like some peace and quiet. Residents from Maryland Heights, Cool Valley, Kinloch, and St. Charles told airport officials they're tired of the roaring and rumbling of planes. They've had enough of windows rattling and buildings shaking. At night, residents said, they'd like to sleep. "You're virtually destroying the community of Cool Valley," Cool Valley Alderman Floyd Blackwell told Griggs. "I don't care if it's just one flight at 2 a.m., I'm awakened," said Barwinski, who belongs to People Building Community, a group that also opposes airport expansion. "Why can't there be a curfew or modified curfew?" asked Pat McDonnell of St. Charles.
The article states the airport's noise reduction plan outlines ways the airport will lessen noise impacts around the airport. The program includes a combination of land buyouts, noise monitoring and land-use plans. After the meeting, Griggs said, "Now that we know what the people want, we will address those issues brought up." On the noise issues, Griggs said the airport intended to deal with many of the problems with a new noise management program, which is due to begin in the next six months. The system will include additional monitoring devices as well as features for tracking aircraft and complaints. The airport also pledged to work closely with airlines to reduce noise. Griggs told the audience that by the year 2000, most of their noise problems would be over. That's when the FAA will mandate that quieter aircraft take over the sky. "No more Stage 2 aircraft will fly after Dec. 31, 1999," Griggs said. "You can take that to the bank."
According to the article, Griggs addressed other specific noise questions. He told St. Charles representatives that changes had already been made in response to complaints by officials and community groups. He said airplane pilots were encouraged to use the north runway for flights between midnight and 4 a.m. "This should help alleviate the nighttime flights over St. Charles and still avoid shifting aircraft noise to other populated areas," he says. In addition, loud engine checks are being "severely controlled" after about 11:30 p.m., he said. He said that typically only four or five flights depart each night. However, Griggs said a curfew would not be possible. John Krekeler, an engineer from St. Charles, said after the meeting that the noise mitigation measures late at night wouldn't help families with young children. One idea the Airport Authority is considering to reduce late-night noise is to use a departure route over the Missouri Bottoms. This change would require FAA approval. Maryland Heights Councilwoman Judith Barnett expressed concern that some shifts in flight patterns might end up hurting her constituents in Maryland Heights. She said she was there to try to prevent that.
Another issue brought up at the meeting dealt with regional governance of the airport. Some people said the airport wasn't being run "regionally" and was a "cash cow" for the city of St. Louis. Griggs replied that the addition of county representatives to the airport board a few years ago had expanded the airport's governance. A committee of officials from around the region is looking at expanding representation further. "I think there's a great deal to be said for regional representation," Griggs said.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: March 2, 1998
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Sherman Tarr
DATELINE: Suffield, Connecticut
The Hartford Courant reports state of Connecticut transportation officials are considering new efforts to reduce the noise over Suffield from planes leaving Bradley International Airport. One consideration in the noise mitigation effort is a new voluntary takeoff pattern. Other airport concerns were voice during a meeting last month at the governor's office with local elected officials.
According to the article, the February meeting with Gov. John G. Rowland's chief of staff, Sidney Holbrook, state Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, and state Rep. Ruth Fahrbach, R-Windsor, also dealt with the effect on Suffield roadways of increased traffic from continued airport development, First Selectman Robert Skinner said Friday. The governor's budget proposes a $135 million upgrade at Bradley, which would include building a new 600,000-square-foot terminal and increasing aircraft gates from 22 to 30 to handle an expected growth in passenger traffic from 5.4 million last year to 8.6 million in 2010. "The message sent to the governor's office is that in development of the airport there must be some strategy for dealing with noise and traffic," Skinner said.
The article reports Skinner said that since meeting with Holbrook, Commissioner James F. Sullivan of the state Department of Transportation, which operates the airport, told him that talks have begun with airline officials on setting up a new, voluntary takeoff pattern as a "possible first step." Under this plan, planes would quickly climb to a greater altitude than is now the practice, then cut back on engine thrust before flying over residential neighborhoods. Sullivan, who was not available for comment Friday, also agreed to continue having meetings on solutions to the noise problem with airport, DOT and elected officials from towns near Bradley, Skinner said. "We want to enable people to sleep at night and keep their sanity during the day," Fahrbach said Friday. Many Suffield residents say the noise from takeoffs has been getting worse in recent years. Given their frustration, Kissel said Friday that it is important to maintain a dialogue between the DOT and Suffield. The meeting at the governor's office "was to make sure that local elected officials are being heard by the state," Kissel said.
The article goes on to report a growing concern is the effect of airport economic development efforts on nearby towns. Fahrbach noted business growth in and around Bradley will result in more commercial flights, occurring mostly at night. "We all ought to be concerned," she said. Increased economic activity related to the airport also will bring more truck and commuter traffic to roads in Suffield and other adjacent towns, Skinner said. "I expressed the importance of maintaining the historical integrity of Main Street," Skinner said. "It is absolutely critical that any plan for the expansion of the airport include studying the infrastructure surrounding the airport," Skinner added.
PUBLICATION: The Weekly of Business Aviation
DATE: March 2, 1998
SECTION: Intelligence; Vol. 66, No. 9; Pg. 93
DATELINE: New York, New York
The Weekly of Business Aviation reports an appeals court ruled that the city of New York may not restrict routes of sightseeing flights.
According to The Weekly of Business Aviation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second circuit ruled that the City of New York may not restrict routes of sightseeing flights because such restrictions usurp the federal government's control over airspace. The court responded to the city's claim that the invasive nature of helicopter noise justifies sightseeing route restrictions. "This argument, as the trial court recognized, evidences a misunderstanding of federal aviation law," the court said in its decision. "The proprietor exception, allowing reasonable regulations to fix noise levels at and around an airport at an acceptable amount, gives no authority to local officials to assign or restrict routes. As a result, the city unlawfully intruded into a preempted area when it curtailed routes for the flights of certain heliport aircraft."
PUBLICATION: Automotive Environment Analyst
DATE: March 1, 1998
SECTION: No. 38; Pg. 8; Issn: 1357 4922
BYLINE: Tony Lewin
DATELINE: Europe
The Automotive Environment Analyst reports that the European Commission proposed a new directive on noise from outdoor equipment on February 24. The directive specifies noise levels for a range of equipment used outdoors, the article notes.
According to the article, the directive would supersede existing directives, and also would significantly extend the scope of the legislation. Noise levels are specified in the directive for the first time for a range of machinery, including dumpers, graders, and mobile cranes. In addition, noise limits for compressors, hand-held concrete breakers, and some other machines are tightened by 3 to 6 decibels. A total of 55 types of machinery are covered in the directive, ranging from garden machinery to machinery on waste collection trucks. Under the directive, machines would have to be labeled with their maximum noise levels, and new noise testing procedures would be introduced.
The article also notes that the European Commission now will turn to addressing ambient noise levels, which is expected to be more complex and more controversial.
PUBLICATION: Evening News
DATE: March 7, 1998
SECTION: Letters;Pg. 10
BYLINE: Denise Scott, South Side Resident
DATELINE: Edinburgh, Scotland
The Evening News in Edinburgh, Scotland ran the following letter regarding the enforcement of noise ordinances. According to the article, legislation was recently amended to provide police the power to seize sound equipment that is causing a nuisance. The resident's letter points out that the Environmental Health Department already had existing powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enforce the law regarding persistent noise nuisance from both commercial and domestic sources. The letter reads as follows:
I was very interested to read your article Action Plan for Neighbours and Calum MacDonald's quote regarding the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill "for a specific police power to seize sound equipment that is causing a nuisance".
The police have power already to seize sound equipment under the Civic Scotland Act 1982 Section 54.
And furthermore they use it.
The police are already overstretched as it is and officers do not have a tangible measurement as to what constitutes noise nuisance.
It is only their opinion based on a few minutes' listening. This does not account for situations whereby people have to put up with hours of penetrating, space invading noise before feeling guilty about having to call in police.
Unless the nuisance is a "one-off" such as a party, it is an Environmental Health Department problem.
The Environmental Health Department has powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enforce the law regarding persistent noise nuisance.
It is also the same department that has noise-monitoring equipment and although they may tell you the equipment is attuned for business and industry, it can be used for domestic purposes.
After all, a decibel is a decibel anywhere. I am concerned at the ease with which the Environmental Health Department has passed the buck of enforcement onto the police.
Denise Scott, South Side
Previous week: February 22, 1998
Next week: March 8, 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