PUBLICATION: South Bend Tribune
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: Local/Area, Pg. D4
BYLINE: Lejene Breckenridge
DATELINE: Elkhart, Indiana
The Southbend Tribune reports that the city of Elkhart, Indiana has received permission from the Indiana Department of Transportation (InDOT) to ban train whistles at 11 different railroad crossings throughout the city. Norfolk Southern Railway has 15 days to appeal InDOT's decision.
According to the article, InDOT studied safety levels at each of the eleven crossings. The crossings chosen have lights and gates that will still allow for safe vehicle crossing, even without a whistle. Assuming that the railroad company does not appeal the decision, the city will begin posting signs warning drivers abut the whistle.
The article states that Elkhart Mayor David Miller is trying to "make Elkhart a peaceful place." The whistles could previously be heard twenty-four hours a day. Even with the ban in place, train conductors will still be allowed to blow the train whistles if there is a safety problem, however.
The article notes that the city of Elkhart had created its own local ordinance against train whistles last year. The city would like to promote downtown development, and less noise would help that to happen. There is currently a proposal to develop Elkhart's City Centre, which would include a new hotel. The city is hoping that Norfolk Southern Railway will help to make that happen by not appealing the decision.
The article then adds that there may be a future problem with the ban: the Federal Railroad Administration is trying to change federal laws so that trains would be allowed to blow whistles in every city. State Senator Joe Zakas said that South Bend and Mishawaka have had noise ordinances for twenty years. He believes that the issue of noise should not be regulated by the federal government. He believes in local control instead.
PUBLICATION: Boston Globe
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: Business; Pg. E1
BYLINE: by Matthew Brelis
DATELINE: Concord, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Save Our Heritage
The Boston Globe reports that Shuttle America, a low-cost airline, would like to expand at Hanscom Field in Concord, Massachusetts. The plan has met with strong opposition. The airline has requested approval from the FAA to schedule twelve flights a day between Hanscom and LaGuardia Airport in New York.
The article reports that congressmen Edward J. Markey, Martin T. Meehan, and John F. Tierney have sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater, asking his department to turn down Shuttle America's request. Shuttle America's vice president, Mark Cestari, was angry about the letter. He said, "We are very disappointed at the anti business, anticonsumer action taken by these congressmen against our company and against their constituents. Congressmen fly at taxpayers' expense and don't have to deal with hassle and high fares at Logan. I think their constituents might be more in touch with what that is like."
The article notes that the congressmen believe that there are already enough flights between Boston and New York. In addition, they maintain that Shuttle America's planes do not meet LaGuardia's landing requirements because of the types of planes that they fly, and an Historic Preservation Act review needs to be finished and approved before the airline could expand at Hanscom. Hanscom's main access road crosses through the middle of Minute Man National Historical Park, the famous site of the American colonists' first battles with the British on April 19, 1775. Increased traffic to the airport may negatively impact the park, opponents argue.
The article states that an environmental group, Save Our Heritage, is opposed to Hanscom scheduling any commercial airline flights. Many Hollywood celebrities belong to the group. The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) is in favor of more flights at Hanscom, which would then alleviate some of the crowding at Logan Airport in Boston. Massport spokesman Jose Juves said that the residential communities surrounding Logan Airport suffer from much more noise than would ever be generated by flights out of Hanscom Field.
The article adds that Shuttle America currently serves the Boston area with twenty flights each day. Juves maintained that "increased commerical service is still covered under the generic environmental impact report Massport filed in 1997 regarding Hanscom."
The article goes on to say that Massport is hoping that the diversion of more flights to suburban airports will put Logan into a better position to obtain approval for a new runway. Juves said, "We have consistently said Hanscom is not going to be the next LAX [Los Angeles International Airport], but it does have a role as a niche commercial facility. Massport has an obligation to the residents of Logan's impacted neighborhoods to pursue regionalization."
The article also reports that Massport is already in the middle of another disagreement with Hanscom over nighttime landing fees. The FAA is investigating Massport because a pilot lobbying group, The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, alleges that Massport is illegally charging landing fees between the hours of 11 PM and 7 AM in order to curtail noise. The group maintains that Massport began levying fees without having first conducted an airport noise study. Massport charges a nighttime fee of $40 to planes weighing less than 12,500 pounds, and $290 for planes over that weight. A plane is charged double its usual amount if it makes more than five nighttime takeoffs or landings in one year. Last year, $200,000 in fees was collected at Hanscom. The FAA review is unusual in that such reviews are not usually conducted solely on the basis of noise problems.
In the article, Miguel Vasconcelos, the pilot association's director of airports, said, "There is no doubt that the nighttime surcharge was instituted as a means to achieve a noise-based access restriction. Noise mitigation measures must be directly related to actual aircraft noise and not arbitrarily related to aircraft weight. In other words, quieter but heavier aircraft pay a higher fee than a smaller but louder aircraft."
The article notes that the fee has also become a safety issue. Some pilots try to avoid paying the fee by not radioing their positions before they land at Hanscom. Since the Hanscom tower in untended by traffic controllers after 11 PM, they can sometimes land without Massport ever knowing it
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: Nws; Pg. 12
BYLINE: David Southwell
DATELINE: Deerfield, Illinois
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that some residents in Deerfield, Illinois who live near Interstate 294 are requesting that the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority erect a sound wall to protect their neighborhood from noise after a new highway ramp is built.
According to the article, the same residents fought for 15 years to get a sound wall installed between their homes and the interstate. Their new request would extend that wall another 600 feet. Tollway officials have hired engineers to study the noise levels of the new ramp using computer models. The study found that the traffic noise heard at those homes would be at an acceptable level, and therefore a sound barrier is not necessary. The residents are leery of data that comes only from a computer model. They would prefer on-site measurements instead, which the engineers say are actually less accurate because sound meters would register noise from wind and other sources as well.
The article goes on to say that acceptable sound levels would be anything lower than 68 decibels. The engineering study predicts 67 decibels over the next twenty years. Some of the homeowners do not trust those results.
The article quotes State Representative Lauren Beth Gash, who also is in favor of building the sound barrier, as saying, "There must be a solution, and it may be that the toll authority is overlooking it by adhering so firmly to what seems to be an inadequate computer model, which doesn't provide for wind. Acceptable noise levels are below 68 decibels, and their projections are 67 decibels in the study."
PUBLICATION: Coventry Evening Telegraph
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: News; Pg. 3
BYLINE: Paul Hargrave
DATELINE: Coventry, England
The Coventry Evening Telegraph in Coventry, England reports that a nightclub that had been accused of producing too much noise was fined pounds 3,000.
According to the article, the Radford Social club was holding "strip nights." The excessive noise was caused by loud music and by the fact that the club was leaving a side door open so that female patrons could enter the bar without being harassed by men in the bar.
The article states that this last violation of the noise abatement order was the second violation in two months. The club tried to comply with the noise issue by redesigning their function room and installing acoustic tiles.
PUBLICATION: Express and Echo
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: Pg.19
DATELINE: Exeter, England
The Express and Echo in Exeter, England reports that the final stretch of the new A30 highway has been completed. The new "M5 junction" opens today. Next week the Highways Agency will begin noise testing on the new road.
According to the article, residents in various neighborhoods in the vicinity of the highway have complained about the noisy traffic. The road is made of concrete, and they would like to see the concrete taken up and replaced with an asphalt surface, which would be less noisy.
The article goes on to say that David York, Highways Agency director, said that an A30 action group picked the test sites. He admitted that concrete road surfaces are noisier than asphalt, but he did not say what the Agency would do if the test results indicate that the new road is indeed too noisy.
PUBLICATION: Hartford Courant
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Peter Marteka
DATELINE: South Glastonbury, Connecticut
The Hartford Courant reports that South Glastonbury resident Robert Maltempo would like to build a heliport behind his home. He recently presented his plan to the town's zoning and planning commission, from whom he would need to receive a special exception permit in order to build the heliport.
According to the article, the plan was presented at the meeting by Maltempo's attorney, Nicholas Cardwell. The Commission did not vote on the permit at the meeting, and will continue the hearing on the plan on May 3.
The article states that resident Steven Schuster is opposed to the plan. He is a pilot, and said that heliports should not be allowed in residential zones. Town regulations permit a "heliport or airstrip" in residential zones, with a special exception permit, as long as it will not be used for commercial purposes.
The article goes on to say that Cardwell explained that the noise from a helicopter taking off would last only a short period of time. He said Maltempo would probably use his helicopter between 25 and 30 times per month. Some commission members wanted to know if the helicopter noise would be louder than what is allowed under the town ordinance. Cardwell replied, "There's no way we can avoid that. But we are only talking about a brief period. If compared to a chainsaw or heavy truck or pop band or weed wacker, you are talking about exceeding it for a minimal period of time. People will become accustomed to it."
The article notes that another resident, John Anagnos, already has a permitted heliport in the town. He said that he has not received any noise complaints from neighbors in the five years that the heliport has been there.
The article also mentions that, even if the town gives Maltempo the permit, he still needs to obtain a permit from the state Department of Transportation's Bureau of Aviation because he will be using the heliport more than 36 times per year.
PUBLICATION: Leicester Mercury
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: News: Politics, Pg.1
DATELINE: Ashby, England
The Leicester Mercury in England reports that an entertainment locale in Ashby, England called "Desires" has been operating illegally as a nightclub. However, until the North West Leicestershire District Council makes a decision about its license, the establishment can stay open until 2 AM on weekend nights. The noise from the club has been extremely bothersome to one of its neighbors, who is elderly.
According to the article, the Council, at its most recent planning meeting, failed to make a decision about whether or not to impose a permissive enforcement notice on the club. Some of the councilors felt that they should first meet with the owners of the bar to discuss soundproofing measures before deciding to restrict its use. Currently, the club has a license that permits it to serve food and alcohol. Dancing, however, is not allowed.
The article explains that a permissive enforcement notice would allow the bar to stay open until midnight on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, as long as soundproofing was done on the building. The Leicester Magistrates had granted the bar a Public Entertainment License last month, which allowed the bar to stay open, with music and dancing, until 2 AM on weekends. The Coalville Magistrates will review another application for the bar tomorrow, which would let the bar serve alcohol until 2 AM as well. The Council is opposed to these moves, and will appeal the decisions.
The article reports that Councilors had gone to the home of an elderly resident who had complained about the noise to see for themselves. They agreed that the noise level was unacceptable. The Council's environmental health department also determined that the noise was a problem.
The article mentions that some Councilors would like to see the establishment shut down as a nightclub forever. Councilor Jim Roberts said, "I think there is a dreadful problem here and that problem is for the neighbour. That lady's residence is completely incompatible with a nightclub and she has lived there for 50 years."
PUBLICATION: Palm Beach Post
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: A Section, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Teresa Lane
DATELINE: Port St. Lucie, Florida
The Palm Beach Post reports that police in Port St. Lucie, Florida recently engaged in "Operation Silent Night," an undercover plan to ticket drivers who play their car radios and stereos too loud. They gave out traffic tickets to eighteen drivers at $50 per ticket. They also issued one misdemeanor noise violation with a fine of $100 and a notice for the driver to appear in court.
According to the article, the police were enforcing a state law that says that car radios must not be loud enough to be audible 100 feet away from the vehicle. There is also a city law that says that car stereos must not be loud enough to be audible 50 feet away.
The article notes that the person who received the stricter citation was outside of his car pumping gasoline at the time of the ticket. Some of the ticketed drivers do not believe that their radios were actually audible 100 feet away, and they plan to contest the fines.
The article states that the police department decided to institute Operation Silent Night because so many residents had lodged noise complaints about loud car stereos. Police spokesman Chuck Johnson said, "The people have told us they want this kind of enforcement so we're going to tackle it until the problem subsides."
In the article, Johnson also added that loud music is a safety issue as well. Drivers in cars with loud music are not always able to hear the sirens from emergency vehicles.
PUBLICATION: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: Metro, Pg. E-1
BYLINE: Jeff Hricik
DATELINE: Penn Township, Pennsylvania
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Tom Transue and David Mack of the Conservation Association of the Penn Township Area (CAPA)
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in Pennsylvania reports that residents in Penn Township, Pennsylvania are going to court to appeal a decision made by the Township's zoning board to grant a permit for Allegheny Energy to build a "peaker" power plant in their town.
According to the article, a citizens' group called the Conservation Association of the Penn Township Area (CAPA) has led the opposition to the plant. Member David Mack acted as a spokesman for the group at a recent informational meeting in Harrison attended by approximately 100 residents. CAPA has held a series of four informational meetings for homeowners.
The article reports that Mack and CAPA president Tom Transue believe that the decision to build the power plant in Penn Township was faulty because it was based on old maps that do not include recently built homes in the area. Residents are concerned that the plant will be unsightly, cause noise and air pollution, and adversely impact the value of their property. They are also concerned that the plant will be situated so close to homes, schools, and farms.
The article discusses the fact that the finished plant will include two towers that are 60 feet high. Town zoning officials visited another power plant in Springdale that is similar to the new one planned for their town. Some officials were not pleased, as they found that the plant was noisy and smelled of natural gas. The power company contends that the new plant will be situated 2,000 feet from the nearest home and 4,000 feet away from the nearest school. They also say that the "peaker" plant will only be used during times of high electrical demand in the summer and winter. The power source for the plant's twin turbines will be natural gas from an existing line, with diesel fuel (stored on-site in a 500,000 gallon tank) as a backup source. The company plans to build five such plants this year in the Mid-Atlantic states.
According to the article, the plant will be unmanned. It will be monitored by remote cameras and sensors from a location ten miles away in Greensburg. Maintenance workers will be at the plant regularly. The utility maintains that the plant will not be noisy. The sound level from the turbines will be 59 decibels from 400 feet away. Penn Township's noise ordinance has a limit of 90 decibels.
The article states that the utility began some construction work on the site last winter. They need to wait until they receive permits from state and township agencies in order to proceed with any more construction. They need permits for their air quality plan, a national pollutant discharge elimination system, and their fuel oil tank. After the Department of Environmental Protection grants the permits, the township will be allowed to issue a building permit.
According to the article, CAPA has accused Penn Township of attempting to proceed with the plant without adequately informing the public.
The article concludes by saying that an appeal of the Zoning Hearing Board's ruling must be filed today, which is thirty days after the Board's vote to grant Allegheny Energy a special exception to build the peaker plant on agriculturally zoned land.
PUBLICATION: Record
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: News; Pg. L1
BYLINE: Peter J. Sampson
DATELINE: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
The Record in Bergen County, New Jersey reports that the New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that the village of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey can legally enforce local regulations against a railroad line in the town. The town is also allowed to inspect the railroad's maintenance facility. The railroad had alleged that federal regulations exempted it from obeying the town's ordinances and regulations.
The article states that the railroad contended that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 exempted them from both state and local regulations. (The Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished in 1995 and replaced with the Surface Transportation Board.) After the ruling, William G. Dressel Jr., executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said, "Today's ruling... clarifies and confirms the rights of municipalities in our state and throughout the nation concerning railroad operations."
The article notes that, although the ruling specified that the village is not allowed to force the railroad to obtain local permits, the railroad must at least let the village know when it undertakes construction or other business that would normally require a permit.
The article states that the Ridgefield Village attorney, Martin T. Durkin, was pleased with the decision. He said, "The Supreme Court decision shows the doctrine of preemption isn't as mighty as the railroad thinks it is. It permits us to do something we felt is very important and that is to have a right to inspect the facilities in these yards."
The article then details the history of the lawsuit. In 1992, the New York Susquehanna and Western Railway Corporation built a train-maintenance facility in an area of Ridgefield Park that was zoned light-industrial. The railroad neglected to obtain construction or zoning permits from the village before it began construction on the facility, which is located near residences and a village park. Many residents complained after the facility was completed, because the idling trains that were waiting for maintenance and refueling caused a lot of noise and air pollution. The village and the railroad then discussed ways that the noise and soot could be minimized, and one solution was to build an engine house for the locomotives. However, the railroad never built the engine house.
According to the article, late in 1993 the village of Ridgefield Park finally sued the railroad and asked the Superior Court to allow the village to inspect the facility regularly, and to force the railroad to obtain permits and to cease operating a public nuisance. The village claimed that the railroad did not follow through on its agreement to build the engine house.
The article then goes on to say that the trial court ruled in favor of the railroad in 1998. The court said that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) had overriding authority when it came to railroad and rail facility construction. The case then went to an appeals court, which agreed with the ruling. The village then brought its appeal to the New Jersey State Supreme Court. In the meantime, the STB decided, in a similar case in another town, that it was possible for towns to enforce local laws as long as they did not interfere with the actual operation of the railroad.
The article then reports that the Supreme Court made its decision in the Ridgefield Park case based on the STB's ruling in the other case.
PUBLICATION: San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: News; Pg. A18
BYLINE: Angelica Pence
DATELINE: Oakland, California
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the San Francisco area Regional Airport Planning Committee is hosting a series of public forums on airport noise. For the first time, the committee will be dealing with public complaints about all three of the major airports in the Bay Area.
According to the article, San Francisco International Airport deputy director and chief of staff John Costas believes that the forums are a good way for the airports to deal with noise complaints and noise mitigation plans as a region, instead of on an airport-by-airport basis.
The article reports that the regional committee comprises the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. At the four public forums, spokespeople for the Federal Aviation Administration, several regional planning agencies, San Francisco International, San Jose International Airport and Oakland International Airport will be in attendance.
The article reports that topics discussed will include the future growth of traffic, flight patterns over the Pacific versus over land, and new, quieter planes. Even though flight routes at the major airports have not changed significantly over the past twenty years, there has been an increase in air traffic. For example, there are now 19 overnight flights at Oakland Airport, compared to 16 five years ago. In the same time period, nighttime departures from San Francisco International Airport were up 50% to 13,200. The noise level around San Francisco Airport usually averages above the FAA threshold of 65 decibels.
The article states that the airport would like to build new runways that extend into the bay. This would be one noise mitigation effort that the airport could undertake. Another will be spending an approved $34 million to soundproof 1,800 homes in northern San Mateo county. In addition, the airport is working on a new noise-monitoring system.
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: A Section, Pg. 12A
BYLINE: Waldo Proffitt
DATELINE: Sarasota, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Heathrow Association for Control of Aircraft Noise
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune in Florida published an editorial column from Waldo Proffitt concerning a recent court case involving Heathrow Airport in England. Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport is struggling with noise problems as well.
According to the column, the Heathrow Association for Control of Aircraft Noise recently filed a lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. The suit claims that the British government is subjecting a million people to unacceptable noise levels as a result of nighttime flights at Heathrow Airport.
The article reports that in 1993, Heathrow was granted permission to schedule 16 flights from 4 AM to 6 AM, with no restrictions after 6 AM. Neighbors have complained bitterly about the noise, and about the fact that the number of flights has increased dramatically.
The article states that Heathrow is in a bit of a quandary, because overseas flights generally cannot be scheduled to land later in the day. Any decision in this case by the Court of Human Rights will have a big impact on other western European airports, which also have very lenient nighttime flight rules.
The column writer then compares the problems that the British are having with aircraft noise to the problems Floridians face with noise at Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport. He does not feel that the issue of noise has been discussed enough in recent years. There has been a dispute considering a proposed change in takeoff paths and how the increased noise might affect residents. The writer feels that airport officials did not react quickly enough to residents' complaints, and waited for an excessively long time before agreeing to soundproof area homes.
The columnist also writes that he is worried that if airport officials cease to be elected and are appointed instead, any gains that the public has made thus far with airport officials might be negated by a new board who does not know the history between the airport and its neighbors.
PUBLICATION: Hernando Times
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: Letters; Pg. 2
BYLINE: Joan Johnson
DATELINE: Spring Hill, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joan Johnson
The St. Petersburg Times recently published a letter to the editor from a reader who has legally questions about residential noise in her Spring Hill, Florida neighborhood. The letter is reprinted here in its entirety:
"Editor: Re: County reviewing noise at nightclub, March 30:
I found your articles on the problems of the noise (music?) very interesting. I can relate to the neighbors of Planet Bubba. We are having the same problem with neighbors who insist on subjecting the whole area to their excessive noise.
For 22 years, we have had a quiet neighborhood. In the past six months, two new families have moved on to our street, both of whom insist on entertaining us with their loud and annoying noise (music?) to the point of our windows rattling. This, at times, continues until after midnight.
We have called the Sheriff's Office seven times. Deputies come out and tell them to turn down the radio, and they do until they know the deputies have left the area. Our lives have been threatened, and we have been tailgated. No citations or summonses have been issued.
We have been told to call Code Enforcement and the State Attorney's Office. We were told by both that there are "statutes on the books that aren't being enforced." As a result, the elderly, infirm, schoolchildren and the working public must suffer the consequences.
My questions are: If there are laws covering these offenses, why aren't they being enforced? And if no such ordinances exist, why aren't they enacted?
Joan Johnson
Spring Hill"
PUBLICATION: Times-Picayune
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Matt Scallan
DATELINE: Kenner, Louisiana
The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, Louisiana reports that the New Orleans Aviation Board is losing one of its members of six years, former Kenner City Councilman Forrest "Bucky" Lanning. He waited to leave the board until its recent vote to approve a home-insulation program for residents near New Orleans International Airport.
According to the article, Lanning was vice chairman of the Aviation Board in 1997. For many years he was the head of the airport's noise-abatement committee. He was a Kenner City Councilman from 1982 to 1994. After residents near the airport won a class-action lawsuit it had filed against the airport for excessive noise, Lanning helped implement the $60 million home-buyout program that was instituted as a result of the court case.
The article states that Kenner Mayor Louis Congemi gave high praise to Lanning for his efforts on the Aviation Board. He is currently looking for a replacement. Lanning improved relations between the city of Kenner and the airport significantly during his tenure on the Board. There is also one other vacancy on the Board at the present time.
PUBLICATION: Times-Picayune
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Matt Scallan
DATELINE: Kenner, Louisiana
The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, Louisiana reports that the Aviation Board at New Orleans International Airport recently awarded a contract to begin sound-insulation work on some homes in the city of Kenner. The insulation program is the second phase of an airport noise-mitigation program that was launched as a result of a 1982 class-action residential lawsuit against the airport.
The article reports that Kenner firm Commander Corporation has been awarded this first $135,700 contract. Airport officials plan to award additional contracts for the insulation of more homes very soon.
The article states that the insulation of each home will take about fifteen days. Work will include the installation of triple-paned windows, solid-core doors, and wall and attic insulation. The cost for insulating each home will be between $8,000 and $26,000. David Williams of Airport Management Consultants is overseeing the project. The project is complicated because there are different solutions for each home, and there are many small remodeling projects involved.
The article adds that another complicating factor is many homeowners' reluctance to participate in the program. Only 107 out of 351 homes that qualified for the program have been signed up, largely because the owners do not want to sign a waiver saying that they will not sue the airport in the future for any noise problems. In addition, many are distrustful because of the airport's poor record of responding to resident complaints. Others are still hoping that perhaps the airport will buy their homes or offer to pay them air rights. And a small number of homeowners have not been able to afford preliminary building code work that they must complete themselves before insulation work can be started.
The article reminds readers that the first phase of the noise-mitigation program involved a $60 million buyout of homes near the airport. This second phase applies to homes that are not as close to the airport, but are still subjected to high levels of noise.
PUBLICATION: Washington Post
DATE: April 6, 2000
SECTION: Weekly - Dc; Pg. J01
BYLINE: Caryle Murphy
DATELINE: Washington, DC
The Washington Post reports that the Washington, DC neighborhood of Adams-Morgan has evolved over the years from a commercial residential neighborhood to a neighborhood with mostly restaurants and bars. The article also discusses a controversy that has ensued over the granting of liquor licenses to the various establishments.
The article reports that some residents have complained about excessive noise from the bars. An acoustics consultant measured noise levels outside several bars from midnight until 2 AM. The noise ranged from 76 to 78 decibels, which exceeds the 60 decibels the city allows at night.
The article goes on to say that the controversy thickens as the city discusses whether or not to start a moratorium on liquor licenses.
PUBLICATION: AP Worldstream
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: International News
DATELINE: Prague, Czech Republic
AP Worldstream reports that a zoo in the Czech Republic is purchasing an infamous concrete wall that had been used to separate Gypsy families from the rest of the inhabitants in their town. The zoo intends to donate a portion of the wall to a museum, and to use the rest of it as a noise barrier between the zoo and the road that runs alongside it.
According to the article, the wall is 2 meters high and 65 meters long. Officials agreed to erect the wall, which later became a national controversy, after non-Gypsy residents in the town complained about noise from the Gypsies' homes.
PUBLICATION: Canberra Times
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: Part A; Page 1
BYLINE: Frank Cassidy
DATELINE: Canberra, Australia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Karen Tucker, Greens MLA
The Canberra Times in Australia reports a controversy over noise levels from a V8 Supercar race to be held in June.
According to the article, the noise levels may be twice the legal city limit of 45 decibels. Environment ACT approved the race for this year nonetheless. Race organizers have been told that they need to inform residents about the upcoming race and the noise it will produce. In addition to residential areas, the hospice on Acton Peninsula and the embassy belt in Yarralumla will also be subjected to the racecar noise. Environment ACT has estimated that the noise levels could reach 75dB(A), or eight times the allowable limit, in some residential areas. The level of noise 30 meters from the racecars could be as high as 95dB(A).
The article states that Greens MLA Karen Tucker decries the event. She said, "The event will produce noise greatly in excess of the noise standards in the Environment Protection Act over the three days of the event yet the race has still been approved."
The article also mentions that Environment ACT has authorized the race to be held from June 9 to June 11, from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. The organizer for the event is the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation. They have been asked to hire a sound engineer to measure noise levels during the event.
The article states that Tucker wants to use this year's race as a test case to see if the noise levels are too excessive to allow the event in future years. James Service, the organizer's chairman, said, "We've adopted a very careful policy to make sure we provide the most environmentally sensitive event we can when we deliver motor sport." He said the organization would comply with all of Environment ACT's stipulations, and he denies Tucker's opinion that noise levels measured by the race organizer itself might not be as trustworthy as a completely independent measurement from someone not hired by the organizer.
According to the article, Service noted that Environment ACT gave its approval only for this year's race. It will need to apply for authorization again next year, even though the Government is committed to the race for five years.
PUBLICATION: Daily Oklahoman
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: News;
BYLINE: Mick Hinton
DATELINE: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
The Daily Oklahoman reports that the Oklahoma House of Representatives recently passed an anti-car stereo noise bill. Final language needs to be drafted on the bill, however, and it may not pass during this year's legislative session. The Senate passed the bill in March by a vote of 26-17.
According to the article, The State Legislature passed the bill last week by a vote of 85-12. The bill, known as Senate Bill 1427, would make it "unlawful for the operator of a motorcycle or car on streets or highways to blast radios, cassette and CD players, amplifiers or another sound system loud enough to be detected by a person of ordinary hearing ability 150 feet or more from the vehicle." The ban would apply statewide.
The article states that the fine for a first offense would be $100 and a citation for a traffic violation. Subsequent offenses within three years of the first offense "would result in a misdemeanor criminal charge that could end in a $500 fine and 30 days in jail."
According to the article, a conference committee will now look at the bill and will have the opportunity to make changes to the language. Depending on how long the bill remains in committee, it might not actually pass during this legislative session.
PUBLICATION: Dayton Daily News
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Paul Reines
DATELINE: Dayton, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: David Crawford
The Dayton Daily News in Ohio reports that an informational meeting was held in Dayton so that opponents of a planned expansion of Dayton International Airport could hear the results of an airport noise study conducted by an independent consulting firm. The airport has formed the Community Advisory Committee so that residents can have some input during the airport's expansion process.
According to the article, this meeting was the second in a series of four meetings involving this particular community committee. The airport has also formed two other committees in order to give the public further opportunities to participate in the expansion process.
The article reports that the airport is planning a $1.3 billion expansion. The consultants, Ricondo and Associates and Wyle Laboratories, monitored sites around the airport for ten days last December, using 31 different monitoring devices. The communities surrounding the airport were allowed to choose the locations of the monitoring devices.
The article states that the second phase of the study will take place this spring, with another ten-day monitoring period of 35 locations with 70 sound monitors. Noise will be tracked for a total of 16,800 hours.
The article goes on to say that the studies will cost several hundred thousand dollars. Airport Director Blair Conrad said that the studies are meant to show that the airport has "nothing to hide," and he emphasized that the airport could have obtained similar noise results if it had simply conducted a one-day study.
The article notes that airport expansion opponents were not satisfied with the consultants' tracking methodology. One opponent, Dave Crawford, was very critical of the airport and the expansion plans. Many residents at the meeting continued to be worried about the impact of Emery Worldwide's flights. Emery cargo flights currently operate out of the airport five days a week during pre-dawn hours, and are the focus for a great deal of the airport noise complaints lodged by residents of Tipp City and the Vandalia area. Residents are also concerned that runway realignment at some point in the future will focus more noise on the most populated residential areas.
The article states that residents are also concerned that the noise study only gives an average noise level for a year. They are concerned that quiet times at the airport will balance out the times of very high noise levels and bring down the average. This average figure might then be used to determine which homes could be eligible for soundproofing or for buyout from the airport. Opponents want peak noise levels to be studied more closely.
PUBLICATION: Derby Evening Telegraph
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: Environment: Noise, Pg.17
BYLINE: Sarah North
DATELINE: Erewash, England
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ann and Richard Barton
The Derby Evening Telegraph in England reports that a farm family in the Borough of Erewash wants to build their own sound berm to protect their farm from the noise created by the busy road along which the farm is located.
According to the article, Ann Barton and her son Richard have proposed to the Erewash Borough Council their wish to build an embankment 4 meters high, 9 meters wide, and 110 meters long that would be planted with grass and lined with cherry, ash, pine, and lime trees to block their farm from the traffic noise. The Erewash Borough Council must grant planning approval to the Barton's before they can begin construction.
The article states that the road in question is the A52 in Ockbrook. Mrs. Barton said, "The road is only yards from the farmhouse. Traffic noise has got worse and worse over the years. We're just fed up with it, it's impossible to sit in the garden."
The article notes that Mrs. Barton is concerned because when she tries to help her son repair farm machinery, she often can't hear what he is saying because of the noise from the traffic. It has become a safety concern for them. In addition, they used to graze sheep on the farm and believe that the noise and traffic adversely affected the flock. The Barton's have a legal right to drive their farm animals across the road, which bisects their farm. The last time they attempted to cross their animals over the roadway, police had to stop the traffic, and some drivers became angry.
The article goes on to say that Highways officials and the Ockbrook Parish Council will also have a say in the approval process of the Barton's proposed sound embankment. David Owen, council planning officer, does not think there will be a problem passing the proposal because the applicants are a working farm and the Bartons' request to shield noise is reasonable.
PUBLICATION: Gloucestershire Echo
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: Environment, Pg.12
DATELINE: Cheltenham, England
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Laureen Toner
The Gloucestershire Echo in England recently published a letter to the editor by a reader concerned about a government construction project near her residential neighborhood. The letter is reprinted here in its entirety:
"Madam - Thank you for the story on the eyesore residents in Fiddler's Green have to endure at the bottom of their gardens (Echo, March 16) due to construction work at GCHQ.
The whole of Gloucestershire can now see what we have to put up with.
Hopefully Nigel Jones' attention was drawn to it, especially in view of his comment that it is a pity for the people who live near this development.
Perhaps he would like to come along and see just what we have to put up with, and bring John Prescott (or whoever passed this application). The only concern was to keep GCHQ in Cheltenham with no thought at all for us residents.
With reference to Carillion's comment: "The size and proximity of the landscaped bund is something we've always explained to people." Well, I must have been out when representatives came knocking to tell me about it. I certainly saw no mention of this in Carillion's news magazine.
Carillion also said: "It's at the height it is to reduce noise coming from the site. If people wanted it lower they would have to put up with more noise. It's the best solution in our minds." Unfortunately it does not block out the noise. Noise, like heat, rises.
I cannot see the reason why the embankment has to be located 15 yards from the back of the houses. They could have easily put a row of trees up and started the work much further back.
Our view is ruined forever, our lives will never be the same again and the foxes and other wildlife will be left homeless."
Laureen Toner,
Cheltenham.
PUBLICATION: Herald
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: Pg. 13
DATELINE: Port Glasgow, Scotland
The Herald in Glasgow, Scotland reports that a summer festival that was to be held in Port Glasgow this summer will probably not take place. The organizers will likely not proceed with the event because they have been told that residents in Dunbartonshire will be bombarded with high levels of noise from the festival.
According to the article, local authorities had indicated that they would approve the plan. Organizers had changed the date of the festival from June to August so that it wouldn't coincide with another outdoor event being held in June in Ayrshire. Up to 30,000 festival-goers had been estimated.
The article states that environmental officers were concerned that the noise would impact Port Glasgow, where the festival was slated to be held, and that it would also annoy residents across the river from where the event would be held. Then police and roads officials said that they were concerned about people attempting to get in and out of the festival.
The article reports that, because of all the complicating factors in trying to deal with concerns about the noise that the festival would generate, the event will not proceed this year.
PUBLICATION: Kansas City Star
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: Liberty Star; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Brandon L. Ferguson
DATELINE: Lenexa, Kansas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Scott Elsom
The Kansas City Star reports that the Powder Creek Shooting Park in Lenexa, Kansas has been the focus of numerous complaints about gunfire noise. The shooting range is open on Tuesdays and all weekend long. Resident Scott Elsom has recently moved to Lenexa, and he and his family were immediately bothered by the noise.
According to the article, Elsom said, "The noise is a constant nuisance, it scares our kids. It makes it impossible to enjoy the use of our land out there."
The article states that Lenexa Major Joan Bowman admitted that the city has been aware of complaints about the club ever since the club was annexed into the city in the 1980s. They have tried to work with experts for the past few years to work on safety concerns at the shooting range. As a result, the city required the club to install baffles that would control the direction in which the guns could be aimed. They also required the range to build berms that would keep stray bullets inside the compound. The range has certified range masters working at the club whenever shooting is taking place.
The article then says that Bill Wyant, the facility manager at Powder Creek, is convinced of the safety of the facility. He stated, "I know there's another range of the same design as this in Germany that has an amusement park on the back side of the range. It's probably one of the safest places to shoot. It's a lot better than people going out and shooting up road signs or shooting in the air."
The article reports that Elsom is less concerned about the safety of the gun range than about the noise that it generates. The mayor indicated that the noise from the shooting range is lower than the limit placed on noise in the city's noise ordinance.
The article mentioned that Elsom is worried that people do not know about the gun range when they buy property and homes in its vicinity. Bowman responded that the city is limited in what it can do, because the gun club existed before the city annexed the land. All she can recommend is that prospective property purchasers study the city's master plan for development at City Hall before making a purchase.
The article does state, however, that Bowman realizes that the city needs to do more. She said, "Over the last 12 years I have been involved with city government, we have had numerous conversations with (range representatives) and have gone as far as the city could legally go. But I think it's time, with more houses being built in the area, to discuss with them what are their plans. We need to visit with them again and let them know of the concerns we are hearing."
In the article, range director Wyant said that the gun club is willing to talk with the city, but he does not believe that the gun club can do anything further to solve the noise problem.
PUBLICATION: Omaha World-Herald
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: News; Pg. 15;
BYLINE: Erin Grace
DATELINE: Bennington, Nebraska
The Omaha World-Herald reports that the city of Bennington, Nebraska is in the process of rewriting its twenty-year old noise ordinance. City officials believe that the old ordinance is not specific enough. The new ordinance would require that a noise meter be used to determine whether or not a noise is too loud, and American National Standards Institute specifications would be followed. Daytime noise levels would be allowed to be higher than nighttime noise levels. Police would be able to enforce the ordinance. Violators could be fined $100. The ordinance was given a first reading by the City Council last month, and could be adopted in May.
PUBLICATION: Patriot Ledger
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: News; Pg. 14
BYLINE: Tom Benson
DATELINE: Scituate, Massachusetts
The Patriot Ledger in Massachusetts reports that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is considering reinstating a rail line through the Boston suburb of Scituate. Town officials recently met with MBTA officials to discuss possible noise and air pollution that a new line would bring, as well as other environmental impacts.
According to the article, even though the MBTA officials at the meeting tried to alleviate concerns by saying that any environmental impacts of the rail line would not exceed federal standards, Scituate officials were still worried. In particular, Public Works Director Anthony Antoniello said that parking for a total of 1,500 cars at the North Scituate and Greenbush stations would cause more air pollution in town. And, even if it did not exceed federal standards, he was concerned about increased noise.
In response, the article states that MBTA Senior Project Coordinator Kevin Dasey said that many of the cars would not actually be driving through town when they parked at the train stations. He also maintained that the trains would not be very noisy, although he did admit that some areas, including the Wheeler Park housing complex for senior citizens, would qualify for some form of noise mitigation.
The article reports that Scituate Selectman Ralph Crossen is chairman of a "mitigation committee" that was formed in the town to meet with the MBTA and communicate the town's needs and concerns surrounding the rail issue. The committee will also seek some kind of reimbursement for negative impacts on the town from the new rail line. Crossen said, "The important thing that came out tonight was that there are many impacts, that the T is starting to acknowledge there are impacts, that will not go away."
The article goes on to say that Crossen has asked the MBTA to build a smaller parking lot at the Greenbush station than the 1,000 parking-space lot that is currently planned. Dasey responded that the MBTA has studied the issue, and has decided that the larger parking lot is needed. He said, "Our analyses indicate there's a need for that much parking. The T is very interested in working with the town to provide that parking in as sensitive a way as possible."
The article states that Dasey said there were several parking alternatives that the MBTA could discuss with the town. Some solutions might be decked parking, landscaping, or a parking area that is more spread out so that the parking area would appear smaller than it actually was.
The article notes that the mitigation committee is also concerned about other environmental impacts of the rail line, such as animal habitats and migration patterns that would be negatively impacted. Conservation Agent Vincent Kalishes has asked the MBTA to study the wildlife issue.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: News, Pg. 3C
BYLINE: Chris Poon
DATELINE: Exeter, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Heath and Lynette Lussier
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that a dog kennel in Exeter, Rhode Island would like the town to renew its kennel license. The Town Council has not yet granted the request because it wants to make sure the kennel is not violating the town's fire code or noise ordinance.
According to the article, the Delmyra Kennels will be allowed to stay open for another 30 days until the license issue issue is decided. Scott and Ruth Gordon, the kennel's owners, believe that they have adequately dealt with the fire code violations.
The article states that neighbors of the kennel are more concerned with noise from barking dogs than with the kennel's fire code violations. Two neighbors, Heath and Lynette Lussier, have hired attorney James Kupa to represent them in their complaints against the kennel. Kupa explained that if the town council holds a show-cause hearing and determines that a nuisance exists, then the council is legally allowed to revoke the kennel license.
The article reports that noise from the kennel has been an issue in the past. Last November the town's zoning inspector ordered the kennel to stop outdoor dog-training classes because of noise. The kennel's owners appealed the decision to the town's Zoning Board, which agreed with the zoning inspector's decision. The Board decided that neighbors were justified in their concerns that the outdoor classes would significantly increase the noise to which they would be subjected.
The article then mentions that other neighbors had testified in the Gordon's behalf, saying that the outdoor classes were quiet. The Gordon's have now appealed the Zoning Board decision to Superior Court.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: April 5, 2000
SECTION: St. Charles County Post, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Doug Moore
DATELINE: St. Louis, Missouri
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the city of St. Louis, Missouri is taking steps to ensure that noise from the T.R. Hughes Ballpark will be contained when the River City Rascals begin playing ball there this season.
According to the article, Mayor Paul Renaud has taken noise complaints about the park seriously, and the city has taken bids from companies who would install a new sound system in the park that would evenly distribute sounds from the loudspeakers and better contain them within the park. A bid for $93,000 was received from Elite Enterprises, Inc., the same company who installed the current sound system, which had cost $200,000. The city's Board of Aldermen will vote on the bid in April. The system will be installed in May if the bid is approved. Only one bid was received.
The article reports that, in order to lessen the sound, smaller speakers will be installed at different locations in the stadium, and the existing large speakers in center field will no longer be used. Amplifiers and electronics from the existing system will continue to be used.
According to the article, the city hired an outside firm to measure the noise during ballgames from inside the stadium and also from the surrounding neighborhoods. The firm recommended broadening the sound to try to reduce the distance that it travels. Mayor Renaud said, "It's an opportunity to make the sound available throughout the stadium instead of in the outfield and blasting it to the northwest." The current system makes for extremely loud noise because "it [is] basically six speakers on a pole in center field going in one direction," as Renaud explained. The noise was so loud that the city actually unplugged two of the speakers late into the 1999 baseball season.
The article goes on to say that Alderman Dan Brungard believes that more speakers broadcasting at a lower volume might help the problem. He said, "It's hard to put a lid on the stadium and contain the sound within it. But the comments were coming from extremely too far away."
The article notes that the Mayor agrees. He himself could hear the National Anthem being played and could clearly hear the announcer from his home one mile away from the stadium. He said that after the new system is installed, the city will measure the noise levels to make sure that the noise is within the limits of the city noise ordinance that was enacted by the Board of Aldermen last year. The ordinance allows the sound to be as high as 93 decibels inside the park, but must be below 55 decibels outside the park. Last year the ball team was cited for having exceeded those levels.
PUBLICATION: Virginian-Pilot
DATE: April 5, 2000
BYLINE: Michelle Mizal
DATELINE: Virginia Beach, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Hal Levenson, Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise (CCAJN)
The Virginian-Pilot reports that Virginia Beach mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf has come under fire from the local Chamber of Commerce and from a citizens' group for failing to take a comprehensive approach to securing relief for the community from jet noise at the nearby Oceana Naval Air Station.
According to the article, the air base has been the focus of increased complaints about noise since 156 FA-18 jets began using the base last year. Oberndorf had presented a resolution to the federal government asking Congress "to amend legislation to provide Federal Aviation Administration funding for noise reduction around military, in addition to commercial, airports. It also sought congressional support to seek money elsewhere if the FAA could not provide it."
However, the article reports that Robert Taylor of the Virginia Beach division of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce had asked the mayor to defer the resolution until further studies are conducted. The mayor has agreed to withdraw the resolution. The resolution was presented at a recent meeting at City Hall that was also attended by members of Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise (CCAJN), including board member Hal Levenson. The group would rather see the city hire a noise consultant, research the issue further, and request more money for noise mitigation efforts from the Department of Defense, rather than from the FAA. Levenson said, "As an observer of what happened at City Hall today, I would have to come to the conclusion that the mayor did not do her homework on this."
The article states that the mayor responded at the meeting by saying that her resolution was a response to the CCAJN, which she claimed had been in favor of seeking FAA funding. CCAJN members replied that they did not want FAA funding; rather, they believe that the military should establish a program similar to the FAA funding program.
The article also reports that the air base's commander, Captain William C. "Skip" Zobel, had earlier informed the City Council about the Navy's noise mitigation efforts thus far. He said that the pilots are now using new flight arrival and departure patterns, "climbing and increasing engine power away from residential areas and landing from higher altitudes to decrease engine power when coming back to the base." He said that it is the jets' engines, and not the jet speed, that cause the noise. Zobel also said that the Navy would be building a "hush house" on the base, which would be a soundproofed hangar for testing jet engines.
PUBLICATION: Bradenton Herald
DATE: April 4, 2000
BYLINE: Steve Hollister
DATELINE: Manatee, Florida
The Bradenton Herald in Florida reports that the Airport Authority commissioners of the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport have voted to ask the FAA to approve the airport's plan to enlarge its Noise Compatibility Plan to allow 600 more homes to be eligible. The airport's executive director, Fred Piccolo, expects that the FAA will approve the plan within six months. Adding the additional homes to the program will cost $7.5 million dollars, which will be funded by federal and state grants.
According to the article, the Airport Authority has made an agreement with Manatee County that allows the airport to extend its main runway as long as the additional homes are included in the airport's noise mitigation program. The additional houses would now be included in the program because the airport will make the eligibility dates more current. The eligibility date for the airport's home buyout program would be moved up to Dec. 15, 1986, and its sound insulation and easement programs would be moved to Oct. 1, 1998. Homes likely to be included are located in the Whitfield and Ballentine subdivisions in Manatee County, and the Tri-Par Mobile Home Park in Sarasota County.
The article states that the airport offers three options to eligible homeowners. The airport can buy the home outright (to be resold after performing sound insulation work); the airport can pay the homeowner a one-time easement fee of $ 2,400 as compensation for the noise inconvenience; or the homeowner can agree to allow the airport to install and pay for soundproofing.
The article reports that soundproofing averages $27,500 per home (plus $4,125 in administrative costs). The easement programs cost the airport $2,400 plus $600 in administrative costs for each home. So far, under the existing FAA-approved program, 91 homeowners have taken advantage of the buyout program, 186 have accepted easement fees, and 59 have had their homes soundproofed.
The article goes on to say that the airport pays an average of $152,000 to purchase a home in Manatee County. After paying for soundproofing and administrative costs, each home costs the airport approximately $188,125. The airport is then able to re-sell each home for approximately $139,000, leaving a net cost to the airport of $49,125 per home. Most of the cost is paid for with money from federal and state grants.
PUBLICATION: Deseret News
DATE: April 4, 2000
SECTION: Local; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Rodger L. Hardy
DATELINE: Spanish Fork, Utah
The Deseret News in Utah reports that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has agreed to install a sound wall along busy U.S. Route 6 in the town of Spanish Fork. The walls will be made of concret, 12 to 14-feet high. They will lower the sound from passing cars, trucks, and even trains in the vicinity to less than 65 decibels. The traffic noise has been concerning residents along the road for years.
According to the article, the project will cost about $1 million, and needed a two-thirds majority vote from residents before UDOT would proceed with the wall's construction. Voting took place by mail, and residents were 80% in favor of the wall's construction.
The article states that the wall will begin on the south side of U.S. Route 6 and continue to 2000 East, a proposed street that has not yet been built. There will be breaks in the wall at intersections for other roads connecting into U.S. Route 6 along the wall's route. The wall will be shorter along the north side of Route 6, but will be built in areas where homes already exist along the highway.
The article also mentions that another wall that had been discussed will not be built. It would have lessened the noise in North Park close to the I-15 off-ramp onto U.S. Route 6.
PUBLICATION: Ledger
DATE: April 4, 2000
SECTION: East Polk; Pg. F1
BYLINE: Bill Bair
DATELINE: Lake Wales, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bill Dickinson, executive director of Lake Wales Arts Council
The Ledger in Florida reports that the Lake Wales Arts Council has asked the city of Lakes Wales and the county for $9,000 each to pay for the costs to soundproof the Arts Center, which is located in the former Holy Spirit Catholic Church at the busy and noisy intersection of State Road 60 and 11th Street.
According to the article, the Arts Council believes that the noise from large trucks and other traffic is adversely affecting music concerts. Bill Dickinson, executive director of the Arts Council, said, "If you are sitting in the back three or four rows, it almost drowns everything out. Even in the front rows, the noise is a nuisance."
The article states that the Lake Wales city commissioners will discuss the request at its upcoming meeting. City Manager David Greene has recommended that the city approve the request and pay for its portion of the costs. The Arts Council has not yet filed its request with the county.
The article goes on to say that the Arts Council hired Siebein and Associates, a Gainesville firm specializing in architectural acoustics, to study the noise. The company recommended that acoustically-rated doors and an extra layer of glass behind the stained glass windows be installed. The article plans to begin the project this summer, when it also begins a larger, $735,000 restoration and expansion project. The Council hopes to raise $542,000 for the project through donations, and has requested a grant of $195,000 from the state.
The article reports that the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. According to Dickinson, the building served as a church until 1989, and is an excellent example of Spanish Mission-style architecture.
PUBLICATION: London Free Press
DATE: April 4, 2000
SECTION: News, Pg. A3
BYLINE: Mary-Jane Egan
DATELINE: London, Ontario, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Chris Mechefske, Brian Rutt
The London Free Press in Ontario, Canada reports that researchers at the University of Western Ontario are undertaking a study to reduce noise from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines. MRI's are extremely effective in detecting many types of disease by using radio waves and magnetic fields. However, the machine contains a magnet whose gradient coil generates significant amounts of vibration and noise. The noise is bothersome, and possibly damaging, to both patients and technicians.
According to the article, Professors Chris Mechefske and Brian Rutt of the University have received a three-year grant for $240,000 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research for their study. Through their study, they hope to find ways to eliminate MRI noise so that MRI manufacturers can incorporate design changes into new machines that could lessen noise by 15 to 25 percent, and would also enable them to retrofit older machines. The 4 Tesla MRI at Robarts Research Institute, which has a particularly strong MRI magnet, will be used for the study.
The article states that a byproduct of the study could be information that will help improve the quality of MRI images. Research conducted by the team thus far indicates that acoustic pressure in the MRI produces movements that could be affecting the images produced.
The article also reports that reducing MRI noise might also allow the machines to be used to diagnose problems with the inner ear. Currently, MRI's are unable to take images of the inner ear because the noise from the MRI causes the inner ear to vibrate and move.
The article then goes on to say that the study will be divided into three areas. The first is active cancellation, in which "a sound wave is applied that's out of sync with the existing sound signal, canceling out the noise signal at the patient's ears." The second part of the study will include creating a three-dimensional computer model of the MRI that will "simulate its performance and measure results of minor changes to the material properties, shape and supports to determine if noise levels are improved. The third area of the study will involve "finding a mathematical solution that defines how the acoustic noise is generated to develop a gradient design for how the coils are wrapped around the gradient to produce the least noise."
PUBLICATION: Metropolitan News-Enterprise
DATE: April 4, 2000
SECTION: Pg. 9
BYLINE: Adam Schiff
DATELINE: Burbank, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Adam Schiff of California's 21st State Senate District
The Metropolitan News-Enterprise of Burbank, California printed an editorial by Adam Schiff, representative of California's 21st State Senate District, including Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena and the surrounding communities. The editorial discusses continuing noise disputes between Burbank area communities and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport and is reprinted here in its entirety:
"I agree with the assessment of the editors of the Burbank Leader and Glendale News-Press, set forth in the editorial entitled "Airport talks must get back on track," that our community and elected leaders must demonstrate a renewed resolve towards achieving progress with regard to the longstanding dispute over the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport.
I am fully committed to assisting in the process of restarting the dialogue on resolving the airport issue, and met with Jane Garvey, administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and with airport and city officials in our nation's capital last week in an effort to identify avenues to move forward. In light of recent developments, I believe it is important that negotiations between the parties resume and real progress is achieved on a satisfactory resolution of this dispute. Although this dispute has often appeared intractable, I am hopeful that progress can be made with regard to Burbank Airport. Early last year, I flew to Washington, D.C., to encourage the FAA to facilitate the process of applying for a mandatory curfew and other noise controls both through the federal Part 161 process and through other means. While the FAA indicated it was willing to work with the parties to facilitate a local resolution, it did not want to impose a solution from above and it was incumbent on the local parties to do our part. Following that meeting, I hosted a Burbank Airport summit, which brought together for the first time in a public forum all the parties to the dispute in an effort to identify common ground and begin a constructive dialogue. The parties did engage in sincere negotiations, and owing to their effort and determination, near the middle of last year, the City of Burbank and the Airport Authority jointly announced the framework for settlement.
Now, those settlement negotiations have stalled, although the need remains as pressing as ever for meaningful noise controls to protect our quality of life in Burbank and surrounding communities and for a new airport terminal. We must not fail to seize on a very real opportunity to settle this issue as happened last year when a lack of leadership at the federal level resulted in the FAA's denial of Burbank's request to obtain a curfew under an applicable "grandfather" clause. Our communities and the airport have spent immense sums to wage court battles for far too long; regrettably, those public funds could have been used to better the quality of life in our neighborhoods. For instance, because the state has a legitimate interest in protecting residents from aircraft noise, I have sought matching state funds for the Residential Acoustic Treatment Program to insulate against aircraft noise qualifying homes under the flight paths of the airport.
I also believe it is important to reach out to the representatives of the City of Los Angeles, because they are not represented on the airport governing board, to ensure they are protected from the adverse impacts of the airport. I made sure to include a presentation from a Los Angeles representative when I hosted the Burbank Airport summit one year ago, and I have consistently sought to work with the representatives of Los Angeles at the local, state and federal level in an effort to identify an amicable solution. Any proposed solution to this dispute must be responsive to the needs of those who bear the brunt of the noise impacts from the airport.
The airport talks must, indeed, get back on track, and I will do my utmost to help the parties again resume dialogue on this issue that is so vital to the future of our community and our region."
PUBLICATION: Miami Herald
DATE: April 4, 2000
BYLINE: Charles Rabin
DATELINE: Miami, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Robert Maggs, Key Biscayne Anti-Noise Committee; Tory Jacobs, County Noise Abatement Task Force
Florida's Miami Herald reports that Miami-Dade County's Aviation Department and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have reached an agreement that will allow nighttime flights out of Miami International Airport to use a different flight path that will lessen noise over residential areas such as Brickell and Key Biscayne. The agreement was announced in March at a meeting of the county's Noise Abatement Task Force, of which Brickell resident Tory Jacobs is a member.
According to the article, residents had been bothered for many years by jet noise. Dr. Robert Maggs of Key Biscayne helped to form the Key Biscayne Anti-Noise Committee to try to bring their complaints to the appropriate officials. Maggs states, "Key Biscayne is such a unique situation, with 12 miles of bay to the east and the Atlantic to the west. We only have two square miles of property here. The planes passing overhead are a big disturbance."
The article summarizes the agreement between the County and the FAA. Between 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM, eastbound outgoing flights will be required to fly over the ocean for five miles before being allowed to turn and join up with the main north-south Florida air routes. This will affect about 20 flights nightly. Incoming flights will follow a similar plan by making their final approach to the airport over the ocean, five miles from land. In addition, the new flight paths will be farther north than they are now, over Virginia Key rather than Key Biscayne, to avoid residential areas. They will pass over industrial areas on the Miami River instead. Additionally, the jets will ascend more quickly to higher altitudes.
The article states that Jeff Bunting, chief of aircraft noise and environmental planning for Miami-Dade County's Aviation Department, said that problems currently arise because the planes are turning toward and from the airport just over the shoreline, disturbing the residents and businesses greatly with the jet noise. He said the new nighttime flight paths will be tested for six months, and if they are an improvement and if they pass the FAA's environmental study, then the FAA may allow the airport to use the new flights paths 24 hours a day by May 2001. The FAA environmental study will look at noise and other adverse effects on wildlife and wetlands.
The article notes that FAA Airspace Branch Manager Nancy Shelton stated that the announcement of the agreement had been delayed because the FAA had been waiting for the airport's environmental assessment. She said, "In looking at the east departure, we didn't have a reason to do a test. We knew operationally we could do it. We didn't know what the environmental effect would be. We asked them for a review regarding what they wanted to do."
The article goes on to say that Miami International Airport is second in the U.S. only to O'Hare International Airport in total number of passengers served. Last year, Miami International served 35 million passengers; that number is expected to be 55 million in the year 2010. In addition, last year Miami International Airport transported more international freight than any airport worldwide.
PUBLICATION: South Wales Evening Post
DATE: April 4, 2000
SECTION: Politics: Carmarthenshire, Pg.8
BYLINE: Claire Griffiths
DATELINE: Carmarthen, Wales
The South Wales Evening Post reports that businesses in Carmarthen, Wales are objecting to an amusement arcade that would like to relocate to an area that falls within the town's conservation area, and which would bring noise and undesirable clientele to the neighborhood.
According to the article, the arcade, Sun Valley Amusements, wants to move to a building that is situated between a carpet shop and an office sales equipment store on 32 Blue Street. It is close to Carmarthen's GBP 17 million Greyfriars Center. Carmarthenshire's development control board has been asked by those in opposition to deny planning permission to the arcade at the board's upcoming meeting.
The article reports that Eifion Bowen, the council's head of planning services, said that amusement centers will not be permitted within conservation areas or in town shopping areas. He said that the council has received three letters of objection from businesses who are worried about young people causing a commotion and making too much noise at the arcade.
PUBLICATION: Associated Press
DATE: April 3, 2000
SECTION: State And Regional
BYLINE: John Seewer
DATELINE: Weston, Ohio
The Associated Press reports that when CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway took over Conrail's routes in Northern Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and southeast Michigan, a deal was arranged whereby the railroads would compensate towns $10,000 for each home that was deemed to be adversely affected by train noise resulting from increased train traffic on the rails due to the merger. A controversy has ensued over which houses are eligible and how each affected town is spending this money originally earmarked for noise mitigation.
According to the article, the National Surface Transportation Board determined that the number of homes that would be affected number 648. The per-home compensation would be paid to each town in a lump sum, and the towns would have complete discretion over how they spend the money. Some towns could opt to use the money for something other than noise mitigation. However, some town leaders claim that the Board used outdated aerial maps to determine the homes eligible for soundproofing. The village of Weston, Ohio has refused to accept the railroad's offer of $130,000 in compensation, in part because of survey inaccuracy on the part of the railroad. The village is also concerned that accepting the money might mean that the village would be liable if homeowners decided to file a lawsuit because of the noise. They feel that the railroad should take more responsibility to solve the noise problem, rather than passing it off onto the towns.
The article reports that the Toledo suburb of Perrysburg also turned down its share of the money, in part because the railroads did not let the city know which homeowners were eligible for noise mitigation, and also because the railroad did not take into account new homes recently built near the train tracks. Councilman Walter Hales said, "We just don't feel the railroad has been responsible on this. We didn't create the problems."
The article states that some other towns are more than willing to accept the railroad's money. Jim Myers, mayor of another affected town, said that he was surprised that any town would turn down the compensation. He said, "It's free money. The grants would have helped people fix up their homes and anything leftover could have been used to fix the village's sidewalks."
The article goes on to say that the village of Custar realized that the railroad had overcompensated them by mistaking some commercial buildings for homes. When they reported the mistake to the Surface Transportation Board, the agency said that they would give the town the extra amount nonetheless, which amounts to an extra $80,000. Custar's clerk-treasurer, Al Graser, said, "We can do more for the residents of the village than CSX would with the residents on a one-on-one basis. I think it's pretty nice of them to offer it."
The article notes that the railroads have reiterated that it is acceptable for towns to spend the money on town improvements that have nothing to do with noise. One town has decided to use the money to purchase a new fire engine. The village of Haskins has decided to let the affected homeowners decide how the money should be spent.
According to the article, most of the Ohio towns that have been offered compensation are situated along rail lines between Toledo and Lima, and from suburban Cleveland to Willard.
PUBLICATION: Evening Herald
DATE: April 3, 2000
SECTION: Boxfile: Letters Extra, Pg.11
DATELINE: Plymouth, England
The Evening Herald in Plymouth, England printed a letter to the editor from a reader who does not feel that residents should complain about noise from nearby Plymouth Airport. The letter is reprinted here in its entirety:
"I write regarding the ongoing concern of alleged noise pollution from Plymouth Airport.
I know this is a subject on which many people have written before and have raised many differing viewpoints.
My viewpoint is that Plymouth needs a bigger airport to encourage more commerce into this area. As it is, a lot of industries think that the UK 'ends' at Bristol!
What were our 'Plymouth Fathers' thinking of?
There must have been ample opportunity in the past to expand the airport towards Roborough village or Glenholt, or even Estover, before these areas became mainly residential.
The question is, why didn't they?
Perhaps it was more profitable to sell the land to building contractors for housing rather than have the housing built on waste ground within the city?
Or perhaps they had no foresight, no long-term view and were a little 'behind' in forward thinking?
Why did the city planners give permission for housing estates to be built so close to what they surely should have realised would be a 'growing' concern?
It appears they had no thought for the future of Plymouth.
Most of the 'new' estates were built in the last 30 years, the period when Plymouth Airport was expanding rapidly, therefore requiring more space, space no longer available.
My comments to the people who moan about noise levels are these: What do you expect? You chose to buy a house near to an airport.
Common sense should have told you there would be aircraft noise at all times of the day - strangely enough, that is what usually comes from an airport!
Ultimately, the choice of where you lived was yours and you chose to live near an airport.
The airport has carried out extensive works to cut down noise levels for surrounding residents and I don't blame them for any perceived noise problems. I blame the planning department for having no forethought."
PUBLICATION: Hartford Courant
DATE: April 3, 2000
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B4
BYLINE: Don Stacom
DATELINE: Enfield, Connecticut
The Hartford Courant reports that the town of Enfield, Connecticut is concerned by the noise from jets inbound to Bradley International Airport
According to the article, the state Department of Transportation (DOT) last summer had allowed the airport to experiment with new flight paths outbound from Bradley. When Enfield residents complained, the new flight paths were discontinued. The town would now like some relief from inbound traffic as well. Town council member Carol Hall, who is also an Enfield representative to the regional advisory committee on airport noise, said, "The traffic coming in over Enfield has increased substantially. We're seeing much more pilot-initiated shortcuts right over the center of town. And I have some real concerns about more incoming flights now that the airport has taken on a new airline [Southwest Airlines]."
According to the article, inbound planes approaching Runway 6-24 "fly over northern Enfield as they line up above a beacon near the Radisson Hotel just below the Massachusetts line. Planes then continue south roughly above the Connecticut River en route to the runway."
The article states that Enfield Town Manager Scott Shanley reported that recently, there have been more inbound jets flying directly above the center of town. They are also approaching at a lower altitude, resulting in a noise increase. He also feels that the planes are taking a "shortcut" over Enfield.
The article then reports that Hall will discuss the issue with DOT and airport officials later this year, when the groups will be performing a comprehensive study of the airport. She will try to get the airport to agree to require inbound planes to fly at a higher altitude above Enfield, and to fly over the outer borders of the town rather than over the town center.
PUBLICATION: News and Record
DATE: April 3, 2000
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. A8
BYLINE: Kathy Templin
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kathy Templin
The News and Record in Greensboro, North Carolina printed an editorial on hearing loss and noise exposure. The editorial is reprinted here in its entirety:
"Thank you for the timely articles on hearing loss (Healthy Life, March 28). It certainly does highlight the dangers of noise exposure.
April 12 will mark the fifth International Noise Awareness Day sponsored by the League of the Hard of Hearing. More than 200 organizations worldwide will participate with outreach efforts to educate the public about the negative impact of noise on hearing, health and quality of life.
It is a known fact that noise is one of the leading causes of hearing impairment for 28 million Americans. Studies also have correlated noise with physiological changes in sleep, blood pressure and digestion. In the words of a former U.S. Surgeon General: "Calling noise a nuisance is like calling smog an inconvenience. Noise must be considered a hazard to the health of people everywhere."
Our children also are at risk. Noise threatens health, hearing, learning and behavior. Television, noisy toys, loud music, arcades, movie theaters and computer games assault our children's ears daily. Did you know that 3 million children under the age of 18 have some type of hearing difficulty? Or that noise -induced hearing loss is being detected in increasingly younger populations?
As the world becomes a noisier place, we must become more educated about the dangers of noise. An excellent starting point is the Web site for the League of the Hard of Hearing at www.lhh.org/ noise. Spread the word, and join people around the world to observe one minute of silence on April 12 from 2:15 to 2:16 p.m. wherever you are. Celebrate the gift of hearing. Kathy Templin Greensboro"
PUBLICATION: Plain Dealer
DATE: April 3, 2000
SECTION: Health and Fitness; Pg. 2F
BYLINE: Rosie Mestel
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Nancy Nadler, director of the New-York based Noise Center at the League for the Hard of Hearing; Billy Martin, Oregon Hearing Research Center; Dilys Jones, House Ear Institute
The Plain Dealer printed an article that first appeared in the Los Angeles Times. The article reports on how noise exposure can result in hearing loss.
According to the article, hearing experts are using various methods to educate the public about the hazards of loud noises and what can be done about them. The experts emphasize that although noise in the workplace is regulated, environmental noise is not. It's up to each individual to protect his/her own hearing. Some of the environmental noises referred to include noise from traffic, concerts, jet planes, gunshots, lawn mowers, hair dryers, and stereos. Damage to the "hair cells" of the inner ear can occur if noise is too loud, too close, or lasts too long. Some people are biologically prone to more hearing damage than others. Some sudden noises can cause immediate and permanent hearing loss, such as the noise from a gunshot or a firecracker.
The article reports that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health says that noise above 85 decibels can result in hearing loss. The louder the sound to which one is exposed, the less time it will take to damage one's hearing. The Institute's recommended noise threshold is eight hours per day at 85 decibels in the workplace. For each 3-decibel increase over 85, exposure times should be cut in half. For example, the limit at 88 decibels should be four hours. The limit at 91 decibels should be two hours.
The article states that Nancy Nadler, director of the Noise Center at the League for the Hard of Hearing, a nonprofit rehabilitation agency in New York, believes that the Institute's workplace guidelines also apply quite well to environmental noise.
The article then mentions that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Institutes of Health have teamed up on a hearing education campaign called "Wise Ears," which will help to educate the public about the dangers of loud noises.
The article reports that the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in Portland is currently hosting a children's exhibit that actually helps researchers study children's hearing. The researchers collect data from the children as the children participate in the hands-on and education programs that are part of the exhibit. Scientist Billy Martin of the Oregon Hearing Research Center recommends to his own children that they put their fingers in their ears when they hear loud noises such as fire sirens.
The article then mentions that The House Ear Institute, a treatment and research center in Los Angeles, is currently studying people in the entertainment industry who are routinely exposed to loud noise, such as recording engineers, technicians who mix and edit soundtracks for movies, and engineers who install sound systems in theaters and concert halls. Spokeswoman Dilys Jones says that these workers often don't complain about the noise levels to which they are exposed because they are afraid they could lose their jobs, even though they are routinely subjected to noise levels higher than 100 decibels.
The article then gives tips on how to protect one's hearing. Try to keep away from loud noises, which are defined as noises loud enough that one must raise one's voice to be heard. Cover the ears with hands or purchase ear protection if avoiding loud noise is not possible. Keep headset volumes low enough so that music cannot be heard from a headset that another person, especially a child, is wearing. Give the ears a break or a rest if they are routinely subjected to loud noise. Keep television, radio, and stereo volumes at a low level. Sit farther away from the source of the noise. Make sure that children in the back seat of the car are not being blasted by the car's backseat stereo speakers. Test the noise levels of appliances before purchasing them. Have hearing checked on a regular basis.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: April 3, 2000
SECTION: News, Pg. 7E
DATELINE: Warwick, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin published several legal notices, one of which is an announcement for a public hearing and workshop for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on proposed air traffic noise abatement actions at T. F. Green Airport in Warwick, Rhode Island.
The notice announces that the EIS is being sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Division and the Rhode Island Airport Corporation. The EIS focuses on proposed air traffic noise abatement actions recommended in the T. F. Green Airport Noise Compatibility Program Update. At the public hearing, an FAA representative will listen to comments by community members concerning the recommended noise abatement programs.
The notice also states that an informational workshop will be held at the same time as the public hearing. People may ask individual questions of FAA representatives, airport staff, and consultants. The representatives will also be willing to hold discussions about the EIS. T.F. Green Airport has made copies of the EIS are available to the public. They may be obtained at the airport itself, the clerks' offices in Warwick and Cranston, and at local libraries. The airport's telephone number is 401-737-4000, extension 273.
PUBLICATION: Telegram and Gazette
DATE: April 3, 2000
SECTION: Local News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Karen Nugent
DATELINE: Clinton, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: George P. McNamara
The Worcester, Massachusetts Telegram and Gazette reports that a giant 344,000 square foot warehouse has opened in Clinton, Massachusetts, and has generated complaints from residents about excessive truck traffic and noise.
The article reports that the Regency warehouse has been issued a temporary occupancy permit by Building Inspector Thomas F.J. Dillon. Dillon issued the permit for 25 percent of the massive warehouse, because only that much of the warehouse space is being utilized thus far, for storage of glass bottles. Residents had been unable to find out from Regency who the warehouse tenants would be. They had been concerned last year that manufacturing or labeling of bottles might be permitted at the warehouse, but Dillon said that will not be the case.
The article reports that the warehouse is located in an area that is zoned industrial. Residents have filed complaints already with the town's police department and with the town selectboard about the noise. According to Town Administrator Michael J. Ward, residents have complained that trucks have been driving too fast and have been ignoring stop signs at intersections.
The article states that nearby resident George P. McNamara believes the noise so far has been due to the actual construction of the warehouse. McNamara and other residents complained to the selectboard last fall that construction regulations were not being monitored or enforced. A stop order was issued in September to prevent Regency from removing any more gravel, which it had been doing for weeks without a permit. The selectboard issued an earth-removal permit in November in order to allow Regency to remove the remainder of the gravel as soon as possible.
According to the article, the residents maintain that they have had problems with truck noise, speed, and operation during off hours for many years. Warehouses have been in this area, which is on a 20-acre site beside the old Colonial Press warehouse, for years. In August 1998 Regency, which is a nationwide trucking agency and developer, first requested permission from the town to locate their warehouse at the site.
The article reports that it took a year of discussion before the Planning Board approved Regency's site plan. Regency spent $500,000 improving the streets in the neighborhood, constructed a new access road for its trucks, and also bought some homes close to the warehouse site. When the site plan was approved in June, the Planning Board attached a list of conditions to the approval.
The article goes on to list the conditions of operation: "Truck traffic is supposed to be limited to 200 round trips per day, between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays. On the [Clinton] hospital side, the hours are 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays. Regency is allowed to have 10 percent of its trucks come on the site during off hours, Sundays, and holidays."
PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun
DATE: April 3, 2000
SECTION: News; B1 / Front
BYLINE: Gerry Bellett
DATELINE: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Barbara Borchartt
The Vancouver Sun in Canada reports that "rave" concerts in Richmond, on the outskirts of Vancouver, have been annoying residents in Vancouver and preventing them from being able to sleep.
According to the article, Barbara Borchartt, who lives in a condominium across the river from the rave site, has spearheaded the resident complaints. She is passing a letter around to her condominium neighbors, asking them to protest the noise to both the Richmond and Vancouver city councils. She wants the cities to take sound measurements as proof that the noise is excessive.
The article states that the city of Richmond just recently decided to license rave concerts instead of banning them. Richmond's new bylaw requires rave concerts and their promoters to pay for extra law enforcement during the concerts. The Richmond police have been unaware of major problems. Sergeant Willy Laurie said, "There were noise complaints (from Vancouver) and there were reports of thefts from cars. We had officers down there but because (the raves) were small, we could handle it."
The article reports that Borchartt maintains that the city of Richmond is unconcerned about the problem because it is Vancouver residents, who live across the river from the rave site, who are bombarded with the noise. And she is worried about the upcoming summer season, when large rave events will take place. She said, "It's not a priority with them. And when I phone the Vancouver police, they basically tell me to get lost because the noise is originating in Richmond."
The article goes on to say that Richmond City Councillor Lyn Greenhill has reported that sound insulation has been installed by the owners of the two banquet halls that are used for the raves. She added that sound monitoring has been done, and the noise is within "acceptable limits." She stated, "I guess the problem is the bass, which sometimes you feel more than hear. We've had councillors go over and listen and they've said the sound of traffic on the Knight Street Bridge is louder. But people have a way of filtering out ambient noise. I think part of the problem is just living in the city. You've got to get used to noise."
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star
DATE: April 3, 2000
SECTION: News; Pg. B02
DATELINE: Camarillo, California
The Ventura County Star reports that some residents in Camarillo, California are opposed to a KinderCare Learning Center that wants to open in their neighborhood. They are concerned that the childcare facility will bring more traffic and noise to their community.
According to the article, residents filed a petition asking the Camarillo Planning Commission to deal with their concerns. The Planning Commission will decide at its next meeting whether or not to allow the center to be built.
The article states that the center would be built in a seldom-used parking lot of the Daily Plaza on Pickwick Drive. Up to 180 infants and children would attend the daycare facility, which would include two outdoor, fenced playgrounds. Residents are concerned that the noise made by the children on the playground would be disturbing.
The article states that, in response to resident concerns, the city of Camarillo will require that a six-foot wall be built between the facility and the adjacent apartment complex and shopping center to decrease any noise that the center would generate.
PUBLICATION: Associated Press
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Hill Air Force Base, Utah
The Associated Press reports that Hill Air Force Base in Utah has agreed to change its flight paths so that jets are not flying over nearby Davis Hospital and Medical Center. Instead, the Air Force jets will be flying over the communities of Clearfield, Clinton, and Layton.
According to the article, Salt Lake International Airport officials had requested the Air Force to change the flight paths because they believe the military jets are currently flying dangerously close to commercial planes. The Winter Olympics will be taking place in Salt Lake City in the year 2002, and the military jet flight path change will allow for more commercial aircraft to use the airport in Salt Lake.
The article goes onto describe the current flight path and the change. Under the plan, jets will "leave Hill in a heart-shaped pattern, using a north- or southbound route toward the west desert. The Air Force is planning to shift and widen the southern leg, extending a deep crescent into Clearfield, Clinton and north Layton." The Air Force has not received any complaints about the proposed change.
The article notes that the Air Force held public meetings on the proposal in January, and will hold more public meeting after it releases the initial environmental assessment of the plan, probably sometime in May. The Air Force sees no hindrances to the plan being approved.
PUBLICATION: Associated Press
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: State And Regional
BYLINE: Scott Charton
DATELINE: Jefferson City, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Roger Albright
The Associated Press reports that Roger Albright of Stewartsville, Missouri recently met with the Missouri Senate Transportation Committee to complain about loud truck "Jake Brakes" and to ask for legislation outlawing them. Albright claims that eighteen wheelers routinely engage the brakes on the road near his home, making it extremely difficult to sleep.
The article states that "Jake Brakes" are used by truckers to save wear and tear on the trucks' regular brakes. The special brake is actually called an engine compression release brake, though it is generally known by the trade name "Jake Brake." It interrupts fuel flow to a truck's engine, slowing the truck quickly and safely. However, a "massive burst of energy" comes out through the exhaust pipes when the brake is engaged, causing a very loud noise. Most new trucks are now outfitted with the special brakes at the factory. The sound is made worse when the truck does not have a muffler.
The article reports that Tony DeBouef, department chairman for Heavy Equipment Technology at Linn State Technical Institute, believes that the "Jake Brakes" are necessary He said, "They allow rigs to slow down quickly if other vehicles turn into their paths, and give the driver greater control along curves and hilly passes."
According to the article, Albright is more concerned about the incessant noise. He said, "The combination of the Jake Brake and no muffler on diesel trucks is as loud or louder than noises I have experienced at drag strips and circle tracks - except this noise is near my front door." Albright spoke about the problem with state Senator Sam Graves, who agreed to file a bill that would amend Missouri's commercial vehicle law to require brakes "that do not create excessive noise when in use."
The article goes on to say that because of Albright's presentation to the Senate, the Senate Transportation Committee has decided to send the bill (Truck Brakes Bill SB1079) to the full chamber.
The article reports that Scott Fowler, vice president of Jacob Vehicle Systems in Bloomfield, Connecticut, the maker of "Jake Brakes," maintains that properly installed brakes, used with a muffler, are no louder than the sound of the truck's running engine. He said that the problem is that many truckers remove the muffler that comes attached to the brake. Tampering with exhaust systems is against federal law. Once the muffler is removed, the noise from the brake increases seventy-fold.
The article states that Fowler believes about ten percent of the trucking industry fleet nationwide operates without mufflers. That would mean a total of 200,000 unmuffled trucks driving our nation's highways.
PUBLICATION: Columbus Dispatch
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: News, Pg. 1D
BYLINE: Ruth E. Sternberg
DATELINE: Columbus, Ohio
The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio reports that elementary schools in Columbus are debating whether to mandate "silent lunch" at school. Proponents believe that a child will eat more and digest his/her food more easily if allowed to eat in a quiet environment. Opponents believe it is impossible to enforce and not necessary. The article debates the issue.
PUBLICATION: Deseret News
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: Viewpoint; Pg. Aa01
BYLINE: Todd Wilkinson
DATELINE: Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bluewater Network, San Francisco; Bob Ekey, The Wilderness Society
The Deseret News in Salt Lake City, Utah recently published an article that originally appeared in the Christian Science Monitor. The article reports that the National Park Service is considering reducing the use of snowmobiles, cars, and airplanes in some of the country's national parks, including Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon. The Park Service hopes to be able to decrease noise and air pollution in the parks to keep them more pristine and to allow visitors to experience a more unspoiled environment.
According to the article, under the Park Service's new proposal, automobile traffic would be decreased in Yosemite by eliminating parking lots, reducing the number of hotel rooms within the park, using more buses, and encouraging visitors to stay in hotels in some of the surrounding towns.
The article states that snowmobiles would be banned in Yellowstone. They would be replaced with over-the-snow coaches. There are currently 70,000 snowmobile users in the park yearly.
The article adds that at the Grand Canyon, aircraft noise would be reduced with the cooperation of the FAA. The park would also ban cars, using electric buses or light rail instead.
The article quotes Destry Jarvis, senior policy adviser at the U.S. Department of the Interior, as saying, "What we are doing is returning to the very reason why parks were created, and we're seeking to protect the natural values that set them apart. Where laws are being broken, it will stop."
The article mentions that opponents of the Park Service's proposals are worried that the new rules will cater to young and athletic visitors, leaving the elderly and disabled with few options for visiting the parks. An aerial tour operator in the Grand Canyon believes that air tours are the most environmentally sound way to visit the park. And there are many opponents to the snowmobile ban in Yellowstone.
The article says that environmental experts maintain that two-stroke engines, which are used by both jet skis and snowmobiles, are hazardous because they cause noise and air pollution, and they spill about one-third of their fuel. Proponents are trying to following the Park Service Organic Act of 1916, which states that the parks should be "conserved unimpaired." Many visitors have written to the Park Service after their trips to Yellowstone complaining about the noise.
The article states that the Bluewater Network in San Francisco helped to get the Park Service to devise plans for jet ski and snowmobile bans after it filed a lawsuit.
The article quotes Bob Ekey of The Wilderness Society as adding, "The American public has made it clear it expects clean air and clean water and a quality experience in our national parks."
The article then reports that the Park Service is taking strides to implement some of the proposals. Last month, 34 superintendents nationwide from the parks that allow snowmobiles met in Washington, D.C. They agreed that it is the job of the Parks Service to monitor more closely the negative impacts of snowmobiles on the parks. In the meantime, President Clinton is soon expected to announce a permanent ban on snowmobiles in the parks. The ban would be similar to the proposed ban on jets skis.
The article explains that the Agency will then tackle the problem of all-terrain vehicles in the parks. A court order was issued recently to the Big Cypress Reserve, restricting the use of all-terrain vehicles such as dune buggies and four-wheelers.
Finally, the article goes on to say that Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, agrees that it is difficult for the public to become accustomed to the idea of not using their cars or other individual motorized vehicles in our nation's parks. He believes that if the number of machines were reduced, then overcrowding would not be such a big problem.
PUBLICATION: Lewiston Morning Tribune
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: Local/Regional; Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Sandra L. Lee
DATELINE: Lewiston, Idaho
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bryden Canyon Road Residents: Kelly Byers; Florence Daniel; Kenneth and Cindy Stamper; Ramona Moore; Rick and Tonia Taylor; Danell and David Niemeyer; Jack Milligan; Merle Dalton; Barry Kough; Kerry Kasza; Celia Pitcher; Michael Yates; Mary Louise Amidei; Lois Huggins; Sally Davies
The Lewiston Morning Tribune in Idaho reports that a new road in Bryden Canyon, which opened in 1999, has brought nothing but noise and problems to residents who lived there before the road opened. The new road, Bryden Canyon Road, is four lanes wide and connects Southway Bridge and Snake River Avenue to the Orchards. The residents are very displeased with the lack of concern by the city and the city's refusal to follow through on promised noise mitigation.
The article quotes many residents who live along Bryden Canyon Road and surrounding streets. They complain of traffic congestion and speed, as well as noise. Many residents no longer go outside in their yards, and they keep their windows closed all the time. Some constantly keep a TV or radio or fan going to drown out the noise from the road. Because of the traffic, some find it almost impossible to get out of their driveways. One man drives all the way around the block each time he leaves his home so that he doesn't have to turn left into the traffic. Mailboxes have been moved, and the new streetlights are too bright. Some residents now sleep with earplugs. Others have tried planting trees and shrubs to deaden the noise, all to no avail.
The article reports that residents have written to city manager Janice B. Vassar. The city has not answered their requests to build sound walls or jersey rail barriers. They were also under the impression that some of the homes would be purchased, but that did not happen, either. Transportation manager Richard J. Marlatt said that they never promised to purchase any homes. It only would have been done as a last resort. The residents have been told that they have to live with the inconveniences for the good of all of the people who live in the area and need the new road.
The article states that the residents were informed that the noise would get no louder than 67 decibels. A resident has measured the sound to be 80 decibels at times. And measurements were not even taken during peak traffic hours. Another resident believes that cracks in his basement wall are due to vibrations from the traffic.
The article then reports that some residents have gotten together and filed a tort against the city, asking for monetary damages because of the noise to which they are now constantly subjected. They also want the city to put in a berm to insulate them against the noise. Idaho Transportation Department engineer Doral J. Hoff said that there were no funds left in the project budget or in the city budget for noise mitigation.
According to the article, one resident would like to see the speed limit on the road reduced to 35 mph from the current 45 mph. He would also like to have a muffler requirement on all vehicles. These two solutions would help to greatly reduce the noise, he believes.
The article goes on to say that the only work that the city has agreed to is to redesign one of the rails along the road with horizontal slats rather than vertical ones for increased visibility.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 13; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Donald R. Segner
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Donald Segner, former FAA official
The Los Angeles Times printed an editorial about the future of the El Toro military air facility in California and possible plans to convert it to a modern, commercial airport. The writer, Donald Segner, a former FAA official, questions whether it can be done safely, and would rather see John Wayne Airport upgraded, with El Toro used as an overflow and small aircraft airport.
The editorial writer, Donald R. Segner, questions whether it would be wise to try to convert the El Toro military airport to a large, commercial, modern airport. Segner fears that because of where El Toro is situated, it might not ever be able to be transformed into a new airport that would be safe enough. He mentions that Measure F, which was recently passed in California, will require that two-thirds of the voters approve of updating El Toro.
The editorial lists the five airports in the United States that pilots believe are the most unsafe: La Guardia Airport in New York, Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C., Lindbergh Field in San Diego, San Francisco Airport and John Wayne Airport. With John Wayne and three of the other airports, the safety problems involve crossing runways and/or parallel runways that are too close to each other. Close parallel runways can cause a condition called "runway incursion," in which wake turbulence is created by large planes as they take off and land. The turbulence is a major safety risk. John Wayne Airport has two close, parallel runways that have been the cause of three plane accidents and eleven deaths. El Toro has crossed runways. The current design for a renovated El Toro Airport calls for keeping the crossed runways. Segner believes that this plan is very unwise.
The editorial goes on to describe many of the other safety problems at El Toro. The airport is located near mountainous terrain, which, in addition to the wind patterns at the site, means that planes cannot take off with full payloads, and also means that pilots do not have much of a margin of error when they are forced to depart and arrive very close to the mountains.
The editorial also mentions problems with departure routes from El Toro. Planes taking off from Runway 34 must turn directly into the incoming air traffic routes to John Wayne, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Ontario airports. The writer feels that this greatly increase the chances for midair collisions. Segner believes that safety, not politics, should dictate plans for a new airport.
The editorial states that "the federal Sonic Boom and Noise Act requires that any changes for noise abatement reasons must only be made with the highest degree of safety." Segner does not believe that the Act is being followed with current plans to renovate and convert El Toro.
Segner is a former aviation official with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In the editorial, he explains that bad political decisions can lead to danger in the skies. In particular, if an airport is designed poorly, as he believes is the case with design plans for El Toro, it can lead to serious accidents. During his career with the FAA, Segner investigated many aircraft accidents.
In the editorial, Segner presents his solution to the Orange County airport quandary. He believes that El Toro should not be considered as a site for a commercial airport. He thinks that a small area of land at El Toro should be converted to a small "reliever" airport to which general aircraft could be sent "to avoid conflict with larger commercial aircraft and provide a margin of safety." He thinks the existing runways at El Toro should be shortened to 3,500 feet, and should be used by all of the general and smaller business flights that currently used John Wayne. This would be safer for both the smaller planes and commercial flights. There would be few problems with air traffic control at El Toro, and noise will not generally be an issue, either. The El Toro site currently comprises 4,700 acres. A small airport there would not take up much of that land, leaving the rest of it available for various public uses. Billions of dollars could then be saved by not having to convert El Toro to a large commercial facility.
Segner states in the editorial that safety at John Wayne Airport under such a plan would be much greater. In 1998, there were 418,000 flights at John Wayne, many of which were business and general aviation aircraft. Segner believes that John Wayne Airport still has a future, which will be much more attainable and much safer if smaller aircraft were diverted to a modified El Toro Airport.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 14; Zones Desk
DATELINE: Burbank, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Restore Our Airport Rights (ROAR)
The Los Angeles Times published an editorial reporting that the city of Burbank reached a framework agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last summer to build a new terminal at Burbank Airport. Since then, it has been waiting to hear from the FAA as to whether the agreement meets federal guidelines. The FAA informed the city last week that the agreement does not meet federal guidelines.
According to the editorial, it might still be possible to reach a new agreement that will meet those guidelines. In the agreement, the city had hoped to replace the current voluntary nighttime curfew at the airport with a mandatory one. Without a federal noise study, federal law dictates that a city may not impose mandatory, unilateral limits on noise to restrict air commerce. The FAA did not agree with Burbank's solution, which was to close the terminal at night, but leave the airport open. The city now plans to wait until the federal noise study is complete before it proceeds any further with plans for a new terminal. That could take up to two years.
The editorial states that, under the rest of the framework agreement, if the airport opts to keep its voluntary curfew in place, it would be possible to proceed with building a new terminal.
The editorial writer states that the citizens' group Restore Our Airport Rights (ROAR) is not going to solve the airport's problems by continuing to try to put an initiative on the ballot that would make nighttime curfews mandatory. ROAR's solution is not taking into account the federal law on curfews.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 14; Zones Desk
DATELINE: North Hollywood, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Arthur Hanket
The Los Angeles Times printed a letter to the editor about noise at Burbank Airport. The letter is reprinted here in its entirety:
"Re " Noise From Burbank Airport," Valley letters, March 26.
The gentleman from the Burbank side of the Burbank Airport who responded to a rather heartfelt letter to the editor the previous week regarding airport noise should have his hand slapped. He likens people on the western and southern sides of the airport who currently bear the brunt of airport departure noise to those who move to a waste disposal area and then complain about the smell.
The airport really must be viewed as a problem from a Valleywide perspective.
Now that we've had a serious accident (which could have been infinitely more serious), the airport and especially the proposed expansion of the airport need to be viewed as a liability to the San Fernando Valley at large rather than an asset. (This includes all the people in Burbank who complain weekly at their City Hall about incoming airport noise and the airlines' consistent breaking of "voluntary" curfews.)
At this point the idea of expanding the use of the airport, expanding the potential danger to the community, and any increase of incoming and outgoing jet noise should be anathema to any concerned citizen of this area. The problems and complaints have only in part to do with living under noise pollution and greatly to do with the possibility of more and more noise, jet pollution and danger in the future.
It is only prudent to complain and do what is possible to prevent the further damage to the quality of life in one's own backyard. I hope the gentleman from Burbank understands that these are far from idle complaints from the oversensitive."
ARTHUR HANKET
North Hollywood
PUBLICATION: News and Record
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: Ideas, Pg. H2, Editorial
DATELINE: Colfax, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Cherie Ratcliffe
The News and Record in Greensboro, North Carolina printed a letter to the editor by a reader in the town of Colfax who feels that that the local Airport Authority did not inform her about the amount of noise to which she and her family would be subjected when they purchased their new home. The letter is reprinted here in its entirety:
"It has been said in recent letters that people who buy houses near the airport should be aware of possible noise. Last July, we found a house in a new Colfax subdivision. At our Realtor's advice, I called Mickey Elmore with the Airport Authority and was told by him our subdivision was located well outside the noise cone. He suggested I come by the Airport Authority office to review the map that outlines the various noise cones. I went and reviewed this map which confirmed our subdivision was not in the noise cone. Elmore did point out, as did our Realtor, that the alternative runway would be used for six weeks during the resurfacing of the main runway. I specifically asked during my visit with the Airport Authority if there were future plans to extend the alternative runway and was told 'no.'
Noise cone drawings are obviously subjective because of the six weeks the alternative runway was used, the airplane noise over my house was unbearable. In the video of our son's birthday party, one can hear nothing but airplanes in some of the frames. I again called the Airport Authority during this six week period and was again told by Elmore there was absolutely no plan to extend the alternative runway for any purpose. Extention of this runway is now one of the options for the FedEx hub.
So much for doing your homework before moving into a new neighborhood. Cherie Ratcliffe Colfax"
PUBLICATION: Orange County Register
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. G03
BYLINE: Steve Netherby
DATELINE: San Clemente, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Steve Netherby; Friends of the Foothills
The Orange County Register in California printed an editorial by Steve Netherby of San Clemente. He is extremely concerned about plans to build the Foothill South Toll Road. He is worried about the noise and other environmental assaults that the expressway, as well as other types of development, would produce in the area and the negative impact it will have on the San Clemente backcountry.
The editorial states that the Toll Roads Service Center in San Clemente has a scale model of the Toll Road on display in its office, which the writer studied closely. To try to envision the noise that the new road would generate, he recommends driving the I-5 in a convertible. One would immediately realize how loud the 18-wheelers, car engines, exhaust pipes, and tires can be.
The writer mentioned that he hiked the San Clemente Ridgeline Trail last June. He could hear noise from the I-5 very clearly. As he hiked inland, the noise faded. He values the silence of the San Clemente backcountry. He quotes Kahlil Gibran: "Silence illuminates our souls, whispers to our hearts." And then Emerson: "Let us be silent that we may hear the whispers of the gods."
The editorial goes on to say that the valley through which the Foothill South Toll Road will wind has incredible acoustics that pick up noises from very far away. If one can hear relatively harmless sounds, then the writer asks the reader to imagine how loud the assault from a new highway would be. He is afraid that the quiet places are continuing to be stolen forever.
The editorial writer recommends that any readers with similar concerns contact the Friends of the Foothills at (949)-361-7534 to join the fight against noise pollution in the area.
PUBLICATION: Press Journal
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: Indian River County; Pg. A3
BYLINE: Henry A. Stephens
DATELINE: Vero Beach, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim and Kathleen Norconk
The Press Journal in Vero Beach, Florida reports that residents Jim and Kathleen Norconk have had it with the loud music from the local Riverside Café. They have hired attorney James A. Taylor to help them with a petition that they hope will encourage the City Council to amend its noise ordinance. Other residents in the communities of Vero Isles, Vista Harbor, and McKee Point are supportive of the Norconks' efforts.
According to the article, the Norconks do not mind the style of music that the bands at the Riverside Café play. But they are opposed to the loudness, and the fact that it can be heard every night. Jim Norconk is a radiologist at a local hospital, and his sleep is very important to him, since he often must attend to hospital emergencies in the middle of the night.
The article states that Riverside Cafe owner Hugh Raiten would like to cooperate as much as he can, but he doesn't think there is anything he can do about it. When he drove his car to the Norconks' neighborhood to listen to the noise himself, he claimed he could not hear the music from his café at all. He said, "All I can do is apologize to the people. I don't know what to do."
The article mentions that some residents, such as firefighter Blades Robinson, are not bothered by the music at all. But others, like LaVerne Gross, are annoyed by the sound and vibrations of the bass. Gross complained, "I can feel it coming right up through my bed. We don't live on the river. All we hear is the bass - thump, thump, thump."
The article reports that Norconk would like to see the city ordinance amended. The current ordinance states that no one may make "any excessive, unnecessary or unreasonably loud noise that disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity." In addition, the ordinance bans live music from 10:00 PM until 7:00 AM. The owner says that he always makes sure that the music ends by 10:00 PM. Nevertheless, the city Code Enforcement Board fined Raiten $50 on two separate occasions for violating the ordinance. Norconk says that the problem with enforcing the ordinance against Raiten is that the police have been unable to determine that the noise from the café is "unreasonable."
According to the article, 43 residents have signed Norconk's petition thus far. He filed the petition with the City Council on March 21. City Manager Rex Taylor and City Attorney Julie Schutta said that they will look into the matter.
The article quotes Assistant City Manager Jim Bursick as saying, "Some communities have had decibel levels in their ordinances, but it's hard to enforce decibels. It often goes back to just enforcing the community peace."
The article goes on to say that the city Board of Adjustment in 1997 granted a variance to the Riverside Cafe to allow the business to install glass windows on its deck, where the bands play, to replace the current plastic shutters. Raiten does not really want to install glass windows, however, because the deck is supposed to be an open-air environment.
PUBLICATION: St. Petersburg Times
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: Largo TIMES; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Sharon Tubbs
DATELINE: Largo, Florida
The St. Petersburg Times reports on a noise ordinance in Largo, Florida that is in the process of being amended because the current one is too vague.
According to the article, the problem started when Bryan Jenkins allowed his son, Charles, to host a "mini-rock concert" in their back yard. One hundred people attended the party/concert. Neighbors complained about the noise, and the police asked the Jenkins to end the concert after two hours. Jenkins was surprised because he had informed the city that the party would be taking place. Because of the misunderstanding between Jenkins and the city, city officials decided to draw up a new noise ordinance that would be clearer and easier to enforce.
The article states that the city's current ordinance bans "noise which is loud and raucous because of time, intensity, proximity or duration." It is extremely difficult to determine when a noise is "loud and raucous."
The article quotes police Chief Jerry Bloechle as saying, "An obnoxious noise is in the ear of the beholder."
The article states that the new ordinance, which will soon be voted on, will prohibit noise over 72 decibels from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM in a residential area. Between 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM, the limit would be reduced to 55 decibels. Noise limits would vary outside of residential areas. The proposed ordinance is similar to the noise code for Pinellas County. The city of Largo will study whether the decibel limits, borrowed from the Pinellas County noise code, are appropriate for Largo. If not, the city would be allowed to amend the new ordinance to meet the city's particular needs. Bloechle mentioned that police officers would still have some discretion, beyond decibel readings, in deciding whether a noise violates the ordinance.
The article goes on to say that Jenkins did not believe it was fair for the city to shut down the party based on a neighbor's complaint, without even taking a decibel reading. He believes that a new ordinance that uses decibel readings as a guide will be a more equitable way to deal with noise complaints.
PUBLICATION: Times-Picayune
DATE: April 2, 2000
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B06
DATELINE: Kenner, Louisiana
The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, Louisiana reports that 351 homeowners who live near the New Orleans International Airport in the town of Kenner have qualified for FAA funding to have their homes soundproofed. Only 107 have accepted the offer thus far.
According to the article, Airport Management Consultants is currently looking at contracting bids to soundproof the first ten homes under the program. Each home will cost between $10,000 and $26,000 to soundproof.
The article states that Airport Management Consultants project manager, Greg Heaton, believes that many homeowners are suspicious about the airport following through on its promises to lessen the noise for residents, and that is why so few of them have signed up for the soundproofing so far.
The writer of the article believes that residents who live in Kenner who qualify for the program should sign up. The writer goes on to say that it doesn't make sense for them to turn down an offer that costs them nothing, and the soundproofing is an answer to some of the many noise complaints that have been lodged by Kenner homeowners against the airport for years.
PUBLICATION: Canberra Times
DATE: April 8, 2000
SECTION: Part A; Page 3
BYLINE: Frank Cassidy
DATELINE: Aranda, Australia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John Kovacic and Anne Moten, Aranda Residents' Group
The Canberra Times reports that residents in Aranda, Australia, led by John Kovacic, president of the Aranda Residents' Group, are concerned by the $20 million Gungahlin Drive parkway extension project. They fear it will bring increased traffic and noise to their community. Kovacic recently appeared before the Legislative Assembly's urban services committee to plead the residents' case.
According to the article, the project will connect Gungahlin Drive with Belconnen Way. Traffic entering Caswell Drive, which borders Aranda, will increase threefold as a result. Kovacic said that traffic on Caswell Drive is already very heavy. He said the new route would generate a lot of commercial traffic, which would bring noise, air pollution, and safety problems to Aranda.
The article states that Kovacic added that traffic from Belconnen Way also generates a lot of noise currently. He said that a noise barrier erected along the road had been "a complete failure." Furthermore, he indicated that there had not been adequate planning or study for the parkway extension project. He would like to see alternatives such as public transportation or ring roads discussed.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: April 8, 2000
SECTION: News; Pg. 7
BYLINE: Robert Mccoppin
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that a new computerized system that will help keep planes on a quiet takeoff path may be implemented by the end of the summer at O'Hare International Airport.
According to the article, a pilot using the system would monitor a special screen in the plane's cockpit that would show the quietest route to take. This would generally mean using a route that avoids flying over residential areas, opting for industrial areas, forest preserves, or highways instead. These are called "Fly Quiet" flight paths. Currently, air traffic controllers tell pilots by radio which routes to use, but the pilots sometimes miss a 20-degree turning point, or planes may get blown off course by winds. Aviation department assistant commissioner Christopher Arman said that the computerized system will help the pilots keep the planes on course and away from homes. During the last part of 1999, planes at O'Hare were off course by an average of a mile between 10:00 PM and ll:00 PM, and between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM. These are generally the times when people are trying to sleep and are most sensitive to jet noise overhead.
The article notes that the equipment was recently tested on a jet simulator in Denver with the cooperation of United Airlines. O'Hare would be the first airport to use the system. Many planes already have the technology on board to enable them to use the system. The plan would focus on takeoffs, which are noisier on the ground than landings.
The article reports that the city of Chicago is working in conjunction with the Air Transport Association to develop standards for the plan.
PUBLICATION: Daily News
DATE: April 8, 2000
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 3
BYLINE: Antony Paltridge
DATELINE: New Plymouth, New Zealand
The Daily News in New Plymouth, New Zealand reports that a bar owner in New Plymouth is upset about a noise abatement notice that he received from the New Plymouth District Council for having violated the 55-decibel noise limit. The owner of the Salvation Bar on Powderham Street, Cameron McKay, believes that a 55-decibel limit is too low, and he is worried about being able to continue his business.
According to the article, the bar has been open for seven months, and this is the second notice it has received in that time. Two nearby hotels, the Brougham Heights Motel and the Grand Central Hotel, claim that the noise from the bar disturbs their guests and adversely affects their businesses.
The article states that McKay claims that his sound system was not on terribly loud that night, and that his speakers are much smaller than others at other city nightclubs. He is trying to reduce the noise by installing curtains and moving the speakers away from the walls. McKay believes he is being unfairly harassed.
The article mentions that Colin Hunt, manager of the Brougham Heights Motel, would like the Salvation to remain in business, because his motel benefits from wedding guests at the Salvation who stay at the motel. However, he has received complaints from guests at 2:00 AM who are unable to sleep because of the noise, and for that reason, he complained to the council. The motel is soundproofed, he claims. He said, "I have done my best to keep noise out. It is [McKay's] problem to keep noise in."
In a similar vein, the article reports that guests at the Grand Central Hotel are also bothered by noise from the Salvation and other area bars. Manager David Walter said, "I would say 90% of our checkouts on Saturday or Sunday morning say, 'Wonderful facilities -- but could you do something about the noise?"
The article goes on to say that Lloyd Crow, the New Plymouth District Council environmental health manager, said that the council has been monitoring the noise levels from the Salvation, and the bar had indeed violated the noise limits. He said that the council was not trying to harass McKay, but it was the council's duty to investigate all noise complaints.
PUBLICATION: Dominion
DATE: April 8, 2000
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 7
DATELINE: Napier, New Zealand
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Oriole Wilson, National Audiology Center
The Dominion in New Zealand reports that the Speech-Language Therapists Association held a conference recently in Napier, New Zealand. One of the topics discussed was excessive noise in the classroom and its negative effects on the teaching and learning process.
According to the article, a survey of teachers found that 71% feel that there is a problem with noise in their classrooms. There are many reasons for this. Teaching styles have changed; students no longer sit in quiet rows, but are generally divided into small, animated groups. New, prefabricated, movable classrooms are not as acoustically sound as older classrooms that were built of concrete blocks. In addition, teachers are assaulted by outside noises during the summer months when classroom windows remain open.
The article states that audiologist Oriole Wilson of the National Audiology Center has studied the problem. She said that when teachers are forced to constantly speak louder, they begin to suffer from voice strain and vocal chord nodules. Hearing impaired children find it very difficult to hear their teachers when there is a lot of background noise. Such children can often be helped with FM radio aids and amplification systems in the classrooms, but these systems only work in classrooms with good acoustics.
The article reports that Ms Wilson's research includes coming up with design recommendations that would improve classroom acoustics.
PUBLICATION: Florida Times-Union
DATE: April 8, 2000
SECTION: Community News; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Shawna Sundin
DATELINE: Neptune Beach, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Hank Baltar; Michael Hoffmann
The Florida Times-Union reports that a bar/restaurant in Neptune Beach called Hurrican Hatties is bothering residents with loud outdoor music until late in the night.
According to the article, resident Hank Baltar is one of those who has been affected. He and others have complained to Jacksonville officials about the noise ever since Hatties opened in March 1999. The city investigated and charged Hatties with violating the city noise ordinance. The city then served Hatties with a court order last November demanding that the bar lower the volume of its music enough so that the sound that travels across the water to residential areas does not exceed city noise limits.
The article states that Hatties complied by moving its outside deck so that the sound of the outdoor music would not float across the water. Since then, the city has not charged Hatties with any noise violations, although residents continue to complain. Hatties' General Manager, James Gill, said that moving the stage had made a big difference.
The article goes on to say that Michael Hoffmann, a resident of Atlantic Beach, said that he has heard bass thumping from the bar on two separate weekends since Hatties was allowed to reopen. The establishment is open until 1:30 AM each night. Hatties serves food until 10:00 PM, and has either a live band or a disc jockey Thursday through Sunday. Hoffmann said, "Sometimes you can't get to sleep. Sometimes, you're woken up at 1:30 [a.m.]."
The article reports that after charging Hatties with the first noise violation, the city had offered to settle if Hatties paid a fee of $1000. Before Hatties had a chance to pay the fee, it was charged with another violation of the noise ordinance, and the city withdrew the offer to settle. The city of Jacksonville took the case to court instead, and that is how the original court order came about. The city would now like a permanent court order that would require Hatties to keep the music volume down permanently. In addition, the city is also requesting that Hatties pay a fee of up to $10,000 for each future violation.
PUBLICATION: News and Record
DATE: April 8, 2000
SECTION: General News, Pg. A7
BYLINE: Taft Wireback and Paul Muschick
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
The News and Record in Greensboro, North Carolina reports on the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) recent study of the proposed Federal Express cargo hub at Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA). The study contains twenty environmental and sociological issues concerning the project.
The article highlights the key issues of the study. First, concerning noise, the study notes that if the airport builds another runway, more residents will hear jet noise. If the new runway is built parallel to the current main runway, 630 people living in 262 households, mostly in High Point, would be affected. If the airport builds the runway in another considered location, some 7,760 people to the northwest and southeast could be adversely affected by the noise.
The article also discusses other environmental impacts of the hub as raised in the study, such as air quality, wetlands disturbances, water pollution, endangered species (none would be affected), light pollution, social impact, and solid waste (no significant increase in garbage is predicted).
Finally, the article reports on an issue in the study called "Degree of Controversy." The study states that people living in areas close to PTIA have voiced concerns, but the Triad area in general is supportive of the project because of the economic gains that are expected.
PUBLICATION: News and Record
DATE: April 8, 2000
SECTION: General News, Pg. A1
BYLINE: Taft Wireback and Paul Muschick
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mark Warren; Chris Peeler, president of the Piedmont Quality of Life Coalition; Joe Libreri
The News and Record in Greensboro, North Carolina reports (in more detail than a smaller article printed in this same newspaper on the same day) on the Federal Aviation's Administration draft environmental study of the proposed Federal Express cargo hub project at Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA).
According to the article, the FAA study has granted the airport five construction alternatives for the expansion, including three versions of a new southwest/northeast facing runway pointing towards High Point and Guilford County. This runway would be parallel to the airport's existing main runway, and is anticipated to bring increased noise to 630 residents in 260 households. This has been PTIA's preferred construction plan all along.
The article states that the other two construction alternatives granted by the FAA in the study are two variations of a plan that would turn airport operations 90 degrees. This would bring more noise to some 7,760 residents on the side of the airport that includes Guilford College and Colfax, and would cost $100 to $200 million more than building a parallel runway.
The article reports that Dan Lynch, who is promoting Federal Express for the Greensboro Area Chamber of Commerce, said that the parallel runway plan makes the most sense. He said that it is obvious that there are many obstacles involved in carrying through with the plan that would affect the Guilford College and Colfax areas. He doesn't believe that the FAA's final recommendation will include that alternative.
The article states that Nancy Vaughan, a member of the Greensboro City Council who lives near Guilford College, agreed. She said, "I don't think the FAA is going to look at that as a feasible long-term alternative. Why in the world would the FAA choose an option when the costs are significantly higher and the environmental factors are going to be so much more negative?"
The article goes on to say that the FAA will issue a final recommendation later this year. A public hearing on the draft study will be held next month. The airport would like to know whether the FAA will help to pay at least $220 million of the expected $300 million that it will cost to build the new hub at PTIA.
The article reports that some residents were disappointed that the FAA's draft recommendation matches PTIA's original construction preferences. Mark Warren lives in Summerfield, and had offered the FAA an alternative plan that the FAA deemed unsafe and inappropriate for the project. Warren said, "We knew it was going to be a rubber stamp out of the FAA. It just goes to show you that instead of finding the best alternative, they tried to find a way to make the airport's plan work, which is not what they're supposed to be doing. We expected they would do that from the start."
According to the article, the FAA has said that it will answer questions concerning the draft study beginning next week. Warren and the other opponents believe that the FAA has incorrectly labeled its report an "environmental" study, since none of the alternative construction proposals were turned down because of environmental issues. Instead, they were turned down because they did not meet FedEx's business and space needs. Warren complained, "It became more of a feasibility study rather than an actual environmental study."
The article adds that the FAA's study projects that more homes will be affected by noise in each of the parallel runway plans than the airport had originally anticipated. PTIA's executive director, Ted Johnson, said that the affected area stretches farther to the southwest than airport officials had projected, adversely affecting sixty more households to the southwest than had been highlighted before. Original PTIA projections listed 100 homes being the recipients of increased noise during the hub's first phase of completion in the year 2005, with another 100 homes being added to the list as the hub expands in future years. If a homeowner in an affected area complains about noise, the FAA stipulates that the airport must fix the situation by purchasing the home or installing sufficient soundproofing.
The article adds that residents of The Cardinal and other neighborhoods north of the airport have voiced concerns since the project was first discussed. However, the FAA draft study concludes that there would not be much of an increase in noise in these areas. Opponents of the entire project have been concerned all along about many environmental issues concerning the expansion, but the biggest concern has been over noise pollution. The FedEx planes will be routinely landing at the hub late at night and taking off early in the morning, which are the times that people are most likely to be affected by jet noise as they attempt to sleep. The airport has responded to this concern by planning to have planes fly primarily over industrial and farm areas on the High Point side of the airport as they approach and leave from the airport.
The article announces that the Piedmont Quality of Life Coalition, presided over by Chris Peeler, has hired a noise expert to help the group in its fight against the project. The expert will study the FAA report. Peeler explained, "Not by any stretch of the imagination does [the FAA] address all who will be affected."
The article mentions that Peeler and other project opponents are leery of the FAA's method of measuring noise, which involves "averaging the noise that an airport creates over the course of a typical day, then giving extra emphasis or 'weighting' to flights that occur overnight - as many of the hub flights would." Nearby resident Joe Libreri, a critic of the project, does not believe that this method can accurately measure bothersome noise exposure from individual nighttime flights.
The article reports that Linda Shaw, a county commissioner, does not believe that the FAA has done an adequate job of explaining its draft report to the public. She said the report is difficult to understand. She believes that a public meeting sponsored by the FAA or by the airport should have been held as soon as the report was released, instead of just having it available for study at the airport and at five area libraries. She said, "The airport authority is so afraid to have a public forum on this because they know what's going to happen."
The article concludes by saying that public officials in Greensboro, High Point, and Guilford County, have said that they plan to study the FAA report in detail. Some of them, however, like High Point commissioner Al Campbell, favor the project and will abide by the FAA's recommendations.
PUBLICATION: Associated Press
DATE: April 7, 2000
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Virginia City, Nevada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Cynthia Kennedy; John Tyson
The Associated Press reports that residents of Virginia City, Nevada and other parts of Storey County are opposed to Sierra Gulf Helicopters and Virginia City Venture bringing helicopter tours to the area. The planning commission held a meeting last week, attended by 100 opponents. The planning commission decided to recommend that the County Commission turn down the request at its upcoming meeting next month.
According to the article, residents were worried about noise from the helicopters and also had safety concerns. However, FAA regulations stipulate that it is legal for the helicopters to fly over the Comstock. Concerned opponents have planned a letter-writing campaign to ask the FAA to enforce air space restrictions over Virginia City. Virginia City Highlands resident Cynthia Kennedy said, "The people of this area have put an enormous amount of time and effort into historic restoration and improving the community. Your helicopters won't be historically correct."
The article reports that Sierra Gulf President Steve Guinzali responded that he would choose flight paths that would not go directly over central Virginia City or the Highlands. He conducted test flights on the route last Monday, but residents still said that the noise was excessive.
The article quotes John Tyson, who owns a ranch just outside of Virginia City, as saying, "First we have noise from motorcyclists. Then we have dirt bikers chasing my cows around. And now you want to take our air space. We wish you'd take your business elsewhere."
The article then states that Guinzali maintains that the helicopter he uses, the Bell Helicoper 206, does not exceed Storey County decibel limits. He said that, according to FAA regulations, the town is not allowed to restrict him from using the airspace over the town.
The article goes on to say that, in response, Planning Commissioner Marianne Clark explained that the measured decibels do not take into account the echo that is generated when the sound bounces off the mountains or walls of buildings.
The article concludes by saying that, after the Planning Commission meeting ended, Guinzali stated that he will not appeal the Planning Commission's decision.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: April 7, 2000
SECTION: Edt; Letters; Pg. 38
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Marius Gallagher, Garfield Ridge Civic League
The Chicago Sun-Times printed a selection of letters to the editor. One of them was from a resident who lives near Midway Airport and is concerned about noise pollution. The letter is reprinted here in its entirety:
Uncover your ears
"I and several members of our homeowners association, with the help of our lawyer, presented overwhelming evidence to the Cook County assessor and the Cook County Board of Review that noise and pollution at Midway Airport had a negative effect on nearby property values. As a result, at least 92 residents have qualified for a tax reduction, and appeals by more than 400 others are under review. Add to that, the city and the Department of Aviation have insulated most of the schools and many of the homes around the airport. They have also approved another $20 million in noise insulation money.
Despite all this evidence, our new city aviation commissioner, Thomas R. Walker, recently said 'property values in communities near Midway Airport are not negatively impacted by aircraft noise. ' I don't see how he can justify that statement. It reflects on his honesty and any future efforts to get more money for noise insulation in the area around our Chicago airports."
Marius Gallagher,
aviation chairman,
Garfield Ridge Civic League
PUBLICATION: Daily Press
DATE: April 7, 2000
SECTION: A-Section, Pg. A1
BYLINE: Richard William Rogers
DATELINE: Langley Air Force Base, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise
The Daily Press reports that the Air Force has announced that its newest jet fighter, the F-22 Raptor, tests quieter than the F-15, which is the jet currently flown by the First Fighter Wing stationed at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. Noise measurements were based on ground testing of a pre-production model of the F-22 Raptor, and as such, do not necessarily indicate the noise levels of a jet in flight.
According to the article, the Air Force held a public forum in Hampton on March 30 to introduce the F-22. The Air Force has chosen Langley for the first wing of 72 Raptors. The Air Force would like to bring the jets to Langley in the year 2004. Residents who attended the forum said that they can tolerate the noise levels of the F-15C Eagle, but would oppose the Raptor if the noise levels were any louder.
The article reports the a pre-production F-22 was tested in 1998 at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Results indicated that it is quieter than the F-15. It measured about 140 decibels without the afterburner and 146 decibels with the afterburner. The F-15C measured 144 decibels without the afterburner and 149 decibels with the afterburner.
The article states that Kevin Shepherd, head of NASA Langley's structural acoustics branch, said that the noise of both jets in flight should be similar. "I would suspect that no one would be able to tell one from the other unless he looked up in the sky," he reported.
The article explains that the F-22 will use two Pratt and Whitney F-119 engines, which produce 35,000 pounds of thrust each. The F-15C's engines produce 28,000 pounds of thrust each.
The article goes on to say that in addition to the people near Langley who are concerned about jet noise, there is also a large group of people who are concerned about the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that the Navy is considering bringing to nearby Oceana Naval Air Station. A citizens group called Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise is spearheading the opposition at Oceana.
PUBLICATION: Fort Pierce News
DATE: April 7, 2000
SECTION: A Section; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Drew Dixon
DATELINE: Fort Pierce, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ken Irish
The Fort Pierce News in Florida reports that residents who live near Archie's Seabreeze Restaurant in Fort Pierce have complained vehemently about motorcycle noise from the patrons at the restaurant, which has been a motorcycle hangout for over fifty years.
According to the article, one of the most vocal complainants has been nearby resident Ken Irish. He and other residents have complained to both Fort Pierce City Hall and the local police department. Irish explained, "It's so loud you can't understand the person sitting one foot away. I'm not complaining about anything else. I eat at Archie's. There is a law for muffler noise and all I'm asking is the police department to monitor it. I'm not against motorcycles, I have a motorcycle myself."
The article states that the owner of Archie's, Patty McGee, agrees that the motorcycles are loud, but she does want to continue to encourage bikers to patronize her restaurant. She supports having the police department step up patrols in the area. They have handed out warning brochures to patrons that outline the Florida statute which prohibits excessive noise from motorcycles as well as the illegal use of muffler bypasses. The police will begin ordering traffic citations if the warnings do not help to eliminate the noise from the motorcyclists at the restaurant. Police officers on motorcycles will be making most of the patrols near Archie's.
The article reports that McGee said that most of the bikers she has spoken to do not want any trouble and have agreed to make their engines quieter. She said her clientele are older. She quipped, "They're not the young people they were 25 years ago. They're old and mature. There's no drug, sex and rock-n-roll here."
The article concludes by saying that McGee suspects that the people who have been complaining think that they will have an effect because they are richer and more powerful than the motorcycle riders.
PUBLICATION: Hartford Courant
DATE: April 7, 2000
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: John Springer
DATELINE: Bristol, Connecticut
The Hartford Courant in Connecticut reports that some residents in Bristol have complained to the city about motorcyclists, many of them teenagers, who ride on a dirt track near their homes. Nearly one hundred neighbors signed a petition asking the city to restrict the hours that the bikers can ride to before 6:00 PM, with a ban on riding on Sundays.
According to the article, however, there are no city or state laws that prohibit the operation of dirt bikes on private property as long as the owner agrees. And the owner of the Bristol property, Patricia Manchester, encourages her sons and their friends to ride on the track, which is in former gravel pits that have been in her family's ownership for years. Her property is known locally as the "Manchester Pits."
The article quotes Manchester as saying, "I understand that motorcycles are very noisy. But they have to understand my position, too. We have had a track up there for many years."
The article reports that the police are also frustrated. Police Chief John DiVenere, who also signed the petition, explained, "Right now, there isn't a heck of a lot we can do. The kids have permission, we have verified that in the past. There is a noise ordinance. We'll take a look at that."
The article goes on to say that the Bristol City Council will have a city attorney help them to see if the noise ordinance can be amended to cover the dirt bike situation. Councilman Joseph Wilson reasoned that if the city is allowed to limit the operation of garbage trucks and heavy machinery, they might also be able to find a way to cut down on the noise from the bikes on Manchester's property. Wilson said, "We've regulated activity before because of noise on private property. There is ample precedence."
PUBLICATION: Morning Call
DATE: April 7, 2000
SECTION: Local/Region, Pg. B4
BYLINE: Jeff Christman
DATELINE: Moore Township, Pennsylvania
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Maynard Campbell
The Morning Call in Pennsylvania reports that the zoning board in Moore Township, Pennsylvania have revoked an excavation permit that had recently been granted to a local gun club to build a rifle range. After the permit was challenged by neighbor Maynard Campbell, the zoners realized that the proposed firing range might lie within the floodplain of the Hokendauqua Creek.
According to the article, Campbell was also concerned about safety, noise, and devaluation of neighbors' properties if the range were built at the Petersville Rod and Gun Club. Township zoning officer Patrick Corey was willing to revoke the permit because of the floodplain issue, but at a recent meeting, he said that Campbell's concerns about safety and noise were unwarranted. He said that the firing range is built to National Rifle Association specifications.
The article reports that this answer did not satisfy Campbell, however. He said that the range is pointed right at his mother's sewing room, and the safety berm that the gun club built is not high enough to keep the bullets within the confines of the range.
The article notes that the zoning board stated that the gun club's permit cannot be revoked solely on the basis of noise that has not even been made yet. However, if the firing range does generate too much noise once it is opened, the noise ordinance in place in the township would ensure that the gun club would be appropriately penalized.
PUBLICATION: Press Journal
DATE: April 7, 2000
SECTION: Indian River County; Pg. A4
BYLINE: Henry A. Stephens
DATELINE: Vero Beach, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Norconk
The Press Journal in Vero Beach, Florida reports that city police, attorneys, and planners are meeting this week with Hugh Raiten, owner of the Riverside Café, a bar with live music that has been the focus of noise complaints since it first opened in 1993.
According to the article, Vero Beach police Chief Jim Gabbard is hopeful that an agreement can be made between the bar and the city without having to rewrite Vero Beach's noise ordinance. Gabbard said, "We're looking at things the Riverside Cafe can do, improvements that can act as some kind of noise buffer."
The article reports that Jim Norconk, who lives across the Indian River from the Riverside Café, circulated a petition among his neighbors requesting the city to rewrite its noise ordinance because of the noise from the bar. He claims that the only way to avoid the nightly noise is to stay inside with the air conditioning on.
The article states that the city granted Raiten a variance in 1997 to install glass windows on the café's deck, where the live music is played. Raiten has not yet installed the windows, though. He said, "The city doesn't want me to turn that deck into a building. They don't want me to air-condition that place. The board gave me a variance for the windows, but they weren't happy to do it."
According to the article, the noise ordinance bans "any excessive, unnecessary or unreasonably loud noise that disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity." Norconk feels that the ordinance is too subjective.
The article states that Gabbard disagrees. He said, "We don't deal with this complaint all the time. The Riverside Cafe is the only place in town where we consistently get noise complaints."
The article adds that the police department registered 29 noise complaints about the Riverside Café between November 1999 and February 2000. Raiten said that he makes an effort to have the music end by 10:00 PM, which is the time stipulated in the noise ordinance. However, music still often continues past this time. The café has often been fined $50 and $100 for violations. Raiten wants to comply with the law, but he also wants to keep the café in business. The police, in the meantime, are frustrated that the issue has been continuing for so many years without a resolution.
The article reports that Gabbard hopes that Raiten will change the deck and add the glass windows so that the citations will cease. Gabbard is worried that, if the city does not solve the noise problem now, it will only get worse in the future. Gabbard explained, "Vero Beach is changing, growing. There's a lot of pressure to open new restaurants and bars. We're going to see that. So it's incumbent on us to look ahead and see how we can head these [noise problems] off."
PUBLICATION: St. Petersburg Times
DATE: April 7, 2000
SECTION: Tampa and State; Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Steve Huettel
DATELINE: Tampa, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Margaret Vizzi, Beach Park Homeowners Association
The St. Petersburg Times in Florida reports that last month the Tampa City Council gave an initial approval to a proposal to adopt a new ordinance that would have prohibited construction noise before 10:00 AM on Saturdays. Since then, however, the Council has heard arguments from contractors and others opposed to the measure, and the City Council has now decided not to adopt the ordinance.
According to the article, the council has instead asked member Shawn Harrison to work with contractors, attorneys, and residents to draft a compromise. Until four years ago, the city did indeed prohibit noise before 10:00 on Saturdays, but then the council decided to change it to 7:00 AM. After residents complained, the council agreed in March to change the time back to 10:00, but met with objections from local members of the construction industry.
In addition to construction representatives, the article reports that the Hillsborough County chapter of Habitat for Humanity also asked the council to reinstate the 7:00 AM time. Habitat for Humanity helps to build homes for poor families, using volunteer labor. The volunteers start work at 8:15 AM on Saturdays. Executive director Lew Frazar argued to the council, "This is Florida. It gets hot and people leave at noon. You're taking away half of our work day."
The article states that Mike Morris, owner of Mayfair Properties, agreed with Frazar. He said that most construction workers finish work by 2:00 PM on Saturdays, and he fears that they would not show up at all if they could only work for four hours. He insisted, "You're going to effectively put a stop to Saturday work. It's a more onerous ordinance than you realize."
The article mentions that the new ordinance would have banned "avoidable and unreasonably loud, disturbing, or unnecessary noise caused by construction activities" within 1,500 feet of residentially zoned areas. It would closely follow the city's noise ordinance.
The article reports that one of the compromises discussed would be to allow work to start at 8:00 AM on Saturdays. Margaret Vizzi of the Beach Park Homeowners Association feels that an 8:30 start time would be reasonable.
PUBLICATION: Times Union
DATE: April 7, 2000
SECTION: CAPITAL Region, Pg. F3
BYLINE: Linda Trischitta
DATELINE: Albany, New York
The Times Union in Albany, New York reports that the city of Albany has proposed a noise ordinance that will be presented at a public meeting on April 25. The city decided it needed to instate a noise ordinance after having received ongoing complaints from residents who were continually annoyed by the sound of motorbike riders.
According to the article, the new ordinance will specify that recreational vehicles may not generate 85 decibels or more of noise from at least 50 feet away when they are traveling off of public roads. The law will apply to motor bikes as well as to snowmobiles, explained town Attorney Carlton Pott.
PUBLICATION: Virginian-Pilot
DATE: April 7, 2000
SECTION: Local, Pg. B8
DATELINE: Virginia Beach, Virginia
The Virginian-Pilot in Virginia Beach printed a selection of letters to the editor from readers who are concerned over jet noise at the nearby Oceana Naval Air Station. The letters are reprinted here in their entirety:
FAA FUNDING
Jet- noise proposal
has a political ring
"So the mayor of Virginia Beach plans to ask the federal government for money to assist in reducing jet noise around Oceana Naval Air Station (news, April 2).
The timing of this announcement is very interesting. This idea, a long shot, seems to be for the purpose of grabbing a headline just prior to the election.
Let's not forget that Mrs. Oberndorf had the chance to do something about the jet noise. She was mayor during the years when zonings were changed and acres of farmland turned into residential areas and businesses. Remember when the Navy and farming were the biggest part of the Virginia Beach economy? There used to be nothing around the Naval Air Station.
Where does Mrs. Obendorf think that the federal/FAA money comes from? This is not free money. It's our tax money, one way or another. If she and the council want to help jet noise, why did they push so hard to get more planes based at Oceana?
Why did they vote to rezone all that land around the Air Station? Who will she and the council blame when a Navy plane crashes on a mall or school?"
Brian Miller
Commercial pilot (civilian)
Virginia Beach
FEDERAL $ $ $
Help for jet noise:
soundproofing loans
"I live right under Oceana's departure path and routinely have jets overfly my house at relatively low altitudes. As a Navy flier myself, I accept the noise as the price we pay for our freedom; however, I agree it can be very disturbing. Here is my proposal:
Have Congress dedicate federal dollars for low-interest loans to business and property owners in designated high- noise zones for soundproofing improvements. Maps depicting the high- noise areas for Oceana and Fentress should already be available, reducing the need for lengthy, multimillion-dollar studies.
Such a plan would create additional jobs and create business opportunities in home construction and renovation. And it would engender good will among local residents, most of whom I think are proud to have the Navy here."
Thomas J. Moriarty
Virginia Beach
Previous week: March 26, 2000
Next week: April 9, 2000
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