PUBLICATION: The Indianapolis Star
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A19; Letters
DATELINE: Indianapolis, Indiana
The Indianapolis Star published the following letter from Arthur J. Usher IV, an Indianapolis, Indiana, resident. Usher contends the city police are unwilling to enforce noise ordinances, making living in the city practically unbearable. Usher wrote:
I find it slightly ironic that the Move in Our Circle tour described in your Sept. 12 editorial, "Life in center city," should begin at the intersection of Vermont and New Jersey streets.
The tour participants should come back during the evening to realize the dramatic downside to living in the city, namely noise and the unwillingness of police to enforce laws necessary to the quality of life such as noise ordinances.
The Rathskeller is located near enough to that intersection so that evening tour-goers would probably be forced to endure the din produced by the outdoor bands playing there regularly on Wednesday through Saturday.
While there are noise ordinances intended to govern such behavior, they do no good, given a demonstrated unwillingness on the part of the police to enforce them. I know because every evening as I try to relax in my apartment or go to sleep, I can't.
The police are simply unwilling to do anything about it despite repeated calls from me complaining.
I would prefer to live Downtown and continue walking to work.
The choice, however, is easy to make between losing 30 minutes a day commuting and losing hours of sleep and even more hours of peace and quiet in the evening. The latter seems to be an inevitable result of living in Downtown Indianapolis.
Given the present attitude of law enforcement in Indianapolis, the probability of my continuing to reside Downtown at the expiration of my lease is near zero.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that Reno Air has requested that Burbank Airport in California allow flights in the early hours, but residents strongly opposed the idea due to possible increases in noise. The airport was set to decide on the request Tuesday, but delayed its decision until at least next week because of the public outcry.
According to the article, Reno Air wants to begin 6:40 a.m. flights that would violate the airport's voluntary curfew until 7 a.m. The mayor of Burbank was one of the residents who said noise would be increased if the request were granted. The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Commission were lobbied by residents to reiterate -- in writing -- that the 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew should be observed.
The article reports that Reno Air wants to offer the early flights in part to compete with three other airlines -- Alaska, United and America West -- who also fly early. Early flights for business travelers going to Silicon Valley are very profitable. Reno Air said that they did not want to observe the curfew because the other airlines didn't. Burbank officials worry that if Reno Air's request is granted, the precedent will encourage more and more airlines to break the curfew. For example, Southwest Airlines currently abides by the curfew, but may reconsider if more and more competitors break the curfew.
The article states that noise standards are still met by early flights, and there aren't as many early flights as there have been in the past. Airport officials note that "The airport is legally under an obligation to grant access to any airline that wants to come here, [as long as] the airline [flies] jets with the newest and quietest technology and... engine noise limits [aren't] exceeded."
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown, PA)
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: Local/Region, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Martin Pflieger
DATELINE: Schoenersville, Pennsylvania
The Morning Call reports Pennsylvania's Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority will purchase land and homes to reduce noise complaints from the Village of Schoenersville.
According to the article, the Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority approved the purchase Tuesday of 208 acres of land, eight mobile homes and a building housing two businesses. The authority will pay $1.3 million for the farmland northeast of Lehigh Valley International Airport, bringing a close a lengthy court fight over the property's worth. After failing since the late 1980s to buy the land from the Toye family, the airport moved in October 1993 to acquire it by eminent domain. The authority and the Toye family heirs could not agree on a fair market price for the land and spent the next five years in court. An authority appraisal set the value at $1,034,000. In May, a review board determined the value to be $1.2 million, which sisters Anna Toye and Geraldine Rodgers appealed. The sisters recently agreed to settle the dispute and accept $ 1,320,000. The land will continue to be used for farming.
The article reports the authority also voted Tuesday to buy eight mobile homes along Airport Road and a building housing two businesses on Schoenersville Road. The purchase of the eight mobile homes in the Williamson Mobile Home Court for $131,200 brings to 28 the number of homes the authority has acquired in the 5-1/2-acre development, leaving 23 more to buy. In addition, the authority will pay $385,000 for the building housing Feast-A-Pizza and Cari Imported Tiles. Both businesses will relocate, with the airport authority paying for some of their moving expenses. Two other buildings the authority bought last year in order to remove them from the path of the main runway at LVIA will be demolished. The authority Tuesday agreed to spend $37,325 to tear down the buildings. For safety reasons, the Federal Aviation Administration encourages airports to remove homes and businesses near the end of runways. Schoenersville is at the end the main runway at LVIA, and in 1994 the authority devised a plan to remove structures in the so-called runway protection zone. The authority also identified areas around the airport where noise levels from airplanes are excessive and set out to either buy or soundproof homes in those areas.
PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: News; Page A07
BYLINE: Thomas Frank
DATELINE: Long Island, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kerry Carlisi, resident; William Lebenns, resident; Al Norman, creator of Web site for residents fighting Home Depot; Ben Brunoforte, resident; Augustine Delgado, resident; Wayne Trevelyan, resident; Frank DeRubeis, Smithtown planning and community development director; Ron Lupski, resident
Newsday reports people across the country, including many on Long Island, New York, say Home Depot, one of the country's largest retailers, is a noisy neighbor that doesn't belong near residential neighborhoods.
Acccording to the article, in Freeport, New York, trucks idle outside Carol Porter's ground-floor apartment in the early morning, sending diesel exhaust into her living room. In Commack, forklifts haul lumber around a loading dock behind Kerry Carlisi's home at all hours, making so much noise that she has petitioned Huntington Town Hall for help. In Selden, outdoor laborers run chain saws and dump material on the pavement near William Lebenns backyard with such a crash that he has abandoned his backyard. "We can feel vibrations in the house," says Lebenns, who planted a row of pine trees to block the noise. "You get so aggravated, you want to kill." The source of noise for these people and others on Long Island and around the country is the same. They live next to a Home Depot.
The article reports Home Depots have become one of the largest annoyances for some who live next to a store. In Nassau and Suffolk, California and Idaho, residents have grown furious at hearing heavy equipment grinding - sometimes at 3, 4 and 5 a.m. - and at trucks idling overnight as drivers wait to make deliveries. "Across the country people are complaining that this company is a lousy neighbor," says Al Norman of Greenfield, Mass., creator of a Web site that reports the efforts of "thousands of local residents" fighting Home Depot. However, Katrina Blauvelt, a spokeswoman for The Home Depot, says the stores "obey city or town ordinances" and store managers "always try to work with neighbors." She says the company has resolved or is resolving conditions that may have led to complaints and citations, but she said some problems result from the noisy nature of Home Depot's business and the stores proximity to residential neighborhoods.
The article states some neighbors say the problems have abated after they complained to town officials or met with store managers while others say respites have been brief. Nine of the 11 Home Depot warehouse stores on Long Island have been criticized by neighbors in interviews or cited for violations, some unrelated to noise. Ben Brunoforte, who lives next to a Home Depot on Sunrise Highway in Bay Shore, filed a criminal complaint last year, charging the store with operating a street sweeper in its parking lot before 5 a.m. A trial is scheduled for today in Fifth District Court, Islip. The Huntington town fire marshal and ordinance inspector have charged the Commack store with five violations of the town code since December, including a charge that trucks and sweepers generated "unreasonable noise" at 4 a.m. The town also said merchandise was stored illegally in the parking lot, a condition neighbors say creates noise by forcing the store to operate outside. Hempstead Town also cited the Home Depot in East Meadow in July for storing and selling merchandise in its parking lot. The charges are pending in Second District Court, Hempstead. "It's terrible," says Augustine Delgado, manager of Oakwood Manor apartments, next to Home Depot in Bay Shore. "Workers are screaming and yelling, telling jokes, throwing palettes. My kids can't sleep."
The article goes on to say residents across the country have complained about noisy Home Depot stores and have protested plans to build them. In Boise, Idaho, neighbors of a Home Depot measured noise next to the store at 87 decibels - louder than a jackhammer 50 feet away. The city council threatened Home Depot with the loss of its operating permit. The store quieted its operations by disabling back-up alarms on forklifts and moving chain saws inside. Voters in Northboro, Mass., overwhelmingly rejected a proposed Home Depot at an annual town meeting in April.
According to the article, the problems on Long Island are partly due to the high concentration of Home Depots, which often sit next to homes, virtually in residents' backyards. There are 11 warehouse stores on Long Island, one for every 240,000 people. The Atlanta-based chain would like to open more stores by the end of 2001, in part to alleviate the congestion at existing outlets. Plans for one new store, proposed in the Nassau Mall in Levittown, prompted neighbors this summer to petition the Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals to reject the plan, which is pending. "That type of business does not fit in the backyard of a residential area," says Wayne Trevelyan, whose property is separated from the proposed Home Depot loading area by only a fence.
The article reports many stores have posted signs by the loading docks that advise truck drivers on when they can make deliveries and urge them to shut off their engines while waiting. After neighbors complained, the stores in East Meadow and Commack began using electric forklifts, which are quieter than those powered by propane. Residents and officials say that while many large stores generate noise, Home Depot is unique because so much activity occurs outdoors, behind stores, where noise reflects off the cement-block buildings. The activities include unloading lumber and driving forklifts that emit a beeping sound designed to be heard over the din of a construction site. They occur both when a store is open - and more stores are establishing 24-hour operations - and sometimes when it's not. "Late at night in a residential community, you expect it to be absolutely quiet," says Frank DeRubeis, the Smithtown planning and community development director. When you open at 6 a.m. and close at 11 p.m., you are interfering with the normal noise of a community. "
The article states that even during the day, neighbors say they find Home Depot noisier than other large stores because of the unloading and moving of lumber. So much of Home Depot's activity is lumber-related (nearly 50 percent, by one company estimate) that it persuaded the Smithtown Board of Zoning Appeals in 1996 to declare a proposed store a lumberyard instead of a home center. Home Depot sought the change so the board could approve a store in a zone reserved for wholesale activities and industry, where home centers are not allowed. The store has not been built. Home Depot acknowledged the potential for noise problems in 1989 when it sought to open its first Long Island store, on Hempstead Turnpike in East Meadow. Responding to a town official's "phobia about lumberyards," Home Depot attorney Thomas Pantelis said in a hearing trucks would deliver merchandise to an enclosed area inside the store. Home Depot never built the area, saying it was physically impossible, and it began receiving noise complaints almost as soon as the store opened, in November, 1989. "This has definitely reduced property values," says Ron Lupski, who lives across the street from the store's loading area and sought to have its permits revoked in 1994. "It's a dirty, noisy operation. They belong in industrial parks." DeRubeis, the Smithtown planning director, agrees Home Depot stores should be isolated by "at least a 100-foot buffer from homes" and situated on at least 15 acres, which they seldom are on Long Island. Lacking buffers, towns can alleviate noise by barring loading docks from sitting next to residential communities, where they always are on Long Island. "The stores are poorly located to begin with," DeRubeis says. "I haven't seen one Home Depot on Long Island that worked."
According to the article, law-enforcement agencies say they've also had trouble with the stores. Lt. Rick Capece, head of the Problem-Oriented Policing unit for the Nassau Police, says managers of the East Meadow store "were sort of playing deaf, dumb and blind" when confronted with complaints about idling trucks. "They're saying it's trucks delivering to them, so they're not responsible for them," he says. But since the store posted signs advising truck drivers not to idle their engines, complaints have been reduced, said Officer Rick Fisher. The state Department of Environmental Conservation cannot enforce state law that says diesel-powered engines cannot idle for more than five minutes because "it's hard to catch them in the act," says DEC spokeswoman Lauren Schmidt.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale)
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 5B
BYLINE: Joe Kollin
DATELINE: Pembroke Pines, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Robert Williamson, resident; Don Swafford, resident; Terry Stewart, assistant city manager
The Sun-Sentinel reports neighbors of a Wendy's restaurant in Pembroke Pines, Florida, say trucks making early morning deliveries are robbing them of their sleep.
According to the article, residents say that trucks making early morning deliveries to the Wendy's restaurant at 7320 Pines Blvd. are making their lives miserable. "Every morning we hear noise that sounds like a Boeing 747 jet landing in our back yards," said Robert Williamson, whose house borders the restaurant. At 3:30 a.m., a truck arrives to suck grease from the grease traps. At 4:30 a.m., a garbage truck lifts the dumpster and shakes it loudly four or five times. At 5:30 a.m., delivery trucks with noisy refrigeration units arrive with the hamburgers.
The article reports city codes prohibit deliveries between 11 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Wendy's has been found guilty of violating the code and is ignoring the $ 100-a-day fine, city officials say. As of today, the Dublin, Ohio-based chain owes the city $ 7,100. On Oct. 12, the Code Enforcement Board will consider filing a lien on the restaurant property. The amount would be equal to the unpaid fine, which at that date would be more than $9,000. "Not paying the fine shows they have no concern for their neighbors or the city," said Don Swafford, whose back yard borders the restaurant. "Is Wendy's so big that they put up their nose at the city?"
The article states Wendy's International spokesman Denny Lynch on Monday said headquarters wasn't aware that the fine had started running until late last week. "No one bothered telling us," he said. The noise problem has existed on and off since the restaurant was built about 15 years ago. Neighbors say the past two years have been the worst. In addition to the trucks, neighbors say the store's bright lights shine in their windows instead of on the parking lot and that extra-loud speakers are used for take-out orders. Although a concrete wall separates the houses from the restaurant, it does not block the noise.
The article goes on to say last year, city code enforcers cited Wendy's for violating the law that prohibits the early morning loading. Wendy's corrected the problem immediately, and residents said for six months they could sleep all night. But in July, the noise problem resumed. On Aug. 13, a code officer, finding that the problem had not been resolved, took action to impose the fine. Lynch said Wendy's headquarters was not aware the problem had recurred because neighbors complained to the city, not to the company. "Now that we're aware, we'll go back to the city and find out what we can do," he said. The problem, neighbors say, appears to stem from a turnover in managers. "Every time we think we have it resolved, they change management and we start all over again," said Swafford. Assistant City Manager Terry Stewart, who has been working with the residents for years, agreed. "People at the corporate level have a strong commitment to helping the neighbors, but management at the store doesn't," he said. "Management changes often and there is no institutional memory."
PUBLICATION: The Vancouver Sun (Vancouver, BC)
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Earle Gale
DATELINE: Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Walt Peters, resident and organizer; Elanor Buck, resident
The Vancouver Sun reports residents living close to rail lines in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, are renewing a campaign to get train whistles silenced.
According to the article, the mostly elderly residents tried unsuccessfully to get Maple Ridge to ban noisy whistles last year. They're renewing their efforts this year with a petition campaign. "We did have a go at it last year and nothing came of it but this is going to be a much bigger deal," says organizer Walt Peters. Peters and several other residents have the cooperation of some Maple Ridge car dealerships, medical offices and other high-profile places where they have placed petitions. After just two and a half weeks, the petition has been signed by more than 300 residents tired of being awakened at night by the high-decibel air horns. Peters' wife, Elanor Buck, will present the petition to Maple Ridge council Sept. 29. Organizers hope to mobilize 100 supporters for the meeting.
The article reports residents complain that trains sound their horns four times as they approach each crossing gate between Kanaka Creek and Port Haney. One of Peters' neighbors has already decided to sell his house and move because of the noise. Others wear earplugs. Peters admitted residents were aware of the noise problem when they bought property in the neighborhood. However, now that CP Rail has made the crossings much safer with automatic barriers and lighting, there is really no need for the trains to continue to make so much noise, he said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 1; Zone: NW
BYLINE: Rogers Worthington
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joseph Compell, resident and member of O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission; Jack Saporito, leader of Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare
The Chicago Tribune reports two reports released Tuesday by the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission highlight a contradiction in the controversy over airplane noise at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. Even though air carriers use quieter aircraft, O'Hare's neighbors say noise has increased dramatically.
According to the article, these neighbors all called in complaints to O'Hare's noise hot line in February and recently completed surveys sent to them by the commission. Two out of three said aircraft noise has dramatically increased over the last five years, while only 4 percent said noise had decreased. Many indicated they have lived in their homes 30 years or more. "That tells me it's not getting better. It hasn't leveled off. Problems are getting worse," said Joseph Compell, who represents the Village of River Grove on the noise commission's technical committee, which met Tuesday at O'Hare.
The article states in a report issued jointly by the commission and the airport, the nation's commercial air fleet was described as ahead of federal requirements to convert to quieter Stage III engines by Jan. 1, 2000. According to the report, while 75 percent of all airplanes operating in the nation are required to have Stage III engines by Dec. 31, 80 percent had met that goal by last January. Approximately the same percentage applies to planes that use O'Hare, said Chris Arman, deputy aviation commissioner for the City of Chicago.
The article reports Mark Fowler, executive director of the noise commission, and Jack Saporito, who heads the Arlington Heights-based Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, say the answer to the contradiction lies in how one noisy flight can skew a resident's perception. "You may have one 727 (with noisier Stage II engines) coming over. You're going to remember that loud one, and every time you see an airplane that day, you're going to be annoyed," Fowler said. Saporito agreed but added that increasing air traffic plays a role. "There are more flights in general. And while the (airport) industry averages the noise (over a 24-hour period), it's the individual flight that upsets residents," he said. The commission plans another survey of those who called the airport's noise hot line in August.
The article goes on to say a recent development in navigation technology described by Chicago Aviation Commissioner Mary Rose Loney offered commission members hope for noise abatement. On Monday, Loney flew on a pioneering flight utilizing a satellite landing system developed by Honeywell Inc. and Pelorus Navigation Systems Inc. The system gives pilots a highly precise reading of their position not possible with current instrument landing systems. Noise should be reduced by enabling aircraft to descend at steeper angles on arrivals, thus avoiding long, low runway approaches, and by keeping a plane precisely on its heading on departures, despite crosswinds, Loney said. Loney has asked the Federal Aviation Administration if she can use $1.5 million in passenger facility charges collected at O'Hare to build a satellite landing system at the airport.
PUBLICATION: Birmingham Evening Mail
DATE: September 22, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 4
BYLINE: Sue Smith
DATELINE: Worcester, England
The Birmingham Evening Mail reports residents of Evesham, England, are requesting a low noise surface be laid on a busy highway that creates constant and intolerable traffic noise.
According to the article, the constant drone of traffic on the busy A46 in Worcestershire has upset residents living at Harvington, near Evesham. They have now called for the roadway to be given a new low noise surface. Although some planting has been done to screen the A46 Norton to Lenchwick Bypass from nearby houses, residents have complained that they can still hear the constant noise of traffic.
The Highways Agency is planning to carry out some resurfacing work but this will only include areas where repairs are necessary. But Mid-Worcestershire Tory MP Peter Luff has written to the Agency's chief executive Lawrie Haynes urging him to carry out the residents' request coincide with the closure for repairs. Luff said: "Road surfaces last a considerable period. If my constituents have to wait until the road is due for a full resurface they will have to wait at least five, probably ten years. This is too long. The opportunity of the forthcoming closure should be seized to make the lives of local residents tolerable." Luff has already arranged a meeting with Haynes in London to discuss noise problems from the M5 motorway at Whittington, near Worcester, following a noise survey in the area.
PUBLICATION: The Union Leader (Manchester, NH)
DATE: September 22, 1998
SECTION: Section A Pg. 5
BYLINE: Dan J. Szczesny
DATELINE: Londonderry, New Hampshire
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Colette Gabbidon, co-founder of Londonderry Neighborhood Coalition
The Union Leader reports a group opposed to a power plant in Londonderry, New Hampshire, expressed concerns last night about noise, safety, and diminished property values to the Town Council.
According to the article, pollution, noise and the effect the proposed AES Corp. power plant would have on property values were among the most common concerns of members of the Londonderry Neighborhood Coalition during a Town Council workshop session last night. About 40 members of the group opposed to the plant attended the formal public hearing. Coalition co-founder Colette Gabbidon outlined the major concerns of residents: the location of the plant, the possibility of both noise and air pollution and the effects of proposed power lines. AES has proposed building the plant in the town's Eco-park, about a mile south of Manchester Airport. The LNC contends the plant's proposed location, between one quarter and one half of a mile from the nearest residents, is inappropriate for the neighborhood and that proposed power lines would lower property values and endanger children. "A noise study has not been done at a time when the trees are removed and the access roads are built," Gabbidon said. "Plus, Sandy Brook residents were able to hear noise during the company's noise demonstration."
The article reports last month, AES performed an intensive noise demonstration at the proposed site in an attempt to illustrate that noise from the plant would not be heard by neighbors. After making a tape recording of the noise of a similar plant in Kingston, Ontario, AES officials played the tape at the demonstration, at various levels, and then put the tape into an insulated box which the company said simulated the type of insulation the actual plant would have. In the box, the tape was inaudible, but neighbors insisted that they could hear the tape while sitting on their porches. The neighbors' complaints surprised council members, most of whom were at the noise demonstration. Councilor Andrew Greco said he had "written off" noise as a possible problem, but now would reconsider his opinion. Councilor Daniel Vecchione suggested AES do another noise demonstration and allow councilors to go to neighbors' properties to hear for themselves.
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA)
DATE: September 22, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. B5
BYLINE: Louis Hansen
DATELINE: Norfolk, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise (CCAJN)
The Virginian-Pilot reports the Navy has formally denied allegations made in a federal lawsuit challenging its decision to transfer 156 F/A-18 Hornets to Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia.
According to the article, in a response filed Friday in Federal District Court in Norfolk, attorneys for the Navy rejected all critical assertions in the suit brought by Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise (CCAJN). The lawsuit criticized the environmental impact statement that the Navy prepared as it studied options for reassigning 180 jets from its base in Cecil Field, FL, which is scheduled to close. Among the claims the Navy rejected: that it underestimated the impact of the additional jets on Oceana's suburban neighbors, failed to measure noise abatement and infrastructure costs associated with the move, and ran afoul of Navy regulations and U.S. environmental law.
The article reports the case is expected to be heard sometime next year. Jack E. Ferrebee, the attorney for CCAJN, said the Navy has not dealt with a key issue: determining how much it will cost Virginia Beach and Chesapeake home and business owners to abate the added jet noise. "They needed to address it" in their initial report, he said CCAJN seeks a supplementary report, which would examine costs of noise mitigation, decreased property values, and infrastructure improvements necessitated by the move. CCAJN is a grass-roots organization led by professionals and retired military officers. The group plans in the next two weeks to request a preliminary injunction to postpone the move until after the case is heard, Ferrebee said. If the federal court ultimately rules in the group's favor, the Navy would be forced to reconsider the move.
The article states in May, Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton decided to transfer nine fleet squadrons and one large training squadron of F/A-18 fighters to Oceana. In July, CCAJN filed suit in federal court against Dalton. The Navy expects to relocate the Hornet squadrons between December and next summer. The Navy estimates the move will boost the local economy, and would make Oceana as busy as it was during its peak in the early 1990s.
PUBLICATION: World Airport Week
DATE: September 22, 1998
SECTION: Vol. 5, No. 38
DATELINE: South Orange County, California
World Airport Week reports developers for California's El Toro Airport have presented on open space plan to county executives, requesting a park surround the airfield.
According to the article, planners for a proposed new airport in South Orange County, California, have asked county executives to set aside at least 2,000 acres of land for proposed park space surrounding the airfield. El Toro Airport, to be built on a closed Marine Corps Air Station, is planned as a mid-sized international airport and is expected to be fully functional by 2020.
The article reports total land space at El Toro is 4,700 acres. Developers want to ensure that at least half of the total space is used for park and recreational use. The greening of the proposed El Toro Airport will be a good opportunity, according to Ellen Call, spokeswoman for the development project. "The County has a history of preserving open spaces. When developers come to the county to build large projects, they tend to set aside portions of land for greenery or recreational use. That's what's being done here," Call explained. The air base, closed by the federal government in 1993, has no noise sensitive development surrounding the airfield, unlike nearby noise - sensitive John Wayne Airport that sits on 500 acres of land, prohibiting growth and expansion. Centrally located within Orange County, said Call, El Toro "allows enough room to develop an airport and do some neat stuff." The new open space plan was presented to county executives last Thursday. Developers foresee at least two golf courses on the property, a 250-acre regional park to be used for soccer fields and picnic areas, a 1,000-acre habitat reserve, and possibly hiking or equestrian trails.
The article states more recreational use of the property will yield less land for commercial development. The Airport and Open Space Plan will allow for eight million passengers annually by 2005 and 24 million annual passengers by 2020. But it significantly reduces the amount of high-density commercial development on the property. Commercial development to be scaled back includes a once-proposed international trade center, entertainment and office complexes, hotels and other retail development.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: September 21, 1998
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Providence, Rhode Island
The Associated Press reports T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, Rhode, Island, is getting $1 million from the Federal Aviation Administration to insulate neighboring homes against jet noise.
According to the article, the million dollars from the FAA raises to $9 million the amount the airport plans to spend on soundproofing over the next six months. The $9 million will equip 360 houses with new doors, windows and other sound-insulation features. "It's good news," said Wayne Schuster, director of planning and development for the state Airport Corporation. "The FAA has certainly given us a greater share than we expected in the past fiscal year," Schuster told the Providence Journal.
The article states James Peters, a spokesman for the FAA, said the agency had some "unanticipated discretionary money" that it decided to put into soundproofing. "Green is the only major airport in New England that got extra money," Peters said. A growing number of area residents have been complaining about jet noise that has increased with the airport's expansion.
PUBLICATION: The Christian Science Monitor
DATE: September 21, 1998
SECTION: United States; Pg. 3
BYLINE: Daniel B. Wood
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: David Barna, chief spokesman for the National Park Service; Barb Maynes, spokesman for Olympic National Park
The Christian Science Monitor reports after years of debate, the U.S. National Park Service has banned the use of personal watercraft (PWC) in its parks with a few exceptions.
According to the article, personal watercraft (PWC) have multiplied tenfold in a decade - to about 1 million units. Although they represent only 9 percent of the nation's motorboats, they account for 36 percent of boating accidents. Now the National Park Service has banned their use in its parks with limited exceptions. Environmentalists and nature lovers are pleased while watercraft users and manufacturers are crying foul. Both say the decision will serve as a model in dozens of other attempts to ban PWC coast to coast. "Our mandate is to preserve these parks for the present and future for use by visitors of all kinds," says David Barna, chief spokesman for the National Park Service. The decision, announced last week, will allow continued use of PWC at 25 recreation and seashore areas where they are now primarily used, but will ban them at the park service's 62 other facilities that now allow motorized boating. "There have long been concerns about noise, air, and water pollution, and the safety of other visitors. We believe this is a fair compromise," says Barna.
The article reports manufacturers of personal watercraft contend that the vehicles are perfectly safe. Complaints about noise and pollution, they argue, are based on outmoded technology. And they say they have addressed safety concerns with training and licensing ideas that the park service has rejected. "When automobiles first came out, they were noisy and scared horses," says John Stetson, president of Friends of Lake Crescent, a lake in Washington State's Olympic National Park that will no longer allow PWC. The park service regulates about 10 percent of the total water area of the US, but the decision is expected to have far-reaching effects for other jurisdictions that have been trying to ban PWC. The county of San Francisco offers an example, says John Donaldson, head of the Personal Watercraft Industry Association. "They are now embarking on a set of regulations and citing the National Park Service decision as their model."
The article states fans of PWC say the park service has a double standard. About 80 park-service facilities now allow boating, but most will no longer allow the controversial craft. One such region is Biscayne Bay National Park, which cuts down the middle of downtown Miami toward Key West. "You can take an oil barge up and down this area, but no PWC," says Donaldson. "Tell me what kind of sense that makes." He charges that the park service has said more studies of PWC are called for, but they have moved ahead with the ban without completing any studies. But park officials say they have received more mail about the intrusion of the watercraft than on any other issue. A large majority are from those who feel the national parks are the last refuge in America from all the noise and pollution of the city. "When we opened public comment to this issue we were frankly stunned by the level of concern," says Barb Maynes, spokesman for Olympic National Park. "Most people don't want to come to the wilderness to be assaulted by the same sights and sounds they left behind." Bud Inman, spokesman for Lake Mead National Recreation Area, says, "For the most part, we have found that people use these craft responsibly. What gives them a bad name is the number of people who show off by irritating the other boaters, fishermen, and beach users." But users fear the decisions will not be reconsidered. "It doesn't seem fair to lock in a decision because of the problems they used to cause," Stetson says.
PUBLICATION: The Columbus Dispatch
DATE: September 21, 1998
SECTION: News , Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Lornet Turnbull
DATELINE: Columbus, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Cindee Prickett, resident; John Best, president of the Far Northwest Coalition
The Columbus Dispatch reports the Ohio Department of Transportation doubles the number of lanes on I-270, and neighborhoods along Ohio's north Outerbelt will decide whether they want sound walls built between their homes and the highway.
According to the article, from the back yard of her home along the north Outerbelt, Cindee Prickett has had eight years to get used to the freeway traffic. With each passing year, she said, "It has gotten worse." Now the Ohio Department of Transportation is doubling the number of lanes on the freeway. For Prickett and her neighbors, that will likely mean double the noise. This fall, they must decide whether they prefer to live with the additional noise or allow sound-barrier walls to be built. Each neighborhood along the corridor also will choose the material for those walls as well as the design, the color and the style.
The article reports the result could be a collage of noise barriers along a stretch of the Outerbelt-each section with a different material, design, color and style. "Aesthetics is a touchy subject," said Jeffrey White, environmental studies coordinator for ODOT's District 6. "It's possible to have sky-blue color on one section and then brown on the next. I suppose someone could perceive a big glaring difference. We never lose sight of the fact that we're trying to please the people who have to live beside these things and look at them every day," he said. "Barriers are intended for the benefit of the residents, not motorists."
The article states federal law requires ODOT to study the noise level that two additional lanes of traffic will bring to the corridor and to offer residents, churches, schools and parks the option of having walls built to reduce the noise. The cost of the sound barriers will be included in the cost to widen the freeway. The walls would be built after the expansion project is completed in 2001. Each day, about 120,000 vehicles travel the northern rim of the Outerbelt. Expansion will increase highway capacity to 200,000 cars a day.
According to the article, ODOT expects to complete its noise study soon and begin public meetings this fall. Nearly 1,000 homes, apartments and condos lie in the path of highway noise. "Our back yard literally is the freeway. . . . We have bulldozers parked there now," Prickett said, referring to the highway construction equipment. "I'd rather see the walls up and the sound blocked out," Prickett said. "And I think they (the walls) will help." The challenge for ODOT will be to get hundreds of neighbors - and church, school and park officials - to come to consensus on whether a barrier is needed and what type of material and color to use. "We've found in the past that churches prefer the visibility to the freeway rather than blocking it," White said. "We can't imagine residents not wanting noise abatement." There's pressure to make the side of the wall facing homes more attractive than the stark side that greets motorists, White said. "The residents' side usually has a chiseled limestone block appearance."
The article goes on to report John Best, president of the Far Northwest Coalition, said that, while the noise now "is not annoying to me - even in the summertime when we have the windows open - I'd much rather hear crickets." A wider highway, he said, will "unquestionably mean more and more vehicle traffic and more noise. "It's a pain in the asphalt but the price of progress," he quipped.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: September 21, 1998
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Natalia E. Arbulu
DATELINE: Windsor Locks, Connecticut
The Hartford Courant reports residents will be able to voice their concerns about noise from Connecticut's Bradley International Airport at three meetings this week. Residents will be asked to give input on a planned "mini-study" of noise-sensitive areas.
According to the article, Bradley officials and a steering committee that includes town representatives from East Granby, Suffield, Simsbury, Windsor and Windsor Locks will conduct the meetings. During the past eight months, the airport has received 458 noise complaints from residents. This week's meetings will focus on a "mini- study" of noise -sensitive areas, to be part of a broader "Part 150" environmental assessment required by the Federal Aviation Administration. Kevin Lynch, transportation planner in the aviation and ports division of the state Department of Transportation, said the study would try to find ways to deal with the noise problems by concentrating on Bradley's main runway, 6-24. "The study will monitor noise levels and try to find alternative flight routes that will direct noise away from the most-affected residential areas," Lynch said.
The article reports Stephen Korta, Bradley's acting airport administrator, said public participation is important in finding a solution. "The public meetings are held so that the committee and consultants can interact with the public. Their opinion will be weighed into the study," Korta said. The mini-study and environmental assessment are being conducted by consultants specializing in aviation, noise and vibration. Korta said once the field studies are complete, the consultants will test the solutions in the surrounding neighborhoods. By first examining the noise level, officials hope to relieve the problem more quickly than if they waited for the Part 150 study to be completed, which could take up to two years.
The article states that of the surrounding towns, Suffield seems to be the most affected by the noise. In July, Bradley received 47 complaints from 14 Suffield residents. Of the 458 complaints made this year, 363 came from Suffield. Astrid Hanzalek, vice chairwoman of the Bradley International Airport Commission and a member of the steering committee, said that the most affected areas in Suffield appear to be South Main Street, Susan Drive and Dianne Lane. "When planes come north off Bradley they are apt to go over these areas. We're trying to get opinion from the public and we're using the wisdom of the FAA to see what is the best way to fly in and out of the airport," Hanzalek said.
PUBLICATION: Journal of Commerce
DATE: September 21, 1998
SECTION: Transportation; Pg. 14A
DATELINE: Miami, Florida
The Journal of Commerce reports the Miami-Dade Aviation Department in Florida revealed a technology on Friday used to monitor airplane noise. This new system could mean significant implications for the air cargo industry.
According to the article, airport officials unveiled the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System, billed as the latest technology used in determining noise impacts on communities near airports. The system gathers and processes flight-related data, showing flight paths, aircraft altitudes and measures aircraft noise using remote microphones. The development is potentially significant for the air cargo industry because cargo planes are generally older and noisier than passenger aircraft. Federal law mandates the phaseout of noisier aircraft, generally used in the air cargo segment of the aviation industry.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: September 21, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Charles Lombardo, a Burbank representative on the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority
The Los Angeles Times reports that the administrators of Burbank Airport may allow early departures by Reno Air, angering residents already upset over airport noise.
According to the article, several other airlines already violate the voluntary 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew, with some flying as early as 6:30 a.m. Administrators of the airport plan to accept the decision made by Reno Air to begin offering four flights from Burbank to San Jose with the earliest leaving at 6:40 a.m. Burbank residents and their airport authority representatives have wanted to create mandatory curfews for years.
The article reports that an airport authority representative for Burbank, Charles Lombardo, underscored the responsibility of the authority to try their hardest to reduce noise. He said "Having more planes violating the voluntary curfew is not a step in that direction, and I hope Glendale and Pasadena, [the other cities who co-admister the airport,] recognize that."
The article notes that a decision in July to renew Burbank Airport's variance -- which allows it to operate while violating state noise rules -- may influence the outcome. The variance must be renewed every three years. The judge who ruled on the variance said while the airport had tried in good faith to reduce noise, it hadn't taken "good faith measures to the best of its ability."
According to the article, the authority and the city of Burbank already oppose each other on the issue of a proposed new terminal that would have 19 gates. The city had tried to block the use of 130 acres of land from Lockheed Martin Corporation to build the terminal, but a legal decision said they couldn't use land use rules to prevent the terminal because it gave that right up when it agreed to co-administer the airport with Glendale and Pasadena. Airport officials want the larger terminal to help serve the 5 million passengers that currently use the airport annually.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: September 21, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
DATELINE: Warwick, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports the Federal Aviation Administration has awarded T.F. Green Airport an additional $1 million to insulate more houses against jet noise.
According to the article, Green now has $9 million to spend on soundproofing over the next six months. At $25,000 a house, the total award is enough to equip 360 houses with new doors, windows and other sound-insulation features. "It's good news," said Wayne Schuster, director of planning and development for the state Airport Corporation. "This is very competitive money. The FAA has certainly given us a greater share than we expected in the past fiscal year."
The article reports James Peters, a spokesman for the FAA in New York, said the agency had some "unanticipated discretionary money" that it decided to put into soundproofing. "Green is the only major airport in New England that got extra money," Peters said. With the latest grant included, the FAA has awarded $4.5 million for soundproofing to the state Airport Corporation this year, as well as $450,000 to study ways of reducing noise in the future. The corporation also borrowed $ 4.5 million for sound insulation, as part of a revenue bond issue primarily aimed at paying for a new parking garage, runway reconstruction and other improvements. The corporation is about to start sound-insulation work on 95 houses that were covered under a $2.5-million federal grant awarded last summer.
The articles state Senators John Chafee and Jack Reed announced the unexpected grant on Thursday. Sen. Chafee praised the economic growth that Green supports, but said, "... this economic growth has also brought frustration to many citizens of Warwick, as expansion has caused increased noise levels around the airport. RIAC and I have worked hard to lessen the impact of airport noise for Warwick residents, and I am glad to see that our efforts have resulted in this important federal assistance." Sen. Reed said, "I'm pleased that we have convinced the FAA that their help is vital, not only to ensure that an expanded T.F. Green remains a formidable airport in the region, but to help the airport's neighbors get their properties insulated from the increasing regularity of airport noise. "
PUBLICATION: USA Today
DATE: September 21, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 23A
BYLINE: Philip Langdon
DATELINE: United States
USA Today published an editorial charging that while highway noise barriers block traffic noise for nearby residents, they also block scenic views for motorists and take the joy out of traveling in the U.S.
According to the editorial, acoustic engineer Michael Stocker recalls how, young and adventurous twenty years ago, he drove from Los Angeles to New York, "checking out this big, expansive country we live in. When he encountered a sign that read 'Entering Elizabeth, New Jersey,' " Stocker recollects, there was no city in sight. "The highway was lined by concrete walls," he said. "It was like being in a tunnel. I had no sense of where I was." That's the fate to which more and more segments of American highway have since been consigned. From 228 miles of noise barriers in 1980, the total length along federal highways grew almost sixfold, to 1,326 miles of barriers by 1995, the latest year for which the Federal Highway Administration has figures. The barriers, which rise 12 feet and, in some instances, more than 30 feet above the road, cost more than $1 million per mile.
The editorial contends, "shielding nearby residents from the whine of tires and the roar of truck engines is admirable. But the federally mandated noise -abatement program exerts another, less desirable effect: Increasingly it takes the pleasure out of traveling. Surely, it's time for state governments to realize they're blocking more than sound. The barriers typically are chosen by engineers in state transportation departments. "These folks aren't exactly known for basing their decisions on their projects' effect on the landscape or on the experience of travel. They tend to see their job as moving as much traffic as fast as is safely possible. Then they compensate for the bad effects by adding devices such as massive, ungainly noise barriers." Engineers are to blame for eliminating slices of life-such as neighborhoods and business districts-and severing the connection between travelers and their surroundings.
The editorial goes on to say if Americans want to improve the traveling experience, they need to change the criteria by which highway projects are judged. "If a road moves large volumes of traffic, but provides drivers with a miserable experience, it has failed." To reduce these failures, state transportation departments should establish procedures that make aesthetics one of the factors emphasized during the design process. In a few places, such as Phoenix, governments have started commissioning artists, architects and others to work with the engineers. They have also begun planting more vegetation in front of the walls.
The editorial also contends change also means eliminating close alliances between transportation departments and the industries with which they work. When Stocker's firm in Lagunitas, Calif., proposed making California's barriers out of a plastic composite, he learned that all proposals would be reviewed by a state "multidisciplinary task force," which includes " 'industry representatives from the Concrete and Masonry Association of California and Nevada and from the California Precast Concrete Manufacturing Association.' " Yet masonry and concrete (like timber, another common material) mostly reflect sound waves rather than absorb them. Stocker believed that materials with greater sound-absorbency could quiet the road more effectively. They'd allow for lower, less obtrusive barriers. "But he came to doubt his idea would fare well in a state transportation bureaucracy influenced so heavily by the masonry and concrete industries. Stocker found similar alliances in New Jersey with concrete and in Maine and Connecticut with timber."
According to the editorial, it is time to reform the ways of state transportation departments. "Doing so would help achieve a more effective balance between muffling the carburetor cacophony of the highway and preserving the vistas of this nation of avid travelers. We might actually get to see the country."
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: September 20, 1998
SECTION: Section 14; Page 8; Column 3; The City Weekly Desk
BYLINE: Nina Siegal
DATELINE: New York City, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Delphine Faison, resident; Cecil Corbin-Mark, program director for West Harlem Environmental Action
The New York Times reports a resident's concern about noise, pollution, health, and safety issues caused by heavy truck traffic in her New York City neighborhood has led to a resolution to ban commercial traffic through that area. To go into effect, the ban now needs approval from the Department of Transportation.
According to the article, when Delphine Faison, 47, moved back to her native Harlem four years ago, she observed a marked change in the neighborhood. "All of a sudden I noticed noise, " she said. "Now I realize you're going to hear some noise in a city -- traffic and kids playing -- but at 11 o'clock at night or 2 in the morning to hear trucks, and to smell the fumes?" Ms. Faison lives on 149th Street near Convent Avenue, and says her narrow residential street is ill equipped for heavy through traffic. Nonetheless, she said, large trucks, even 18-wheelers, often enter her block from St. Nicholas Avenue to cross to Amsterdam Avenue, the main truck route through northern Manhattan. Her street is home to many elderly people, Ms. Faison said, and just a few blocks away is Public School 153, the Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Elementary School. "I'm concerned about the young people and the old people," Ms. Faison said. Cecil Corbin-Mark, program director for West Harlem Environmental Action, said high volumes of truck traffic in Harlem had long contributed to increased rates of respiratory illness among neighborhood children. One body of evidence comes from a joint study of diesel truck emissions that was conducted by Corbin-Mack's center and the Columbia University School of Public Health.
The article reports Ms. Faison, concerned about pedestrian safety and the potential health hazards from diesel exhaust, asked Community Board 9 this month to designate 149th Street between St. Nicholas and Amsterdam Avenues a "No Commercial Traffic" street. She suggested that instead, trucks drive across 145th or 155th Street -- wide thoroughfares avenues more suitable for commercial traffic. Theodore Kovaleff, co-chairman of Community Board 9's transportation committee, wrote a resolution to that effect, which the full board supported by a vote of 30 to 1 on Sept. 17. The resolution now goes to the Department of Transportation for consideration. Kovaleff added, "We've got kids who run out into the middle of the street, and a truck cannot stop as fast as a car." Kovaleff said police enforcement was needed to eliminate dangerous traffic on 149th Street and throughout the area, which, he added, has often been in short supply.
PUBLICATION: Sacramento Bee
DATE: September 20, 1998
SECTION: Forum; Pg. Fo1
BYLINE: Robert Tomsho
DATELINE: Rotan, Texas
The Sacramento Bee reports Texan ranchers are concerned about how noise from an Air Force training range for bombers will effect their animals, ranches, and ways of life.
According to the article, Buster Welch, a 70-year-old rancher, is wary about Air Force planes and their effects on his 50,000-acre cattle ranch and way of life. Pressured by nationwide base closings, budget cuts and population growth, the military wants to establish or expand training ranges in the sparsely populated expanses of the West -- a proposal that could affect hundreds of ranchers and, its critics say, threaten the solitude, safety and property values of many small towns as well. For Welch, the debate has also stirred up broader fears for the ranching culture that he fell in love with and devoted years of hard work. The Air Force's proposal made him feel as though the outside world doesn't value his life's work. "So many people in the cities must think that it's deserted out here," he marvels. Romanticized as symbols of American self-reliance, ranchers have lately painted themselves as an endangered species threatened by environmentalists, government bureaucrats and city folk who don't understand what they do.
The article reports sympathy and support for the ranchers have been sparse, given the industry's considerable political clout. Indeed, with some public grasslands in the West still recovering from decades of overgrazing, critics abound. "The only reason that they have been able to make it to the cusp of the 21st century is that they have been able to force the taxpayer to pick up the tab," says John Horning of the Forest Guardians, a New Mexico-based environmental group that has waged a war against the taxpayer-subsidized leasing of public lands to ranchers. Clearly, ranching's future will be dramatically different from its past. Development has driven up land prices and property taxes. With Americans eating less beef, the number of cattle operations shrank by a quarter between 1980 and 1995. At the same time, profit margins have shriveled and conglomerates have tightened their control of the meat-packing industry. "We're not raising any more ranchers," grumbles rancher John Scott, who has run cattle in both Texas and Montana. "I guess we are just going to eat technology."
The article states Welch read last winter about the Air Force's proposal. His ranch was to become part of "Lancer," a proposed 4,000-square-mile range that involved eight sparsely populated West Texas counties. While the bombers wouldn't drop explosives, they would regularly swoop up from the Rio Grande Valley and practice low-level maneuvers. The Air Force wanted a low-level training range that was within 600 miles of both Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene and Barksdale Air Force Base in Shreveport, LA. Lancer was one of three proposed ranges. While the military hasn't offered to compensate ranchers for any noise disruptions, it has promised that its planes won't fly below 3,000 feet within the Lancer boundaries. But ranchers in the Davis Mountains far to the west of the Lancer area are already complaining about frightened animals and damaged windmills and buildings from low-level training there. A B-1 bomber flying with its afterburners on at 2,000 feet produces about 117 decibels of noise; a commercial jet at takeoff, by comparison, roars at about 125 decibels. The military's cause hasn't been helped by a Feb. 3 incident in which a U.S. Marine Corps jet, flying below prescribed minimums, sliced a gondola cable, killing 20 people, in an incident near Cavalese, Italy.
The article goes on to say that once, civilians tolerated airborne weapons tests and the occasional crash. But since the Cold War's end, complaints about noise and damage have escalated. In some places in the West, the military now marks ranch houses, campgrounds and housing developments on flight charts with big red dots so pilots can avoid them. "They agree that we need the training, but not around them," says Lt. Col. Gregory Mason, an Air Force officer involved in the Lancer effort.
According to the article, when Welch decided to fight back, he found himself in a battle that was tougher than he anticipated. Dozens of ranchers joined the opposition group that he helped form. But, like Welch, most found it hard to take on the Air Force lieutenants and colonels who came to their meetings to explain the proposal and thank them for their input. Although Abilene, the nearest big city, didn't fall under Lancer's umbrella, it had strong ties to the ranching industry. Welch assumed that he could enlist support from politicians and business executives there. Instead, Abilene saw the training range as insurance against any future closing of Dyess Air Force Base, now Abilene's largest employer. "The low-level bombing range is not something that is going to go over highly populated areas," says Charles Dromgoole, president of the Abilene Chamber of Commerce. "It seems like there is a real division between the people who are connected to the land and the people who aren't," says Rotan librarian Dani Day. "It's not animosity really, just a clue-lessness about one another."
The article reports with an Air Force decision on Lancer expected sometime next year, Welch is taking the offensive. Instead of solely arguing against the Air Force's plans, he has tried to make outsiders understand his way of life, inviting entire schools to his ranch and carrying pictures of his grandchildren on horseback as he drives from town to town, seeking help from anyone who will listen. While there has been no groundswell of support so far, there are times when Welch feels optimistic and determined to continue working his herd for another 20 years. Other moments, especially when he is out riding, the rancher finds himself thinking about how the Indians were once pushed from this same land as though nothing they had done for generations mattered. "That never made that much of an impact upon me when I used to read it," he says, as his horse wades a muddy stretch of the Brazos. "But now I know why the Comanche fought like hell."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: September 26, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 5
BYLINE: Robert C. Herguth
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jack Saporito, head of Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare
The Chicago Daily Herald reports a bill that could add 30 daily commercial takeoffs and landings at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport was endorsed Friday by the U.S. Senate. Activists say more planes means more noise and other serious problems.
According to the article, the new flights represent a compromise between Illinois' two Democratic senators, Dick Durbin and Carol Moseley-Braun, and Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who initially proposed creating an additional 100 daily commercial "slots." That plan was met by fierce opposition from suburban residents fed up with noise coming from O'Hare aircraft. The initiative must now be reconciled with a similar U.S. House version, which could happen in the next couple weeks. It would then be signed by the president.
The article states some activists remain critical of the measure. "It's a very bad deal for the communities," Jack Saporito, head of Arlington Heights-based Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, said Friday. "It's 30 more planes. Thirty more planes means more cars and trucks and cargo, and ... more pollution, more noise, more health problems, and more safety problems," Saporito said.
The article reports Steve Collens, legislative assistant to Moseley-Braun on transportation issues, predicted that new flights would begin in spring at the earliest. Pia Pialorsi, a spokeswoman for McCain, said: "We're very happy (the bill passed the Senate). We think it's very important, especially for smaller communities who pay astronomical airfare prices." Eighteen of the new slots would be dedicated to underserved markets, and at least six of those would be for commuter operations. The remaining 12 could be used for any market. The new flights would be phased in over a three-year period, and the initiative also includes provisions aimed at safety and containing noise and pollution.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: September 26, 1998
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Phil Lemos
DATELINE: Simsbury, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jack Cahill, resident; Drew Brown, resident
The Hartford Courant reports residents of Simsbury, Connecticut, attended the last of three state Department of Transportation meetings on solving the noise problem at the increasingly busy Bradley International Airport.
According to the article, resident Jack Cahill said he wanted a good night's sleep to keep him alert and refreshed for a Friday morning public hearing on alleviating thunderous jet noise at Bradley International Airport. "They wake you up in the middle of the night," Cahill said. "It just rattles the house. I've got a good, solid house." But the cargo planes flying above his house overnight ruined those hopes. Cahill was in a mix of 20 residents and town and state officials at town hall Friday who attended the last of three state Department of Transportation meetings on solving the noise problem at an increasingly busy Bradley.
The article reports noise monitoring will begin in October, said Kim Hughes, project manager with HNTB Corp. After a winter of brainstorming, a "preferred alternative" will be announced in March. A draft of the final report will be released for public comment in June and a final report in August. Firetown Road resident Drew Brown said he's sick of the noise. "I've added double-paned windows in my house. But there are still nights when you'd like to have the windows open. When those things come over they are noisy as . . ." He didn't finish the sentence.
The article states Rep. Tom Herlihy, R-Simsbury, was concerned that Suffield residents will receive noise relief on their side of the airport, which will shift the roar of airplanes to Simsbury. "Suffield has a greater number of complaints," Herlihy said. "My concern is the number of flights over the town. Can you give us any assurances at all that the number of flights over Simsbury won't increase?" Noise consultant Ted Baldwin couldn't give any assurances. He said it depends on the study's recommendations. But Baldwin pointed out that at least an effort at noise control is in the works. "Otherwise, the only alternative is just do nothing, and we can give ConnDOT our bill for hosting these meetings," Baldwin said.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: September 26, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. D01
BYLINE: Alan Sipress
DATELINE: Washington, DC
The Washington Post reports the US Senate approved a plan yesterday to add flights at Washington's Reagan National Airport despite local fears that it would add to noise in neighboring communities and undermine business at Dulles International Airport.
According to the article, 24 daily flights will be added at Reagan National Airport -- including 12 that could travel beyond the airport's 1,250-mile limit. It would be the first increase in flights since the mid-1980s at National, one of four urban U.S. airports where takeoffs and landings are limited, in part because of noise concerns. The plan is part of a two-year reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and still requires approval from the House. Lawmakers in both chambers are predicting that National likely will see at least some increase in flights by the time the issue is settled in a House-Senate conference committee.
The article reports the Senate bill includes an amendment that could provide millions of dollars to soundproof homes as well as schools, hospitals and other public buildings under the airport's flight path. The soundproofing plan, sponsored by the four senators from Maryland and Virginia, would require the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to spend 10 percent of its federal money on soundproofing and other noise -reduction measures. Next year, the funding would be $1.8 million. Senate staff members said the money would be allocated according to a map that charts the impact of aircraft noise on communities along the Potomac River. Homeowners who experience noise exceeding the current federal standard could apply to the authority for assistance; authority officials said the number of eligible homes would be no more than 50.
The article states the bill passed on a 92 to 1 vote, with only Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) voting no. The passage marked a victory by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has long advocated increasing the number and length of flights at National to foster airline competition. Virginia Sen. John W. Warner (R) and Maryland Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski (D) and Paul S. Sarbanes (D) withdrew their opposition after tacking on several amendments, including the anti- noise funding. Besides the funding for soundproofing measures, local lawmakers added amendments to the Senate bill that would spread out the new flights throughout the day, give National top consideration for aviation funds and require the Department of Transportation to conduct an environmental study of airport noise before any new flight slots are added. "These amendments are a modest acknowledgment that as the airport expands the perimeter and slots, we need to take into consideration the people who are most affected," Mikulski said. But Robb remained unconvinced, saying that residents and businesses near National and Dulles stand to lose from federal "meddling" in the management of local airports. "It is their quality of life, their economic strength, their ability to plan for a secure future that is at risk with this portion of the legislation," he said. "We have a system in place that works for this region. We have a careful balance between two airports that needs to be preserved."
According to the article, under the bill, National would add 12 takeoffs and landings each day for aircraft serving small and medium markets within the airport's 1,250-mile flight limit. The other 12 new flights would serve hub airports in the western United States. All the aircraft using these additional slots must be quieter, Stage-3 planes. The cap on flights at National is now 62 flights an hour. "We have never favored any change in the slots or perimeter," said David T. Ralston Jr., chairman of the regional airport board. "We certainly do not favor changes that lead to increased operations at National." Airport and local government officials say that adding flights would boost noise levels for hundreds of thousands of residents living along the flight path and increase safety risks at National, where the main runway is relatively short. Airport officials and their allies in the business community also have argued that allowing longer flights at National could redirect such operations from Dulles, undercutting the suburban airport's growing role as a gateway for international travel.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Times
DATE: September 26, 1998
SECTION: Part A; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Dawn Kopecki
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mike Metcalf, resident; Westy Byrd, resident
The Washington Times reports residents who live near Washington, DC's Reagan National Airport are angry about Senate approval of a bill to increase flights at the busy airport. Residents say increased flights mean more noise and traffic.
According to the article, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill yesterday. The amendment to add flights out of the airport was attached to a larger bill to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration. Only Sen. Charles S. Robb, Virginia Democrat, voted against the bill that passed 92-1. Critics argued that the bill cuts commuting time for West Coast politicians at the cost of more traffic and noise for nearby residents, who oppose it. The bill allots 12 new round-trip flights, half of which would be in larger planes from cities farther than the current maximum distance of 1,250 miles. The Senate now must reconcile its bill with a similar House bill under consideration to add more flights. But the longer flights definitely will be approved, since the Senate's FAA bill includes the additional flights and the legislation goes to conference next week, according to Scott Brenner, spokesman for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "Something will pass because the FAA needs the reauthorization now. If that doesn't happen, no airports would get any money for a year," Brenner said. The federal fiscal year ends Wednesday. One industry lobbyist said the final bill may cut the number of new flights, but "everyone's pretty much resigned themselves to the notion that there's going to be some measure of increased flights out of National."
The article reports for residents, the noise from planes flying overhead is already intolerable. One Montgomery County school teacher wears an ear muzzle at night to correct papers. Mike Metcalf, a Defense Department employee who lives in Southwest Washington, said, "You can't sleep past 7 o'clock in the morning, and you can't go to bed before 10 o'clock at night" when the airport is open. "It totally disrupts everything. They promised us that they would phase out noisy aircraft. But this thing with [Sen. John] McCain will only make it worse." McCain, Arizona Republican and chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and other senators who live beyond the set perimeter of 1,250 miles, argued that the flight restrictions were unnecessary and anti-competitive. The bill also increases flights to and from three other major airports: Chicago's O'Hare International and New York's La Guardia and John F. Kennedy International. The change in law would allow Reagan Airport to land flights from Denver, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix and Las Vegas. It also allows America West Airlines to fly directly to Reagan Airport from its Phoenix hub in McCain's home state.
The article goes on to say Sen. Robb, Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, and Maryland senators Paul S. Sarbanes, and Barbara A. Mikulski, both Democrats, worked together to win some small concessions in the bill. Those include money for soundproofing structures and buying homes most affected by the noise, priority consideration for federal grants, and guarantees that morning and evening flights will be kept at a minimum. District resident Westy Byrd just bought a new home in a neighborhood along the Potomac. The house also sits beneath the flight path to Reagan. "Every time a plane goes by and you're on the phone or having a conversation you have to pause," she said. "We want a situation that improves [the noise] , not one that will make it worse. And presumably the only reason why Congress is doing it is for their own convenience."
According to the article, the "perimeter rule" was established after Washington Dulles International Airport opened in the 1960s to ensure that cross-country and international flights would leave from Dulles to give balance to the local airports, officials said. Congress turned the airports' management over to local authorities in 1986 but kept the rule in place to keep the region's major airports remained economically viable. Officials at Dulles and Baltimore Washington International Airport are worried about the future. "We don't think that the bill, as it appears to be written now, will have a major impact on operation at either Dulles or National, but there is the concern what the case would be in the future," said Tara Hamilton, spokeswoman of Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which operates both airports. "Our preference is that we retain the slot rule and the perimeter rule." David Winstead, secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation, said, "I would hope that we do not throw the general balance that we've had through the perimeter rule between National, Dulles and BWI" Mark Looney, manager of governmental affairs for the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce said, "Bottom line is, this is a situation where we've yet again taken local airports out of the hands of local officials."
CORRECTION-DATE : September 30, 1998 CORRECTION: In a story in Saturday's editions about a Senate bill on Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, a sentence attributed to Scott Brenner, spokesman for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, should have said that additional, not longer, flights likely would pass.
PUBLICATION: U.S. Newswire
DATE: September 25, 1998
SECTION: National Desk
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Thomas Kiernan, president of National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA)
U.S. Newswire reports the United States Senate approved measures to address the problem of excessive noise from aircraft in national parks.
According to the article, the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) praised action today by the U.S. Senate to regulate commercial air tours over national parks. "Many national parks offer the opportunity to get away to a place where you can actually hear a bird call, or a stream rush by, or even just the wind through the trees," said NPCA President Thomas Kiernan. "That experience can easily by ruined by the droning of a helicopter or a plane. Keeping the noise from getting out of hand is an emerging concern throughout the National Park System."
The article reports the approval came as part of a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The legislation would require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to cooperate with the National Park Service (NPS) in developing air tour management plans in all parks where the air tour industry has expressed an interest in operating. The measures are based on legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and a working group of various interests including NPCA. The bill would allow the FAA and NPS to consider the use of flight bans, flight-free zones, and altitude restrictions in order to preserve quiet in the parks. The bill also calls for incentives for the use of quiet aircraft technology. However, the legislation does not apply to the Grand Canyon, where a series of lawsuits have resulted from earlier attempts to regulate the more than 100,000 air tours flown each year, or to national parks in Alaska. The Senate version of the bill would ban overflights at Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado.
The article goes on to say an NPCA/Colorado State University survey conducted earlier this year found that 70 percent of the American public believes that air tours should be limited over national parks, while an additional 17 percent said such flights should be banned. NPCA surveys have identified 56 parks where commercial tour overflights are a recognized problem. The National Parks and Conservation Association is America's only private nonprofit citizen organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the U.S. National Park System.
PUBLICATION: Daily Record
DATE: September 25, 1998
SECTION: Page 33
DATELINE: Europe
The Daily Record of Europe reports noisy neighbors are the biggest drawback to buying a new home, according to a survey out yesterday.
According to the article, although buying a house is the biggest financial commitment most people make, few check out their neighbors. The biggest complaint from first-time buyers was that the neighbors made too much noise, the research by Sainsbury's Bank found. At least 60 per cent of first-time buyers surveyed had regrets about their choice of property. In addition to noise problems, other issues also caused concern. The bank has produced a free guide to help first-time buyers.
PUBLICATION: Hong Kong Standard
DATE: September 25, 1998
BYLINE: Martin Wong
DATELINE: Hong Kong
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kwok Tsang Siu-han, resident; Wong Kwok-king, Eastern District Board member
The Hong Kong Standard reports Hong Kong's Chek Lap Kok Airport shifts flight paths with the seasons, and affected residents everywhere complain of the noise.
According to the article, now that flight paths to and from Chek Lap Kok have been altered in line with seasonal changes, it is the turn of residents in Tsim Sha Tsui, Yau Ma Tei, North Point and Siu Sai Wan to complain about the aircraft noise. Since the new airport opened in July, residents in Sha Tin, Tsuen Wan and Tsing Yi have been complaining about the noise from low- flying aircraft. In response, Civil Aviation Department (CAD) officials said there would be new flight paths in the winter when northeasterly and easterly winds would be blowing in the region. However, whether in Sha Tin or in Tsim Sha Tsui, complaints from residents not used to aircraft noise are the same. Kwok Tsang Siu-han, who lives in North Point Estate, voiced a typical complaint: "I have been roused from sleep by the flight noise three times this week. And I had to stay awake all night." She said when the Kai Tak airport was still in operation, "we could also hear the noise - but not at midnight or even later." Madam Kwok said she was disturbed by the roar of aircraft every night, between midnight and 2 am. "And I'm worried more and more aircraft would be flying over this district in future," she said.
The article reports Eastern District Board member Wong Kwok-king said residents began complaining about the noise from the aircraft in the middle of this month. "So far, I have received over 60 complaints," he said. Mr. Wong had asked CAD for an explanation. "They told me that they started to alter the flight paths from the middle of September. Whenever the northeasterly and easterly winds blow, the aircraft use the flight paths over Tsim Sha Tsui, Yau Ma Tei, North Point and Siu Sai Wan after take-off (from Chek Lap Kok)." Mr. Wong said the CAD officials told him that about 10 planes used this flight path after take-off every week. "Why don't they consult the public before using the second runway? Are they trying to hide some facts?" he asked.
The article states acting chief planning officer Simon Li Tin-chu said the department was aware of the noise complaints. "However, the noise level in these districts is well within international standards, as in Sha Tin and Tsuen Wan when we use the other runway," Mr. Li said. "As we have already stated in the Environmental Impact Study which was published in 1992, the noise level would exceed international standards only in Sau Lo Wan." Mr. Li said the department would continue measuring the noise level and would explain the matter to the various districts affected.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: September 25, 1998
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Vanessa E. Jones and Paul Marks
DATELINE: Suffield, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Robert Field, resident; Larry Edwards, resident; Robert Blair, resident; Sandra Garber, resident
The Hartford Courant reports Connecticut residents affected by noise from Bradley International Airport urged consultants to avoid any delays of a planned noise study.
According to the article, a crowd of residents met with consultants and officials Thursday to air their concerns about a study intended to offer relief from the jet engine roars emanating from Bradley International Airport. Residents pleaded with consultants hired by the state Department of Transportation not to delay. "People in this area have suffered for 25 years," said Robert Field of Windsor. "They've complained and complained and nothing has been done." Robert Blair, of Suffield, complained of airplane noises that started at 5:30 a.m. "Nobody sleeps at all," said Blair.
The article reports Kim Hughes, project manager with HNTB Architects Engineers Planners for the preliminary noise study, said the noise monitoring scheduled for next month will be used to develop possible changes in aircraft routing from Bradley's main north-south runway. A "preferred alternative" to the current departure path will be announced in March. A draft of the final report is to be released for public comment in June and a final report is to be finished by August. "It's actually a pretty compressed schedule for an environmental document," Hughes told residents.
The article states, however, most of the concerns raised by residents about soundproofing assistance and operation hours won't be addressed until the consultants do a more comprehensive analysis that will take about two years to complete. Resident Larry Edwards of Suffield asked why affected homeowners cannot apply for federal aid to install soundproofing insulation and thicker windows, as has been done near airports in Boston and Providence. The yearlong study, along with a broader comprehensive analysis, must be completed before any soundproofing assistance can be approved, said John Silva, an official with the Federal Aviation Administration. The broader study will also allow the consultants to do noise measurement in warmer months when the airplanes tend to fly lower and make louder noises, said Ted Baldwin, a consultant specializing in noise analysis. Resident Sandra Garber asked the consultants if they planned to examine the effects the noise was having on schools. Hughes said only if town representatives directed them to look into the matter.
According to the article, although the comprehensive study will include an analysis of airport operation times, the possibility of restricting those hours looks dim. In order to repay airlines for putting older, noisier airplanes out of service, the government promised to make it harder to restrict airport operations, said Baldwin. San Jose decided not to submit its findings because the benefits did not outweigh the economic cost to the airline businesses. The San Francisco airport has submitted its study to the FAA.
PUBLICATION: The Idaho Statesman
DATE: September 25, 1998
SECTION: Local; Pg. 2b
BYLINE: Liz Wyatt
DATELINE: Meridian, Idaho
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mary Cahoon, resident
The Idaho Statesman reports plans for a retail complex in Meridian, Idaho, continue to spark concerns over noise and traffic from some nearby residents.
According to the article, more than 35 residents attended a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing Thursday on The Family Center, the proposed 848,000-square-foot retail complex at the southeast corner of Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road. Thursday's meeting was a continuation of previous public hearings. While a few residents said they are satisfied the developer has addressed their concerns, others urged commissioners to think about noise and traffic the center will generate. Commissioners will review plans and forward them to the Meridian City Council in October.
The article states some residents are worried about how they will get in and out of Crossroads Subdivision, which backs up to the center. According to an Ada County Highway District report, the center will generate an estimated 20,000 trips a day. The report recommends that several improvements, such as turn lanes and lights, be added to roads around the center. "You listen to the concerns of these people, and you take action and you help them," Mary Cahoon said. She does not live in Crossroads but said she empathizes with them because she lives near commercial property developed in recent years. Although the property has been zoned for commercial use since before the subdivision was built, some neighbors say they never expected such a large project. "It's too big," said Robert Phillips, a Boise attorney. He said he was told the space would be for offices or light commercial use.
But others say they are not surprised to see plans for a large retail center. "You'd have to be awfully naive to move into an area and see a major intersection in the Treasure Valley and think nothing is going to be developed," said Bob Courval, who lives in Crossroads. Courval had concerns over noise and traffic. But he said he welcomes the development. "My wife and I are excited about it. We're looking forward to it," he said. "We are kind of excited about having shopping, restaurants and perhaps entertainment ... close by."
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: National; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Steve Ritea
DATELINE: Mandeville, Florida
The Times-Picayune reports that the Planning and Zoning Commission of Mandeville, Florida has rejected a proposal to build a go-cart track next to the Putt-Putt Golf Games.
According to the article the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 against the track. The only dissenter was newly elected member, Jean Champagne, who wished to see a detailed noise study before making a decision.
Putt-Putt owner Bryan Horridge had presented a noise study at a previous meeting that concluded that the street traffic would be noisier than the go-carts would be.
Champagne was not satisfied with that study. The more than 50 residents who attended the meeting also rejected the study. Many of them live in the nearby Fontainebleau subdivision.
The article details how former Fontainebleau resident, Dan Tadros, when trying to sell his Fontainebleau home this year, he lost three potential buyers after the buyers heard a go-cart track might be added to the adjacent putt-putt golf cite.
Tadros is reported saying that he took $15,000 off the price of his home and spent $3,000 to plant trees to block the view of the putt-putt golf business from the house.
According to the article, Horridge offered to add the trees himself and claims he has taken care of everything homeowners asked of him.
But residents' misery continues. Noise from the batting cages is one of the problems mentioned in the article. Jim Bienvenu, a Fontainebleau resident, said the addition of trees hasn't done any good. "During the still of the night, when the customer volume is high, we get a lot of noise. My children have trouble sleeping," the article said quoting Bienvenu.
Horridge's plan for the go-carts places the track 250 feet from the nearest home and provides for up to 10 go-carts traveling speeds of 18 to 20 mph.
According to the article four of Horridge's teen-age employees pleaded with the commission to recommend the track to the City Council. They carried signs which said, "It's not the noise, it's not the plans, so why not?" and "Where do you want teens to go, Taco Bell?"
City Attorney David Cressy however is standing on a prior verbal agreement to support his recommendation to reject Horridge's plan. According to Cressy Horridge made a verbal agreement with the city not to add go-carts when he first developed the property five years ago.
Horridge's own attorney, William Decker, disputed that statement that at that time five years ago the city suggested that the property be zoned as a Planned Commercial District, leading Horridge to believe he would have greater flexibility in the use of the property.
The commission's recommendation to reject Horridge's plan will be forwarded to the City Council. A vote is expected in early October. Horridge says he will bring his case before the district court if the city council sides with the commission.
Zoning Commissioner Nixon Adams, however, says he is standing firm on the aforementioned verbal agreement. "It was sort of a contract. I feel we all should agree if there's going to be any changes."
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: September 25, 1998
SECTION: St. Charles Post, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Tommy Robertson
DATELINE: St. Charles, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rose Kasper, president of St. Charles City Council; Pat McDonnell, president of St. Charles Citizens Against Aircraft Noise (CAAN)
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports St. Charles and Bridgeton leaders are planning a major presence Monday in downtown St. Louis to express their concern over expansion plans at Missouri's Lambert Field Airport. Intolerable aircraft noise lies at the heart of their opposition.
According to the article, St. Charles leaders opposed to Lambert Field's expansion plan called W-1W are planning a visit to St. Louis City Hall on Monday to remind city officials of the differences over the controversial plan. St. Louis Mayor Clarence Harmon "wants us to be good neighbors, so we're coming down for a little visit," said St. Charles City Council President Rose Kasper. She also confirmed plans of the St. Charles Citizens Against Aircraft Noise to work with Bridgeton residents to have a major presence Monday in downtown St. Louis. Pat McDonnell, president of St. Charles Citizens Against Aircraft Noise, said his group is planning to take at least 100 St. Charles residents to downtown St. Louis to picket City Hall. McDonnell said the group will be accompanied by Bridgeton residents who participate in the picketing to protest against W-1W. "We're hoping to have at least 200 people down there," he said. St. Charles and Bridgeton residents picketed St. Louis City Hall three weeks ago. McDonnell said the goal remains the same. "Our frame of mind is that (city officials are) still are mistreating us, and we want to get there and let them know that," he said. "The last time they had so many marshals we were almost outnumbered," he said. "But we did get into the mayor's office though we didn't get to talk to him. We've called his office this time to let him know we're coming, so we'll see what happens," McDonnell said.
The article states city officials and residents who oppose W-1W say they favor airport expansion but vigorously oppose the plan preferred by airport officials. They argue that W-1W calls for adding a 9,000-foot runway west of existing terminal facilities that would raze about 2,000 houses and businesses in Bridgeton and result in intolerable aircraft noise over the heart of St. Charles. They claim that St. Louis officials and Lambert administrators continue to stonewall any talks about a potential noise agreement that would satisfy St. Charles officials and residents. Apparently, the FAA sent a letter dated July 31 to Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-St. Louis, stating that the expansion proposal is safe. The letter stated that the agency found no need for a computer-simulation study that had been requested by expansion opponents which would have delayed the project by months. But McDonnell and Kasper said each week the FAA delays issuing its formal record of decision is a greater indication that there still are concerns about W-1W.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: September 25, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Matt Scallan
DATELINE: New Orleans, Louisiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ganesier Ramchandran, St. Charles Parish councilman; Jeannie Black, Kenner councilwoman; Michele Branigan, Kenner councilwoman; Brian Champagne, St. Charles councilman
The Times-Picayune reports although the first forum didn't solve any problems, three Louisiana towns agreed Thursday to continue meeting about the expansion of New Orleans International Airport.
According to the article, expansion is at the heart of contention between New Orleans, which owns the airport, and its neighbors, which will bear the brunt of any problems it causes. "We get the noise and pollution, but not a lot of the benefits," said St. Charles Parish Councilman Ganesier "Ram" Ramchandran. The New Orleans International Airport Joint Committee, formed after meetings last year with Kenner and St. Charles, is designed to find a compromise. Despite the talk of cooperation, members admit the obstacles are formidable. The first meeting of council members from New Orleans, Kenner, and St. Charles Parish did not narrow the differences among the groups over the expansion of New Orleans International Airport. But they agreed to continue to meet at least once a month. "I think we've made a starting point," New Orleans Councilman Jim Singleton said Thursday at the end of the meeting at the airport.
The article states the airport in Kenner wants to build a new north-south runway, and the most likely spot is in St. Charles Parish's LaBranche Wetlands just west of the airport. The airport considers the $400 million runway project its top priority, saying it is crucial to its continued vitality. But Kenner and St. Charles residents fear that their neighborhoods will suffer from increased jet noise. Their elected officials plan to use zoning laws to stop any expansion plans they don't like. Yet everyone agrees that the airport's ability to compete for business is essential to the area's economy. "We've fought like lions and tigers for 20 years, and nothing got done," New Orleans Councilman Eddie Sapir said. "I hope that doesn't happen this time."
According to the article, at the beginning of the meeting, St. Charles and Kenner representatives rejected a request to expand the committee to include Jefferson Parish, whose representatives might be more inclined to favor expansion. "I just ask that you keep an open mind about it if it comes up in the future," Sapir said. Kenner Councilwoman Jeannie Black complained about jets straying from their flight paths and shoddy work on the airport's noise insulation program. "The people involved thought it was their dream come true, but it was a nightmare," she said. Kenner Councilwoman Michele Branigan said the airport's neighbors need more than information. "We need trust," she said. "We need to be able to believe you when you come before us and tell us about a project. We haven't had that in the past." St. Charles Councilman Brian Champagne said residents of St. Rose need a better idea of what is going to happen and when. "We have people in St. Rose who say they can't sell their houses because they don't know what is going to happen with the runway," he said. Other issues are on the table as well.
PUBLICATION: Arizona Business Gazette
DATE: September 24, 1998
SECTION: Front; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Howard Fischer
DATELINE: Washington, DC
The Arizona Business Gazette reports a federal appellate court has refused to set aside new rules designed to curb aircraft noise at the Grand Canyon in the case of Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. Federal Aviation Administration (97-1003).
According to the article, in a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied challenges to noise restrictions filed by a coalition of companies that operate airplane and helicopter tours of the canyon. The tour operators said the rules are too comprehensive. The court also rejected challenges to the rules filed by the Hualapai Tribe, which has its own separate concerns, and turned aside charges by environmentalists that the rules didn't go far enough. "We reject both lines of attack and uphold the rule," the court wrote. "We do so not because we necessarily believe the rule is 'just right,' but because we defer to the agency's reasonable exercise of its judgment and technical expertise."
The article reports at the center of the dispute are flight restrictions imposed last year by the Federal Aviation Administration to reduce noise in the Canyon, one of the nation's prime tourist spots. Tour operators estimate that 800,000 people see the Canyon by helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft every year which means nearly 100,000 flights. The new plan makes more than 75 percent of the airspace over the Canyon off-limits to aircraft and imposes evening curfews. Tour operators charge that the government adopted an overly broad definition of what constitutes a "substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park."
The article states that language is crucial: It is the heart of the 1987 federal legislation that directed government agencies to do something about aircraft overflight. Attorneys for the tour operators said the government didn't consider prevailing sound conditions in the park. "The faint, barely audible hum of a light plane will not be noticed by, much less disturb, a visitor to roaring river rapids," the businesses contended. The court, however, said the tour operators were misstating the law. Specifically, the judges said, the rules define disturbing the "natural quiet" as anything which is more than three decibels above the ambient level. "That is, an aircraft breaks the natural silence only when it is three decibels louder than the ambient sound - whether that sound is the roar of the river or the song of the birds," the judges said. The court also rebuffed the tour operators' argument that the law would allow government agencies to demand "silence for silence's sake." Judge Merrick Garland, who wrote the ruling, acknowledged that the National Parks Service refers to "natural quiet" as a "resource." He said, though, that argument misses the full point. "In the Park Service's view, natural quiet is a resource because it is relevant to visitor enjoyment," Garland wrote. Tour operators also suggested that the government should simply have rerouted air tours away from places where visitors concentrate. Garland determined, though, the law doesn't instruct the FAA to create only one or a handful of quiet zones "and to herd all visitors into those quiet zones."
According to the article, the Hualapai Tribe's challenge to the rules comes from its concern that the FAA failed to consider whether expanded flight-free zones would push aircraft noise off the park and over their reservation. Garland said until it is known what routes the tour aircraft will take it is impossible to assess what effect the new rules will have on the tribe.
The article reports on the other side of the argument, environmentalists charged that the rule is "too little, too late," failing to restore as much natural quiet as the statute requires. Garland said, however, the law did not require the park to be free of aircraft noise 100 percent of the time but instead set the goal of "substantial restoration of the natural quiet." Moreover, Garland said, the rule is not the last word on the issue. He pointed out that the FAA has a "phased" solution to the question, with a 2008 target date of achieving quiet in the canyon.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: September 24, 1998
SECTION: Business News
BYLINE: Jim Abrams
DATELINE: Washington, DC
The Associated Press reports a final Senate vote is expected Friday, despite some local opposition, to increase flights at Washington, DC's Reagan National Airport.
According to the article, to improve service and competition, the legislation would increase slots - each slot equals a takeoff or a landing - from Reagan National, O'Hare, LaGuardia and JFK airports for nonstop regional flights to underserved communities. Flights to and from O'Hare Airport in Chicago and New York's LaGuardia and JFK could also be increased under the bill, which would reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration for four years. The expansive bill also would renew the Airport Improvement Program, which provides money for airport construction, sets up programs to help small communities hurt by aviation deregulation and seeks to protect natural quiet over national parks by limiting commercial air tour flights over them.
The article reports Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., said under bill S. 2279, Reagan National would get 12 new daily commuter slots for service to underserved markets. The bill would also allow for 12 exemptions from a 1986 rule barring nonstop flights of more than 1,250 miles to and from Reagan National. The perimeter rule was initiated to protect the area's two other airports, Dulles and Baltimore-Washington, but has long been a source of complaint for frequent users of Reagan National, including lawmakers from Western states who want more convenient access to nonstop flights home. Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., said the perimeter rule is no longer needed because Dulles is economically strong, but it has "kind of taken a life of its own and has been exalted almost to a divine status, something that is so sacrosanct that we should never touch it under any circumstance." McCain has turned aside criticism of his motives by promising he will never take a nonstop flight from Reagan National to his home in Arizona if the restriction is lifted.
The article states several Washington area lawmakers opposed the increased flights and other changes, saying they would cause job losses at the other area airports and add to the noise around Reagan National, as well as ignoring the local airport authority, which is supposed to have input in such decisions. "It is wrong for the Congress to retreat from its promise to the citizens of this region, and I believe that the changes in this bill will be harmful to the capital area's economy, as well as its quality of life," said Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va. The bill also would allow 30 new slots at O'Hare. All additional flights at Reagan National and O'Hare would have to use Stage 3 aircraft that meet the strictest noise requirements.
According to the article, a different version of the bill passed the House last month, authorizing $10.1 billion in fiscal year 1999 for FAA safety, security and improvement programs. McCain said that if Congress doesn't send a bill to the President by Oct. 1, when the fiscal year begins, "at least $2 billion worth of money out of the Aviation Trust Fund will not be allowed to move forward."
PUBLICATION: Birmingham Evening Mail
DATE: September 24, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 14
BYLINE: Tony Collins
DATELINE: Birmingham, England
The Birmingham Evening Mail reports a helicopter landing at a Birmingham, England, hotel is angering local residents who claim their peace and quiet is being shattered.
According to the article, Penns Hall Hotel in Penns Lane, Sutton Coldfield, was recently permitted a license to allow helicopters to land and take off from its grounds. An employee of British Gas subsidiary Transco is using the helicopter landing pad on a regular basis because the hotel is close to his home. The Transco worker uses a two-seater Belljet Ranger to survey gas pipelines in the surrounding area. He uses the aerial view to pick out fluorescent markers which map out the line of the underground pipes to determine if they have been affected by landslips.
The article reports one resident, who wished to remain anonymous, said: "The helicopter is landing directly opposite our house and makes a really terrible noise. If we wanted to live near an airport we would have done so. It has been landing and taking off as frequently as once or twice a week, but when we complained to the hotel they just said they couldn't afford to lose the business." A spokesman for Transco said the company had a commercial partnership with Jarvis Hotels, which owns Penns Hall Hotel. He said: "There is a licensed heli-pad at this hotel which is the nearest point to where the surveyor can be collected and dropped off because he lives nearby."
The article states Penns Hall Hotel denied that the helicopter amounted to a noise nuisance. General manager Antony Hill said: "It is a very simple two-minute operation and probably causes less noise than airplanes flying overhead." A spokesman for Jarvis Hotels said: "I would be surprised if the license from the Civil Aviation Authority restricted the helicopter's use to just guests. However, the concerns of local residents are uppermost in our minds."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: September 24, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 7
BYLINE: Heather Ryndak
DATELINE: South Elgin, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports an Illinois town is considering eliminating or rerouting truck traffic due to noise and pollution problems.
According to the article, east-side residents of South Elgin say they had no idea noises and pollution from truck traffic would escalate to such a level in the 1990s when they moved into town 40 or 50 years ago. Yet, many business owners don't think they should be punished by their neighbors' inconveniences. Moreover, many local east-side business managers are shocked that the village is considering eliminating or rerouting truck traffic away from the State Street bridge - a main thoroughfare for village industrial and commercial companies. "There is no other bridge between State Street and Route 20, and it would take us 20 minutes extra for each load to go another route," said Joe Benson, controller of Central Blacktop in South Elgin. "We realize truck traffic is a problem in every town, especially those that have recently grown. But there is a cost somewhere down the line, and to move or eliminate the route will end up costing residents more for us to do our job." Employees at Office Supply Outlet on Woodbury Street said their supplies couldn't be delivered to their property if State Street is closed to large trucks. Mike Wolf, a manager at Vescor off State Street, said if trucks don't have direct access to his hydraulic company, it also would fail. "We have 20 trucks a day that come off of State Street to our property to deliver material," Wolf said. "If the village blocks State Street, 100 employees will be unemployed. The village should be enforcing the local ordinance and eliminate the gravel trucks that take a shortcut through town."
The article states Cindie Ringemann, controller at Bluff City Materials Co. near West Bartlett Road and Route 25, said her business has no control over the routes that the 500 to 600 semis leaving her business take each day. "They are all private carriers," she said. "Even with restrictions, they'll find a way to get to businesses. South Elgin may be able to alleviate their problems by trying to restrict truck traffic, but it will just get worse out here on West Bartlett Road. And neighbors here are already complaining of noise and dust."
The article reports village board members are asking for recommendations that will provide alternatives to truck traffic by the Oct. 5 board meeting. Among the choices are: no truck traffic, unrestricted truck traffic, a change in truck routes as well as a change in weight restrictions. The current ordinance prevents trucks from driving over the State Street bridge and other roads in town unless they are conducting business within the village.
PUBLICATION: The Gazette (Montreal)
DATE: September 24, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. F10
BYLINE: Anne Sutherland
DATELINE: Montreal, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Alan DeSousa, St. Laurent councillor; Louise Sauve, Pointe Claire resident
The Gazette reports Montreal, Canada, residents continue to call Aeroports de Montreal to rage about airplane noise since international flights were transferred from outlying Mirabel Airport to Dorval Airport a year ago.
According to the article, Diane Rock, communications director for ADM said that the airport has received 1,138 complaints of noise since January; however, a large percentage of those calls can be traced to one individual. "For example, in August we had 313 complaints, and 135 of those calls came from the same person," Rock said. "Most of the calls come from Pointe Claire." It's been just over a year since international flights were transferred from Mirabel to Dorval airport. Business travelers who make frequent trips to Europe and beyond, welcomed the new arrangement that eliminated the long and costly taxi fare to Mirabel. Travelers arriving during the peak period of 5 to 7 p.m., often faced long lineups at customs and the baggage-claim area.
The article reports residents living under new flight paths are anything but pleased. Pointe Claire homeowner Louise Sauve said that her house was nearly struck by an El Al 747 on Aug. 5, taking off over de l'Eglise St. where she lives. "I had time to grab my 20-month-old son, and all I thought of was we'll die together," Sauve said. ADM contends the plane passed 700 feet over the home, but Sauve says it was more like 300 feet. "I called ADM and they said it was an improper takeoff, and they were supposed to fine them, but when I called back to see what happened, I was told that it was none of my affair. It's not funny any more; I hate living here now," Sauve said.
The article states St. Laurent councillor Alan DeSousa has been a vocal adversary against airport noise. At the September council meeting, he said, "It is outrageous that ADM brushes aside legitimate complaints from the residents. Any peace and quiet in the evenings and at night has become a thing of the past. I ran into one woman with two small children who was forced to sleep with ear plugs," DeSousa said. "She was worried that she wouldn't hear her children." Yet ADM insists today's planes are quieter than previous year's models and that noise levels have been decreasing. There is also curfew that older and louder planes, such as the DC9 and Boeing 727, from taking off or landing between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Quieter planes, such as the Airbus 320 and Boeing 767 can take off until midnight and land until 1 a.m. DeSousa said that this is not the case. "I hear planes at all hours; this curfew is full of holes like a piece of Swiss cheese. There's a huge amount of frustration in the community," he said.
PUBLICATION: Leicester Mercury
DATE: September 24, 1998
SECTION: Politics: City, Pg.15
BYLINE: Owen Haynes
DATELINE: Leicester, England
The Leicester Mercury reports noise blackspots in Leicester, England, will be targeted as part of pollution research mandated by the European Commission.
According to the article, maps showing levels of noise in different parts of the city will be produced as part of a new European Commission policy. Residents living in the worst areas could get help in fighting noise pollution, according to environment and development chairman Councillor Ted Cassidy. The Commission is instructing every city in Europe with a population of more than 250,000 to draw up the maps by the year 2002. The goal of the maps is to identify areas that have unacceptable levels of traffic noise. Coun. Cassidy said: "This directive gives noise reduction a higher priority than it has ever had before. It will help us to see where the problems are in order to help us lessen the noise problem for people. If an area has a serious problem the council would need to look at how to deal with it."
The article report state of the art measuring devices will be placed in streets to gauge noise. The results will then be used to produce the noise maps. From there, contours, normally used on maps to show the height of land, will indicate which areas are the most noisy. The charts could then be used by planners to assess the impact of potential developments in the various districts. Residents living in particularly noisy areas could also get double glazing or even have trees planted in their streets to shield sounds from cars. But Coun. Cassidy said the Government would need to provide extra cash to pay for noise reduction measures and also reform the rules governing how the money can be used so more people would qualify for help.
PUBLICATION: Orlando Sentinel Tribune
DATE: September 24, 1998
SECTION: Lake Sentinel; Pg. 8B
BYLINE: Linda Florea
DATELINE: Mascotte, Florida
The Orlando Sentinel Tribune reports city council members in Mascotte, Florida, hope to maintain peace and quiet in their community with the recent passage of an anti- noise ordinance.
According to the article, the new ordinance prohibits loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise in the city. Police Chief Gene Wadkins said his department answers 40 to 50 noise complaints every month, usually related to loud stereos, parties, and people racing car engines at night. "Under the state statute, we are required to have a victim sign an affidavit or file a complaint," he said. "Most neighbors will not sign." The new ordinance will make it easier for the police to handle noise complaints because it makes the city the victim, thus doing away with the need for neighbors to sign complaints against one another, he said.
The article reports if an offender refuses to comply or is a habitual offender, he or she can be arrested for violation of the new ordinance, Wadkins said. Then the offender will either be issued a summons or be taken to the Lake County Jail. The new ordinance should be an easy one to live by, the police chief said. "Have the same respect for your neighbors that you would expect them to give to you," he said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: September 24, 1998
SECTION: Metro Lake; Pg. 2; Zone: L; Lake Overnight.
BYLINE: John Flink.
DATELINE: Green Oaks, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports an Illinois town was presented Wednesday night with a state grant to fund a noise-abatement wall along an interstate highway.
According to the article, the Green Oaks Village Board was presented Wednesday night with a $400,000 state grant to build a noise-abatement wall along a portion of Interstate Highway 94. Village officials hope to secure a $200,000 grant from the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs to add to the project. Preliminary engineering plans call for a wall to be built from just north of Illinois Highway 176 along the west side of the tollway for at least a half mile, village officials said.
The article reports State Rep. Corinne Wood (R-Lake Forest), the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, attended Wednesday's meeting to inform the board of the grant. "We're very thankful to Rep. Wood, for her assistance in getting this grant," said Thomas Adams, Green Oaks village president. "No village money will be used for this project." The noise wall could be made out of fiberglass, wood, stone or a new material being pioneered by an Illinois company that uses recycled tires to enhance the sound-deadening quality, Adams said.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: North Phoenix Community; Pg. 10
BYLINE: Jennifer Barrett,
DATELINE: Glendale, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Elaine Scruggs, mayor
The Arizona Republic reports Glendale, Arizona's, City Council is considering a number of noise-reduction measures to protect residents from freeway noise.
According to the article, as more sections of the Agua Fria Freeway have been completed, the amount of traffic and residential development has increased greatly. That means more noise and, potentially, more noise complaints. Currently, there is no policy in Glendale requiring developers to erect noise barriers when they build homes near the freeway, but that will likely change soon. If the City Council succeeds, developers may not only be required to erect walls between the freeway and the homes they hope to build, but they may be required to soundproof the homes as well. Mayor Elaine Scruggs said she would like developers to add extra insulation, dual-pane windows, and other additions to homes near the freeway to dampen traffic noise. In addition, Scruggs wants to extend the area that would fall under those requirements beyond the standard measure of 600 feet from the freeway's edge. "The noise level goes much further than that, and I'm not sure what we can do about that," Scruggs said.
The article reports the city's planning department offered some noise-reduction suggestions to the council last week. If land is being rezoned, the city could address the noise problem by stipulating that the developer agree to provide a sound barrier before the City Council approves the rezoning application. Another way to reduce noise from the freeway would be for the city to amend its zoning ordinance to require the developers to provide the noise buffers, planning director Dean Svoboda said. City Council members could either create a special overlay district around the freeway or add a section to the zoning ordinance that addresses freeway development standards.
The article states while sound walls have been put up along the freeway, there are gaping holes between some of them. The Arizona Department of Transportation will erect the noise barriers for existing neighborhoods beside proposed freeway routes, but many of the homes along the section of the highway in northern Glendale didn't exist when the state mapped out the planned freeway in the mid-1980s. The city, the developer, and, in at least one case, a homeowners association have paid for the walls. The council hopes to change that by amending its ordinance. It has asked staff members to examine the solutions and draw up possible amendments to the zoning ordinance. There is added incentive to act now as construction begins on the final portion of the freeway. That final stretch should be completed by the end of 2000. Traffic along the area, which now runs from Interstate 17 to just south of Northern Avenue, is estimated at 42,000 vehicles per day. The Maricopa Association of Governments predicts traffic could nearly triple over the next 20 years.
According to the article, Glendale City Manager Martin Vanacour said the city receives some noise complaints from residents who live near sections of the freeway where there are no sound barriers. City Councilman Manny Martinez lives about a half-mile from the northern stretch of the freeway. He said he only hears the buzz of traffic when he walks outside to get the morning paper, but he has fielded complaints from some residents who live closer to the freeway. In response to some complaints, one of the noise walls was raised an additional 4 feet. Martinez said he has received few complaints since, but he would like to have a policy in place to deal with future development.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Heather Ryndak
DATELINE: South Elgin, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Ostdick, resident
The Chicago Daily Herald reports noisy truck traffic through east-side residential streets in South Elgin, Illinois, may come to an end depending on the results of a village truck-traffic study.
According to the article, the study will examine the existing truck-traffic patterns, number of residents and schools affected, pavement conditions and widths, lengths of routes, current speeds and existing vehicle restrictions. Village board members are asking for three alternatives based on the study: no truck traffic, no restrictions on truck traffic, and recommended truck routes. "We want to have both sides of the three alternatives so that we can choose an ordinance based on the facts," said Village President Rick Zirk. "We don't want another weak ordinance that's not enforceable and filled with loopholes." Results of the study, being developed by the village public works and police departments, as well as an engineering firm, should be available by the Oct. 5 board meeting, police Chief Larry Jones said.
The article reports Jim Ostdick, who lives two houses east of the heavily traveled Gilbert Street, said he hopes the village will abolish truck routes on the east side. "I put up with the noise and air pollution six days a week," Ostdick said. "It starts at 6 a.m. and ends around 4 p.m. When the trucks hit the repair patches, it sounds like a drum. I'm retired, and I'd like to sleep in, but I can't. Our roads are not built to carry the 72,000-pound gravel haulers." If trucks are not completely banned, Ostdick said the village should establish weight restrictions on certain streets.
The article states some business owners and village officials say rerouting trucks will cause local companies to lose business if vehicles don't have access to roads that easily lead to their property. The current ordinance predates the recent trucking boom. South Elgin adopted its truck ordinance in 1991, before three gravel mines, a blacktop plant and a terminal for a major trucking company sprouted up in town.
PUBLICATION: The Evening Standard
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: News; Local; Pg. 3
BYLINE: John Myers
DATELINE: Palmerston North, New Zealand
The Evening Standard reports at a meeting about airport generated noise attended by ratepayers and representatives from the Palmerston North city council, airport company, and Fieldair Engineering, New Zealanders' main message was, "Let's curb noise now."
According to the article, a noise-reduction enclosure for night-time aircraft engine testing at Palmerston North International Airport should halve the perceived noise surrounding residents are getting now -- so why not do it now rather than 2001? This was one of the messages from about 65 ratepayers on Monday night. Challenged to take the view that a noise enclosure was an airport asset, rather than just a Fieldair responsibility, and build it now, airport chief executive Garry Goodman said that as soon as there was an element of certainty in the planning requirements, that approach could be considered. As the district plan now stood, it was possible a house could yet be built even closer to the area of the airport now favored for engine testing. Since the proposed lower sound levels were required to be monitored at the nearest residential boundary to the engine test location, a new house could have a major impact on the necessary efficiency of the enclosure. A number in the audience reacted strongly to the proposal not to immediately cut engine testing noise, but to reach a "best practical option" solution under the Resource Management Act, and set limits to accommodate what is at present happening, pending the proposed January 2001 reduction.
The article reported a statement that the airport company currently had sound monitoring equipment in place so that noise episodes could be logged and people could query the figures to get a feeling for the noise levels, was welcomed. There was concern that ratepayer worries, expressed as a need to reduce the noise level in the environment, were being responded to in terms of a need to run and expand a commercial operation. The value of the meeting for many present was reduced by the difficulty in translating figures and formulae in a proposed standard into a noise they can comprehend. As one woman said: "We've asked for examples of what noise makes what decibel level. Until we have some idea, we're talking in the dark."
The article states a number of assurances were made at the meeting: (1) There will be no more night-time engine testing by Fieldair than there is now -- either in terms of noise level, noise duration, or episodes of testing per night. (2) Engine testing at night is required when scheduled airliners are serviced. There is no anticipation of any greater need for this kind of work to be done at Palmerston North -- regardless of airport commercial growth. (3) The objective is reduced noise by January 2001. It could be sooner. (4) The testing that is done will have to meet the specified noise energy limit expressed as an average for the hour (65dBA before January 2001 and never above 80dBA, 55dBA after January 2001, and never above 70dBA). As the noise level rises toward the maximum, the time limit shortens rapidly. There is a one episode a month exception proposed. (5) A complaint logging system has been established by Fieldair, to be set against the airport company's noise level monitoring results, in order to build information on test activities, conditions and test locations which bring resident reaction.
PUBLICATION: Grimsby Evening Telegraph
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: Pollution: Noise, Pg.6
DATELINE: East Lindsey, England
The Grimsby Evening Telegraph reports noise pollution is becoming an increasing problem in East Lindsey, England, as residents become less tolerant of certain kinds of noise.
According to the article, the number of noise complaints to the district council has risen from 434 in 1994 to 676 last year. According to a report, the complaints fell into three categories: domestic noise (for example, the loud voices of neighbors or children playing); non-domestic noise (such as amplified music in pubs and clubs); and dogs barking.
The article reports lower tolerance levels are also thought to be a factor in the rise in complaints. The report says that environmental health officers can often sort out problems between neighbors on an informal basis by discussion with both parties. Although formal action is seldom necessary, the council did recently prosecute a resident in Louth who persisted in playing loud music day and night.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: September 23, 1998
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: William Weir
DATELINE: Clinton, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Sharon Callahan, resident; Andrea and James McCarthy, residents; Frederick Perotti, resident
The Hartford Courant reports close to 100 Connecticut residents who live along a stretch of I-95 have signed a petition calling for an investigation of escalating noise along the highway.
According to the article, resident Sharon Callahan says when you live near I-95, quiet doesn't happen often. "There has not been a time in the 21 years that there hasn't been major construction," she said. "It's just one project after another." Callahan is one of 93 residents who live along a stretch of the highway, on the side of the southbound lane in town, who have signed a petition calling for "an investigation of the escalating noise situation from the traffic on I-95." The petition claims that the removal of several trees between the highway and the residences has caused much of the noise increase. In place of the trees, the petitioners are asking for a sound barrier.
The article reports after receiving the petition, First Selectman James McCusker sent a letter Monday to James Sullivan, commissioner of the state Department of Transportation. Casinos and tourism have increased traffic greatly in recent years, McCusker said in the letter, and the noise "has become extremely bothersome to residents in the immediate area of Interstate 95. I personally take issue to any negative impact on our quality of life," wrote McCusker, who estimated that most of the residents who signed the petition live about 50 feet from the highway. DOT officials could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
The article states although there has always been noise from the highway, many residents say the noise levels increased significantly in the last couple of years. "It's like living near the Indy 500," said Andrea McCarthy, who organized the petition with her husband, James McCarthy. After living in the area for several years, they had gotten used to the noise and were able to tune it out, she said. But with new construction and the removal of the trees, she said the noise is intolerable. "They went out there and chopped what I call a natural sound barrier," she said. Frederick Perotti, who lives on Tamarack Drive, said a sound barrier put up along the highway between exits 62 and 63 might bring the noise down at least to a tolerable level. The noise levels vary, depending on the weather, the amount of traffic and other circumstances, Perotti said, and at times, it's loud enough to wake him up. After the leaves fall off the trees that are still there, he said, it gets even louder.
PUBLICATION: Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV)
DATE: September 25, 1998
SECTION: D; Pg. 1D
BYLINE: Steve Tetreault
DATELINE: Washington, DC
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports Congress was told Thursday by consultants to the air tour industry that National Park Service noise studies are seriously flawed.
According to the article, one canyon supervisor did acknowledge weaknesses in the work determining when and where tourist aircraft can fly over the Grand Canyon. Robert Arnberger, superintendent at Grand Canyon National Park, told a House public lands subcommittee the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration are developing new models to better measure sound in the canyon. "I don't think the science of noise measurements over a natural resource is as finely tuned as some of us had hoped," Arnberger said. However, the Park Service official said he didn't think that should delay new park regulations that will expand off-limit air space to tour airplanes and helicopters. But an air tour executive, backed by a scientist who conducted a noise study for the industry, said new overflight rules should be set aside. "This process should be put on hold until we get accurate data," said Elling Halvorson, owner of a tour helicopter business and part owner of Grand Canyon Airlines.
The article reports at issue are Park Service noise studies that Congress required by law in 1987. Acoustical research was conducted between 1989 and 1993, and the agency sent a report to Capitol Hill in 1994. The report concluded that overflight rules needed to be strengthened to achieve "substantial restoration of natural quiet" over the canyon. "Natural quiet" meant half the park or more needed to be free of aircraft sounds for 75 percent to 100 percent of the day. Consequently, the FAA set curfews on overflights, limited the number of craft that could fly over the region, and mandated the phase-out of noisier aircraft. Still being developed are new air routes to expand the "no flight" portions of the park.
The article states the air tour industry, based in Las Vegas, challenged the new regulations in a federal lawsuit, but lost in a ruling that came earlier this month. Lawmakers were told Thursday that Park Service officials manipulated the early studies. An acoustical engineer who was an agency consultant at the time said it became clear the Park Service was not happy with early research. "These results did not support the preconceived notion that the parks, and the Grand Canyon in particular, had a serious natural quiet problem," said Robin T. Harrison. At Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, the only people who seemed to be concerned about overflight noise were park employees, he said. "They wanted to be sure that I knew what an unbearable racket they were forced to put up with," he said.
According to the article, air tour owner Halvorson said he paid for his own study after spotting anti-overflight bias in the Park Service report. "As certain as I stand before you today, I can assure you beyond any doubt there are hundreds of square miles of the Grand Canyon where touring aircraft cannot be heard," he said. "The flawed study has misled Congress, the press and the public regarding the impact of touring aircraft in the Grand Canyon." The industry study was conducted by John Alberti, an aircraft acoustical engineer from Seattle. It was reviewed by an aerospace engineer hired by the helicopter industry. Alberti told lawmakers the Park Service report contained significant errors and invalid assumptions that tended to overstate the noise problem. In one case, he said, the government altered software coding in a way that overstated sound levels. Halvorson said he brought the study to the Park Service, but nothing happened until it surfaced earlier this year at a field hearing in Utah and was brought to the attention of Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah, the subcommittee chairman. Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., wanted to know why overflights are still an issue after park superintendent Arnberger told lawmakers only between 70 and 78 noise complaints were filed by visitors over the past two years. About 5 million tourists visit the Grand Canyon each year. "A lot of this is coming from people who are being the most extreme of the extremists on this issue," Duncan said of the push to restrict tour aircraft.
Previous week: September 13, 1998
Next week: September 27, 1998
Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
Industrial/Manufacturing
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Lawsuits
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
Regulation
Residential and Community Noise
Snowmobile and ATV Noise
Research and Studies
Technological Solutions to Noise
Transportation Related Noise
Violence and Noise
Watercraft Noise
Workplace Noise
Chronological Index
Geographical Index