PUBLICATION: Financial Times (London)
DATE: February 11, 1999
SECTION: International; Pg. 04
BYLINE: Neil Buckley
DATELINE: London, England
The Financial Times reports the European Union's transport commissioner yesterday rejected US attempts to delay EU legislation that would restrict the use of older, noisier aircraft in EU airspace.
According to the article, Neil Kinnock insisted that proposed rules to restrict older, noisier aircraft in the EU after April, even if fitted with engine mufflers or "hush-kits", were not discriminatory and did not violate any of the EU's agreements with the US. The European parliament yesterday approved the rules, making likely their final adoption by EU ministers next month. Kinnock said there was growing European pressure to reduce noise around congested airports. Kinnock's comments came after three senior members of the US administration wrote to Brussels warning that the legislation could result in the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars of aircraft and equipment orders. Charlene Barshefsky, US trade representative, William Daley, commerce secretary, and Rodney Slater, secretary of transportation, warned that the rules could have a "profound impact" on EU-US relations.
The article reports this US attempt to force the EU to delay the measures risks turning the issue into another in a series of transatlantic trade disagreements. "Local authorities and national governments are already introducing noise stipulations which risk fragmenting the market," Kinnock warned. "It is better to have EU regulation that would ensure there was transparency." Kinnock added that it was in the interests of passenger safety to encourage investment in new aircraft rather than maintaining fleets of aging, hush-kitted aircraft. The EU rules would "freeze" hush-kitted aircraft registered in the EU as of April, and would ban from April 2002 similar aircraft registered in third countries that were not already operating before April 1999.
The article states EU officials said the US had been fully informed of the EU plan before the legislation and had been given ample opportunity to express its concerns. They added that the rules were also environmentally motivated, with research showing that hush-kitted aircraft use more fuel and create more air pollution than modern aircraft.
PUBLICATION: Agence France Presse
DATE: February 10, 1999
SECTION: Financial Pages
DATELINE: Washington, DC
Agence Presse reports a senior US trade official Tuesday forewarned that a European Union anti- noise directive, which could be approved Wednesday, could threaten one billion dollars' worth of US aircraft and aircraft engine orders.
According to the article, David Aaron, under secretary of commerce for international trade, said a decision by the European Parliament to approve the directive "certainly won't go unanswered." He told reporters, "We'll have to look at our alternatives." The directive would ban all aircraft outfitted with "hush kits" (noise reduction devices found on older planes) beginning April 1, 2002. Hush-kitted aircraft registered outside the European Union but operating there before April 1, 1999, would be allowed to continue.
The article reports a statement issued here Tuesday by the EU's executive commission said studies had shown that aircraft with hush kits are not as environmentally friendly as those with cleaner burning new generation engines. "Hush kits induce weight and performance penalties which translate into 50 percent more fuel consumption on take-off and significantly worse noise standards than current technology aircraft," the commission argued. It noted that while the hush kit approach to noise control may benefit manufacturers of the device, all of which are US-based companies, it is nowhere near as effective in curbing noise and pollution as are newer and less polluting aircraft. The EU commission said European residents had become increasingly outspoken in criticizing noise levels around airports located near densely populated urban centers. "Without an EU regulation," it added, "there is a ... danger that local authorities will be forced to take measures that may cause fragmentation and disruption of the EU aviation market."
The article states Aaron said the United States was asking for a delay on the vote by the European Parliament to allow the parties time to discuss the measure, which would prevent US manufacturers from selling planes with hush kits to European carriers. Northwest Airlines, backed by several other US carriers, has already petitioned the US Department of Transportation to take action against the regulation. In addition to the major carriers, the Commerce Department said Federal Express, United Parcel Service and charter operators are also likely to be effected if the directive is approved.
PUBLICATION: AP Worldstream
DATE: February 10, 1999
SECTION: International News
DATELINE: Strasbourg, France
AP Worldstream reports the European Parliament, against the wishes of the United States, on Wednesday approved a European Union proposal for new standards aimed at reducing aircraft noise and pollution.
According to the article, the proposal has angered the United States, which claims the proposed new rules on plane engines would discriminate against U.S. companies and disregard existing international rules on aircraft noise pollution levels. David Aaron, U.S. undersecretary of commerce for international trade, said in Washington Tuesday that the United States wants more time to discuss the rules, without the pressure of an imminent change. "We don't want to have these consultations while we've got a gun pointed at our heads," Aaron said. EU Transport Commissioner Neil Kinnock said he expects the proposal to be approved by the 15 EU transport ministers when they meet next month. Kinnock proposed last March to phase out the use of aircraft equipped with hush kits in its air space by April 1, 1999. The Commission claims it is acting out of concern for the environment, because while the kits diminish aircraft noise, they don't decrease pollution caused by fuel emissions. Under the proposal, EU airlines will no longer be able to add aircraft with hush kits to their active fleets as of April 1, 1999. The rule change wouldn't affect aircraft registered prior to April 1.
The article reports Washington has trade concerns because all major hush-kit manufacturers are non-European and virtually all hush-kit installations are for aircraft manufactured outside Europe. "Their concerns are misplaced," Kinnock told a news conference in Strasbourg, where the EU Parliament is holding its monthly session. "We rebut their claims in each respect," he said. U.S. airlines are buying hundreds of new planes and placing hush kits on older models because Washington has required that all jets operating in the country meet more stringent noise standards as of Jan. 1, 2000. A similar worldwide requirement goes into effect April 1, 2002. That standard was adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations-based group that works to bring uniformity to global aviation rules. Both the United States and the EU are members of the group. "We share concerns regarding noise at all airports, and believe that the proper approach for addressing those concerns is within the ICAO process, not through unilateral adoption of a design standard," said a letter sent to the EU by Commerce Secretary William M. Daley, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky and Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater.
The article states in this case, as in several other ongoing trade disputes between the EU and the United States, both sides are trading accusations of protectionism. U.S. officials and airlines claim that the EU is attempting to spur sales by Airbus Industries, the European airplane consortium. But last December Kinnock's spokeswoman Sarah Lambert called the U.S. complaint a "thinly-veiled form of commercial protectionism masquerading as environmental concern."
PUBLICATION: Western Daily Press
DATE: February 10, 1999
SECTION: Pg.5
BYLINE: Edward Oldfield
DATELINE: Yeovilton, England
The Western Daily Press reports complaints from villagers in the English countryside about helicopter noise from a nearby air base has prompted a meeting with local officials to address their concerns.
According to the article, squadrons from the Yeovilton air base regularly carry out helicopter training exercises at the abandoned Merryfield airfield near Ilton. Some residents in the hamlet of Rapps, near Ashill, say the noise from the flights is disturbing their lives. But others dismiss the complaints and support the Navy. Now Ashill parish council, at the request of some residents of Rapps, has called a public meeting on Friday night to discuss the flights. Chris Harper, vice-chairman of Ashill parish council, said the meeting was being held to find out the views of people in the area so the council could accurately represent them. Parish council chairman Jerry Wickham said: "It is very controversial. The residents of Rapps think that the helicopter noise is a nuisance. Some of the people in the village agree with the helicopters flying and some don't."
The article reports those backing the Navy, including Tory district councilor Dee-Dee Dobell, say the training is vital, the intrusion is kept to a minimum, and it is closely monitored by the Navy. Councilor Dobell said most people in the area supported the helicopter training. After visiting the airfield, she said: "I think they are doing a wonderful job. They avoid as much of the village settlement as they possibly can. The people who come into the village are well aware that there is an airfield. I went there to find out and came away totally satisfied that they were doing a very good job."
The article states Commander Richard Seymour, community relations officer at the Yeovilton base, said the level of activity at the airfield changed according to training needs. He said: "We try to keep it to a minimum. Obviously you cannot run an air station without noise, but we are aware and very conscious of local concerns. The bottom line is that we have got an important task to fulfill there and we try to do it in the least disruptive manner to the neighbors around both Yeovilton and Merryfield. We do keep our operations there under review. We welcome the meeting and are very keen to hear what people have to say. The key point is really to explain what we do here and how we do it."
PUBLICATION: Anchorage Daily News
DATE: February 9, 1999
SECTION: Nation, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Elizabeth Manning
DATELINE: Anchorage, Alaska
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Cathy Gleason, resident; Laurie Kozisek, member of the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council
The Anchorage Daily News reports communities near the Anchorage International Airport say they're pleased that airport officials are addressing noise; nevertheless, some residents are skeptical the proposed measures will help.
According to the article, Anchorage International Airport has suggested changing flight patterns and soundproofing about 600 homes as part of an airport noise reduction program which recommends 15 ways to cut aircraft noise. Airport officials will present their proposal to the public today. Aircraft noise is of increasing concern for some residents as Anchorage International continues to grow. Since the airport began to increase cargo traffic in the early 1990s, some residents report that noise has increased so much that their windows shake. For Turnagain resident Cathy Gleason, the underlying issue is airport growth. "They wouldn't be leasing land to an air cargo facility if they were trying to minimize noise, " Gleason said.
The article reports other residents are supportive of airport growth since the airport is one of the biggest sources of income and jobs for Anchorage. But some object to proposals that shift noise onto other neighborhoods. One procedure, for example, suggests that planes taking off to the east turn south earlier to minimize the number of people beneath the flight path. Instead of following Seward Highway south, planes would turn sooner. Where they would turn would depend on input from airlines and the FAA, said Maryellen Tuttell, airport noise program manager. But Laurie Kozisek of the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council said she fears the change will cause problems because the people who would be affected weren't expecting to live beneath a flight path. In addition, she fears that some heavy cargo planes might still choose the old route if they can't safely make the turn. That might just spread noise over two corridors, Kozisek said.
The article states a second operational measure would change traffic patterns at night, when people are most susceptible to noise. Instead of departing to the north and arriving from the west as planes usually do, the new pattern would have nighttime flights depart to the west and arrive from the north. Tuttell said the change would minimize noise because it would decrease the number of planes flying over the city, but it limits the number of planes that could land because the airport has only one north-south runway. Other operational changes include asking pilots to alter their thrust settings to decrease engine noise and focusing commuter air traffic over roads instead of over neighborhoods.
The article goes on to report the most important land-use suggestion, according to Tuttell, is a proposal that would require new zoning restrictions in certain neighborhoods identified as particularly noisy last year by the airport. Under the proposal, some development like mobile homes would be prohibited in neighborhoods closest to the airport. Other measures suggest that the airport or city buy residential land using FAA money within an area referred to as 65 DNL -- a measurement that averages sounds people hear in a 24-hour period. According to a 1997 study, there are 37 acres of vacant land within that noise area. Another suggestion is to soundproof homes within the same area. That would mean paying for better insulation and different doors and windows, Tuttell said. To make those changes to private homes, the airport will request $14 million from the FAA over a period of several years. The airport also wants to study ground noise and the possibility of installing sound buffers or barriers to cut back on noise from ground maintenance on airplanes. The proposal asks for $75,000 to complete that study.
According to the article, many of the land use suggestions require cooperation from the municipality to change city code. City planner Jerry Weaver said many of the ideas are good ones, but he said the airport should be taking more responsibility to craft ordinances that would change city codes. "We're not adverse to working with the airport but we think they should do more of the work," Weaver said. "The way it's written now it puts the emphasis on the municipality."
The article reports Tuttell said the airport will incorporate suggestions from the public into the plan and forward it to the FAA. Ultimately, the FAA will decide which ideas it thinks Anchorage should implement. Tuttell said the FAA has spent $2.2 billion since 1979 to reduce noise at airports across the country.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: February 9, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Charleston, West Virginia
The Associated Press reports the Virginia Senate approved a proposal to give county commissioners in their state the power to control excessive noise.
According to the article, the measure grants to the state's 55 county commissions a power already given to cities to control noise. County commissioners could decide whether to impose jail sentences or fines for violations. The bill sets the maximum fine at $250 for a first offense. For second and subsequent offenses, the fine could be up to $500, and the violator could be jailed for up to 30 days.
The article reports Senate Judiciary Chairman Bill Wooton, D-Raleigh, said the bill could not be applied retroactively to existing businesses like shooting ranges.
The article states the Senate unanimously approved the bill, SB403, on Monday and sent it to the House of Delegates.
PUBLICATION: Orlando Sentinel Tribune
DATE: February 9, 1999
SECTION: Living; Pg. E1
BYLINE: Sheila Anne Feeney
DATELINE: New York, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Nancy Nadler, director of the League for the Hard of Hearing's Noise Center
The Orlando Sentinel Tribune reports before Americans turn up the volume, they may want to consider how excessive sound can damage hearing.
According to the article, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association says 35 percent of the 28 million cases of hearing loss in the United States are wholly or partially attributable to noise exposure. Nancy Nadler, director of the League for the Hard of Hearing's Noise Center, suspects that hearing loss is occurring at "younger and younger ages" because people are being bombarded by loudness: pounding music in health and dance clubs; overamped, personal stereos; and movie soundtracks that sometimes reach 120 decibels. Hearing loss is insidious, irreversible and isolating. Nadler compares the 30,000 tiny nerve fibers inside each cochlea-the spiral-shaped cavity of the inner ear-to a shag carpet. If you simply walk on the rug any number of times, the fluffy nap can be restored with a vacuuming. But if you leave a piece of heavy furniture on the rug for a long while, those fibers are dead and cannot be restored no matter how much you vacuum. Also, "sun exposure is the perfect analogy when you talk about hearing loss," says Nadler. In both cases, we're not punished for the crimes of our youth until years later. And by the time we learn the high price exacted by earlier exposures, we are powerless to reverse the damage.
The article states the ears are shaped like funnels to collect sound, says Dr. J. Thomas Roland Jr., assistant professor of otolaryngology and director of otology/neurotology at the New York University School of Medicine. As the sound travels down the ear canal, it causes the eardrum to vibrate. These vibrations then travel to the three bones in the middle ear-the malleus, incus and stapes, which are also known as "the hammer, anvil and stirrup." The stapes footplate transmits these sounds into the fluids of the cochlea, where three outer sets and one inner set of hair cells bend in response and create a charge that stimulates the nerve endings on the bottom of each cell. That is the signal that the auditory nerve carries up to the brain and cortex, which decodes the noise into what we recognize as particular sounds such as the cry of a baby or a piece of music. Unlike muscles, the cochlea's nerve cells burn out with repeated stress. Genetics is also a factor in whether and how fast our hearing erodes, but "part of the reason we lose hearing with age is due to the constant bombardment" of noise onto these delicate hair cells, Roland says.
The article reports because people are less inclined to flee from loud music that they find enjoyable than from displeasing sounds, they set themselves up for more long-term harm. The ears adapt to the environment by, in effect, anesthetizing themselves. In fact, it's a sign that hearing loss probably already is occurring when the ears stop registering pain or ringing after loud exposures, Hull says. That ringing in the ears-known as tinnitus-is also a signal that your hearing has been damaged, Roland says. In some cases, the disorder becomes permanent. "Fifty million Americans have tinnitus. That's even more common than hearing loss," Roland says. Then the vicious cycle: One day you start asking people to speak up. Then neighbors complain that the sound from your television is annoying those in adjacent units and the common areas of your apartment building. Soon, you need everything to be louder to enjoy or even understand it, and the louder it is the more damage accrues.
PUBLICATION: Orlando Sentinel Tribune
DATE: February 9, 1999
SECTION: Local & State; Pg. D1
BYLINE: Mary Brooks
DATELINE: Longwood, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Tom Hockaday, resident; Frank Shelton, resident; Linda Mandelbaum, resident
The Orlando Sentinel Tribune reports noise and the loss of trees and property are the primary concerns of residents from Longwood, Florida, who live along busy Interstate 4.
According to the article, Tom Hockaday was among the residents Monday night who shook their heads over what Interstate 4 noise will be like when the highway is overhauled in the next 30 years. "You can hear the traffic now, especially in the winter when all the foliage is gone," he said. "When we first moved here, there was hardly any of this traffic." About 75 people met in Longwood to learn more about long-term plans the state has to expand I-4. The state Department of Transportation is planning $2 billion in construction on I-4 in the next three decades from Polk County to Daytona Beach. Residents who paid high prices for homes on large lots were angry that the plans don't call for walls to block noise from their property. State officials said there aren't enough homes to justify a wall. "You're saying the more expensive the neighborhood, the less likely they can be shielded by a wall-that's wrong," argued Frank Shelton, a Markham Woods Road resident. Officials told residents there are about 20 standards that have to be met to justify building a wall. "We're not proposing to double the traffic, so we're not even increasing the noise 3 decibels in most places along the highway," consultant Mike Adams said.
The article states many residents were upset that DOT had not replaced the trees that were cut down during the recent widening of a section of I-4. "They totally destroyed the vegetation between Markham Woods Road and the freeway," resident Linda Mandelbaum said. "Now they stare at the cars going by outside their living room windows. Those are fairly expensive homes. Just imagine trying to resell one of those now." DOT spokesman Steve Homan said pine saplings had been planted in the area.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: February 9, 1999
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 2; Zone: NW; Overnight News.
BYLINE: Danielle Tullier
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dwight Walton, Arlington Heights village trustee
The Chicago Tribune reports village trustees in Arlington Heights, Illinois, asked residents to voice their concerns over aircraft noise and pressure state legislators about quality-of-life issues.
According to the article, the trustees' request came after reviewing the proposed strategic plan of the village's Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise on Monday night. Citing noise -monitor data showing the number of incidents in which aircraft noise levels exceed the 62-decibel average, Trustee Dwight Walton said, "When you have 4,000 to 5,000 incidents per month above the average noise level, that's not in the realm of being picky. That's in the realm of a threshold of pain."
The article reports the strategic plan calls for airlines to phase out all older, noisier, "Stage 2" planes by Jan. 1, 2000; to keep flight operations at current levels and not add any new runways at O'Hare; and compliance with the "Fly Quiet" program that directs nighttime departures over unpopulated areas. The committee will meet again Feb. 16 to discuss issues raised by Mayor Richard Daley's plan for new terminals at O'Hare and a proposal to lift hourly flight caps.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: February 9, 1999
SECTION: Metro Chicago; Pg. 1; Zone: N
BYLINE: Rogers Worthington and John Schmeltzer; Ron Eckstein
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Stephen Daday, chairman of the Arlington Heights Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise; Jack Saporito, president of the anti- noise Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare; Arlene Mulder, Arlington Heights mayor and chairwoman of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission
The Chicago Tribune reports federal transportation officials called Monday for lifting the cap on hourly flights at O'Hare International Airport, a limit that nearby suburbs see as one of their strongest defenses against more jet noise.
According to the article, the proposal would abolish in five years the "high-density" rule, which limits O'Hare to no more than 155 incoming and outgoing flights an hour between 6:30 a.m. and 9:45 p.m. The plan, which also would apply to New York's John F. Kennedy International and LaGuardia Airports, is contained in a proposal dealing with the Federal Aviation Administration that the Clinton administration intends to push in Congress this spring. Touted as an effort to increase air service to smaller cities and rural areas, the Clinton administration's proposal would exempt regional commuter jets with 70 seats or less from the high-density rule starting next year. But the restriction dealing with noisier, larger planes wouldn't end until 2004.
The article reports news of the plan raised concerns Monday in the suburbs surrounding O'Hare. "This is serious, in our opinion. The high-density rule has been one of the things the city has continuously pointed to in saying there was no way they could add more flights at O'Hare," said Stephen Daday, chairman of the Arlington Heights Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise. Jack Saporito, president of the anti- noise Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, said lifting the rule could end talk of building a third major Chicago-area airport. "It opens the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of more flights at O'Hare," he said. Arlington Heights Mayor Arlene Mulder, chairwoman of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, said members of the city-suburban group plan to seek meetings with Illinois' representatives in Congress to discuss concerns over the proposal. She predicted a fight over the measure.
The article states questions about the Washington plan also came from less-vocal critics of O'Hare. "You can have an economic engine, which is well and good. But at some time and place you reach the point where the engine has to slow down. I think maybe we're close to that now if Congress lifts that restriction," said Gerald "Skip" Farley, mayor of Mt. Prospect and a member of the city-suburban O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. Even Richard Adorjan, a spokesman for the Illinois Department of Transportation, raised the possibility of more delays at O'Hare if the Clinton administration's plan goes through. "If you have a 20-minute delay now, you will go to 40 minutes," he said. Building a new regional airport in the far south suburbs, a plan supported by Gov. George Ryan, is a better idea, Adorjan said. O'Hare's two largest carriers, American Airlines and United Airlines, declined to comment Monday on the legislation.
According to the article, four years ago, the U.S. Department of Transportation rejected a plan to drop the high-density rule on grounds that it would double delays at O'Hare, the reason the rule was created in 1968. But Monday, department officials called their earlier analysis the product of a different era, when there was concern that lifting the rule would further cheapen air fares and damage an already financially weak airline industry. Chicago Department of Aviation Commissioner Mary Rose Loney said Monday that she doesn't think lifting the rule will lead to an increase in traffic beyond the minimal annual growth in arrivals and departures that the city has predicted through 2012. Loney also predicted that lifting the rule could benefit O'Hare's suburban neighbors by reducing flights during the early morning and late evening, when the rule isn't in effect. "Carriers may choose to fly those flights during daylight hours at times that previously may not have been available because of the rule," Loney said.
PUBLICATION: Asahi News Service
DATE: February 8, 1999
DATELINE: Tokyo, Japan
Asahi News Service published an editorial by Asahi Shimbun that says with traffic noise pollution in Japan shows no signs of abating, the government should not ease noise standards.
According to the editorial, of the 5,000 sites across Japan recently monitored for noise, only slightly more than 10 percent meet the allowable noise levels set by the government. Nevertheless, new standards set to take effect in April are more liberal than the current ones. The new rules make special provisions for areas along expressways, national roads, prefectural roads and municipal and village roads with four or more lanes. These areas are designated "areas near trunk roads." Traffic noise in these areas will be subject to more tolerant standards than in other areas. Noise levels will be deemed allowable if they do not exceed new indoor and outdoor standards. Noise pollution is most serious in areas along heavy-traffic trunk roads. The Environment Agency says standards in these areas have been relaxed because, in a heavily populated country like Japan, there are "physical and technical limits to outdoor anti- noise measures."
The editorial states, "That does not make sense at all. Easing the standards just because they are difficult to achieve is putting the cart before the horse. It looks as if the agency does not want to do anything to reduce noise pollution." The new standards exceed the 65 decibel maximum allowable limit suggested in a1995 ruling by the Supreme Court in a suit filed by residents living along National Route 43. In cases where people live within 20 meters of roads, the ruling set a stricter limit of 60 decibels, taking into consideration the health effects on the residents. The agency's new night and daytime standards for outdoor noise in areas along trunk roads are 65 decibels and 70 decibels respectively. "There is also much to be said against the new indoor standard. If more outdoor noise is permitted as long as indoor noise falls within the prescribed limit, residents may be forced to live behind closed doors."
The editorial suggests the Environment Agency didn't set out to establish new standards that ignore the Supreme Court ruling. "The revisions are based on a division within the Central Environment Council, an advisory panel to the director-general of the Environment Agency." Unofficial minutes of council meetings indicate that the agency initially tried to set a maximum limit in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. "But in the course of deliberations, the agency retreated in the face of strong objections from hard-line members. They argued that standards should be set within achievable limits and that too stringent standards would make it practically impossible to build new roads." The agency says that the Supreme Court ruling is "not immediately binding" because it is a "separate case." According to the editorial, "This sounds like a lame excuse."
The editorial says if the existing standards are to be achieved across the nation, it will require reducing the number of lanes, limiting traffic, using low- noise pavement and soundproof walls, and other measures. "The agency, however, seems unwilling to take such drastic steps. Instead, it seems to want to maintain current levels of traffic and to allow more road construction. This, we reckon, is at the heart of the special provisions for 'areas near trunk roads.'" The editorial adds, "Another problem is that discussions at the council division on noise and vibration were conducted behind closed doors."
According to the editorial, "the Environmental Basic Law defines environmental standards as 'standards that should be maintained in order to protect people's health and to preserve the living environment.' The government's role is to take the necessary steps to achieve these standards. The Environmental Agency needs to return to the basics of environmental protection. It should reconsider its new noise limits."
PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: February 8, 1999
SECTION: News; Page A18
BYLINE: Mohamad Bazzi
DATELINE: New York, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rose Marie Poveromo, president of the United Community Civic Association; Claire Shulman, president of Queens Borough
Newsday reports, civic leaders and politicians from Queens, New York are protesting the Clinton administration's plan to end limits on the number of daily flights at LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports, saying the measure will only bring more noise, pollution and congestion.
According to the article, the Department of Transportation today plans to ask Congress to phase out over five years its High Density Rule, which limits the number of departures and arrivals. The measure will allow smaller airlines to enter the New York market and reduce airfares, but those who live near the airports say their quality of life is being ignored. "The federal government is thinking about commerce and industry," said Rose Marie Poveromo, president of the United Community Civic Association, which covers areas near LaGuardia Airport. "They're not thinking about the health and well-being of the people who live around the airports." Poveromo said her group plans to spearhead a letter-writing campaign to President Bill Clinton. "This airport is already a burden on the community," Poveromo added, citing rising asthma rates and other problems associated with air and noise pollution. "We've been crying for years to have some of the flights taken away from LaGuardia." A spokesman for Queens Borough President Claire Shulman said yesterday, "There's no way that I'm supporting this. The skies are already crowded." Shulman said nearly 150,000 people live around LaGuardia, an area where average daily noise levels exceed 65 decibels, the maximum amount of noise recommended for residential areas under FAA guidelines.
The article reports Shulman also said she would oppose an application by a new low-cost airline, called New Air, for 25 slot exemptions at Kennedy Airport each year for the next three years. A slot is one takeoff or landing. Officials at New Air and the Transportation Department could not be reached yesterday. A spokeswoman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs both Queens airports, said the agency has had discussions with New Air officials about terminal space at Kennedy. "We're very excited that they could come in and lower fares," said the spokeswoman, Terry Benczik.
The article states since 1968, LaGuardia, Kennedy, Chicago's O'Hare and Reagan National airport in Washington, DC, have been the only airports in the country with a restricted number of slots dictated by the Federal Aviation Administration. Nearly all the slots are held by major airlines, which critics argue stifles competition by preventing smaller carriers from entering large markets. Airlines who hold slots can sell or lease them, but they're not always available, and the selling price of up to $3 million per slot is often not feasible for smaller airlines.
According to the article, in 1994, Congress gave the Transportation Department the authority to grant exemptions to the density rule only if the added flights are in the "public interest" and there are "exceptional" circumstances warranting the exemption. Since then, the agency has granted 30 exemptions at LaGuardia and none at Kennedy. After the Transportation Department granted the first exemptions at LaGuardia in 1997, Shulman and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued in federal appeals court. A panel of judges upheld the department's decision last year, saying it paved the way for lower airfares. A spokesman for Giuliani said yesterday the mayor's office has not seen details of the plan to phase out the limits.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: February 8, 1999
SECTION: West Post, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Chris Carroll
DATELINE: Sunset Hills, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Alberta Seay, resident; Edwin Kadlec, resident
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports residents disagree about a sound wall the Missouri Department of Transportation is building between the highway and their neighborhood.
According to the article, Bridle Trail Lane in Sunset Hills, Missouri, is a street plagued by highway noise. Interstate 270 runs parallel, just yards away from part of the street, and rush hour noise fills the neighborhood morning and evening. Federal Highway Administration guidelines require that when a highway such as Interstate 270 is expanded or widened, the state conduct noise studies and, if noise abatement is found to be needed, allow residents to vote on constructing concrete walls or other sound-reflecting devices. The planned concrete wall is designed to reduce noise by at least 5 decibels which could mean the difference between speaking and yelling for residents when they are in their back yards, officials say. Resident Edwin Kadlec said, "I wanted that wall built, and I think we all did. We like it; we just wish it were five feet higher." Though noise reduction is universally popular, not everyone likes the walls.
The article reports James Praprotnik, an architect, purposefully designed his family's house on the crest of a hill overlooking the highway. "We designed our home to take advantage of the vista in both directions and to take advantage of the sunset," he said. "When we walk our dog down the street, you can see over to (Highway) 44 and way out to Maritz in Fenton. Now they've taken that away." Though he's lost much of his view, Praprotnik could be successful at least in saving the sunsets that shine into his living room. State engineers have agreed to leave an opening in the wall, and Praprotnik is negotiating to keep the opening as wide as possible. Praprotnik submitted plans for stepped planter boxes that would deaden road noise and look attractive at the same time. The walls have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood, he says.
The article states besides Praprotnik, other residents agree that whatever can be done to reduce the thunderous road noise is well worth it. Alberta Seay, who also lives on Bridle Trail Lane, says the noise has grown worse as the traffic on Interstate 270 has grown. "It's quieter now than it was, and if they ever get those gaps closed, it will be even better."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: February 7, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 5
BYLINE: Robert C. Herguth
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports the DuPage County state's attorney's office has stepped into the legal battle between the city of Chicago and a private school system which sued for funds to soundproof the schools against noise from O'Hare International Airport.
According to the article, the state's attorney's office filed a motion in DuPage County Circuit Court last week to enter the 1997 lawsuit on the side of Elmhurst's Immaculate Conception schools, said attorney Joe Karaganis, who is representing the grade school and high school affected by O'Hare International Airport noise. A judge will soon rule on the motion, he said.
The article states Immaculate Conception wants Chicago, which owns O'Hare, to pay the full cost of soundproofing, which could be $10 million. The city has offered to settle for much less. "The city is willing to pay I.C. millions of dollars to soundproof educational areas," said Chicago aviation spokesman Dennis Culloton. "But I.C. and the Joliet Diocese believe that other areas where children are not educated need to be soundproofed."
The article reports in reference to the state's attorney's action, Culloton said, "This also raises interesting issues for the taxpayers of DuPage County. They will be underwriting this lawsuit, representing a religious institution."
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News
DATE: February 7, 1999
SECTION: Special; Pg. 1R
BYLINE: Marice Richter
DATELINE: Richardson, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Walter Ragsdale, city traffic engineer
The Dallas Morning News reports the city of Richardson, Texas, will test an alternative to train whistles which frequently disturb residents at night..
According to the article, if successful, Richardson would be among the first cities in the nation to ban loud train whistles that often blare through neighborhoods in the middle of the night, officials said. A train whistle ban will not mean sacrificing safety at railroad crossings. City officials want to install automated wayside horns at all eight crossings where freight trains are required by law to blow their horns. "The signal comes from the horns instead of the trains," said City Manager Bill Keffler. "The noise is directed at the crossing and down the track. It will reduce the amount of noise in the neighborhoods by about 96 percent." Train whistles are a major concern in Richardson because the Kansas City Southern Railway line cuts through the city close to neighborhoods and Baylor/Richardson Medical Center. The Dallas Area Rapid Transit rail line that also carries freight traffic runs across northern Richardson. "This is a quality-of-life issue," said city traffic engineer Walter Ragsdale. "Most of our train traffic is at night. It's awfully irritating at 2 or 3 in the morning." Wayside horns are being used successfully at some crossings in Kansas and Nebraska, officials said.
The article states federal law allows cities to designate "quiet zones," where train whistles are replaced with other safety measures, such as the wayside horns, gate systems or median barriers. The gate systems and median barriers prevent motorists from driving into a crossing to beat a train. All these devices are activated in advance of a train's arrival, officials said. Richardson established one quiet zone with median barriers about two years ago. The barriers have proven effective but cost prohibitive, officials said. "We had to relocate medians and make some other improvements," Mr. Ragsdale said. "It cost about $100,000, which is much more expensive than the horns." The pole-mounted horns would cost $25,000 to $30,000 each to install, officials said. Richardson officials said the Federal Railroad Administration supports the city's plan, but a formal agreement between the government agency, DART, the railroad and the city is still pending. "This is an important safety issue for all railroads," said Bill Galligan, a spokesman for Kansas City Southern. "How do you balance the desire of a community to rid itself of a noisy disruption while maintaining the safety of railroad crossings? Our position is to be supportive of Richardson's efforts, and we're optimistic that it will be successful." The sticking point for the railroad is accident liability, Mr. Galligan said. "The city would have to take over some of the liability," he said. "That's what remains to be worked out."
The article goes on to report the city is planning to erect one wayside horn for a 60- to 90-day test of the system's safety. The test horn could be installed at the Custer Road crossing as soon as March. The horns would be programmed to blow when a train is a quarter of a mile away from the crossing, the same distance at which train whistles currently begin blowing. The horns also would have several safeguards, including a backup power source. The horns will signal crossing gates to lower just as they currently do in response to a train whistle. The horns also will have strobe lights on top to alert the train engineer that the system is operating, officials said. "If he doesn't see the light, he'll know to blow his horn," Mr. Ragsdale said. "We all feel confident that this is a very safe system with good safeguards." If the safety test is successful, the city would include funding for seven more horns in the 1999-2000 budget.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 7, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 16; Zones Desk
DATELINE: Encino, California
The Los Angeles Times published letters from California residents speak out about the expansion at Van Nuys Airport. The first letter is from Karl Gottesfeld of Encino who opposes expansion:
"We are told that we have a treasure in our midst, the Van Nuys Airport, a moneymaker for the San Fernando Valley, ("Study Profiles a Major Contributor to Valley Economy," Jan. 24). This would be true if this statement were to come from an industry that does not affect the quality of life of its neighbors. Thank God for the 'small group of emotional activists,' who certainly speak for me and I believe for thousands of residents in this area. What we are trying to drive home here is that an airport like Van Nuys is not compatible with a residential area. The airport is in a very desirable area for which residents pay millions of dollars in property taxes and for services to the city. Further expansion of the airport in its present location will change this situation by making the surrounding area less desirable to live in and reducing its tax base to the great loss of revenue to the city and deterioration of the neighborhood. Los Angeles has plenty of examples to that effect.
"I am not saying to close the airport but to keep this facility to the size and purpose for which it was meant. As for the use of the airport by police and fire department helicopters: There is not only one police station for the entire Valley. This can be shared with other airports, each serving its own immediate area."
The second letter published in this series is written by Jon Rodgers, president, National Air Transportation Oversight Commission, Alameda. Rodgers criticizes a mailing from the group, Stop the Noise, about a tenant at Van Nuys Airport:
"Regarding the Board of Airport Commissioners meeting at Van Nuys: The seriousness of the noise issue, as defined by residents, is such that many persons, including myself, attended from out of the area with the hope of respectfully commenting to the commissioners for two minutes. Unfortunately, many people, including locals on both sides of the issue, could not speak because several elected officials used unlimited time to state their views. One has to wonder if their position would be different if they felt that aviation could muster enough votes to run them out of office.
"Although I did not get the opportunity to speak, nevertheless, your readers may wish to know that a major complaint of a group called Stop the Noise centers around an airport tenant who, in their opinion, is rude because the business 'promotes a user-friendly facility' with a 'staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,' a 'large ramp supporting up to Boeing 727s' and (get this) 'competitive jet fuel prices.' Stop the Noise listed this as 'fact' in an 'urgent community alert' mailer."
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: February 7, 1999
SECTION: Section 1; Page 24; Column 1; National Desk
BYLINE: James Brooke
DATELINE: Grand Lake, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Russell Long, executive director of Bluewater Network; Bob Bruce, resident; Jasper Carlton, executive director of the Biodiversity Legal Foundation
The New York Times reports a coalition of environmental groups in the United States wants to ban snowmobiles from the 28 National Parks that allow them. Noise, air pollution and safety are environmentalists' chief concerns.
According to the article, on January 21, the Bluewater Network took broad aim at snowmobiling, petitioning Secretary Babbitt to close the National Park System to snowmobiles, asking the Environmental Protection Agency to set air and water pollution rules for snowmobiles, asking the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to regulate snowmobiles for creating carbon monoxide health risks to workers, and asking the National Transportation Safety Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to study the high accident rates among snowmobilers. "A small minority of thrill seekers are turning our National Parks into playgrounds at the expense of the majority who would like to keep their National Parks with clean air quality and free of all this noise, " said Russell Long, executive director of Bluewater Network. But the environmental coalition, representing an estimated 1 million members, is up against about 2.5 million Americans, the estimated number of people who ride snowmobiles every winter. The environmentalists' petition highlights increasing conflict between snowmobile riders and cross-country skiers on public lands.
The article reports Yellowstone has become the focus for the environmental groups' attack. Of the six National Park areas that receive more than 1,000 snowmobile visits a winter, 60,110 rode in Yellowstone last winter. At the West Yellowstone entrance to the park, in Montana, carbon monoxide accumulations have caused nausea in park rangers, forcing the park to pump fresh air into ticket booths and to reduce lines of snowmobiles by selling tickets in town. Last month, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality placed an air pollution monitor at West Yellowstone. Yellowstone officials say that the park has already violated Federal air quality standards, sometimes exceeding pollution levels found in Denver, the region's largest city.
The article states meanwhile the $6 billion-a-year snowmobile industry is in the midst of a resurgence. After a in the 1980's, the number of snowmobiles registered in the United States has rebounded to 1.4 million machines, close to the high of 1.6 million in 1978. In the United States, clubs maintain 132,000 miles of snowmobile trails, boosting the economy in dozens of remote towns. In Grand Lake, which claims to be Colorado's Snowmobile Capital, snowmobile rentals add nearly $2 million each season into a town with a winter population of 369. "Before snowmobiling, you could shoot a cannon down Grand Avenue and not hit anybody," Lori Crane, who runs Spirit Lake Polaris and Rentals. Although snowmobile registrations in Colorado have doubled in a decade, to almost 30,000, Ms. Crane believes that there is enough public land for everyone.
According to the article, at issue for many are National Parks where snowmobiles are allowed only on roads or lakes used by cars or boats in the summer. "These are ours -- everybody's -- National Parks and Forests," said Brian Mahony, president of Grand Lake Trail Groomers, a club that grooms 107 miles of snowmobile trails in the National Forest, Colorado's largest trail network. "When you ride over eight feet of snow on the ground, there is, aside from the emissions, no impact." Disagreement comes from Bob Bruce, who owns a cabin near the National Forest. "You have 12-year-old kids driving snowmobiles at 80 miles an hour down roads where you are not supposed to go over 25," said Mr. Bruce. "Over the weekend, the noise is absolutely deafening. There is this whole blue haze that hangs over the National Forest."
The article states snowmobile manufacturers are shifting to biodegradable oils and to gasohol, said Edward J. Klim, president of the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association. This shift can cut hydrocarbon emissions by one third, but Mr. Klim said he suspected that environmental groups would not be satisfied with improvements to air quality. Ken Todd, a snowmobiler in Rocky Mountain National Park said, "The extremists would have the parks shut down to everybody." There is no hidden agenda, said Jasper Carlton, executive director of the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, a Colorado group in the Bluewater Network. "We want snowmobiling out of the National Parks," he said. "The Forest Service is next. When they refuse, we are going to sue them."
The article reports in addition to the environmentalists, public lands managers and the public are fed up with the noise and air pollution from off-road recreational vehicles. In National Forests, not part of the Park System, managers are zoning land for motorized or nonmotorized use. Snowmobiles are still so noisy that they are sold without horns, and their emissions are dirtier than those from 1950's automobiles. A modern snowmobile emits about 225 times the carbon monoxide and 1,000 times the hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides of a modern car, said Dr. Long. In a warning to snowmobile manufacturers, California adopted pollution targets for personal watercraft in December, calling for 75 percent reductions in emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides by 2001. "Many of the personal watercraft manufacturers also make snowmobiles," said Charles Emmett, an engineer for the California Air Resources Board, a state agency charged with controlling air pollution. "So it is likely that they can adopt the same advanced technology." Rated by snowmobile magazines as the nation's top snowmobiling vacation spot, Yellowstone may have the power to force manufacturers to adopt cleaner technologies. John Sacklin, chief planner at Yellowstone National Park in central Wyoming, said, "We are going to try to move towards goals and targets on noise and air pollution."
PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: February 13, 1999
SECTION: Metro/Region; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Brian C. Mooney
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Peter Looney, chairman of the neighborhood council in Charlestown; Bill Falcetano, a college professor from Cambridge
The Boston Globe published an editorial contending that a new runway at Boston's Logan Airport is a done political deal, but only a quick fix. Meanwhile citizens who suffer from airport noise will only suffer more.
According to the editorial, "Stripped of statistics and techno mumbo-jumbo, the fight for a new runway at Logan Airport is an exercise in raw politics." This can be seen in Governor Paul Cellucci's declaration of support at a friendly venue, a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce luncheon. Three hours later, the chamber issued a news release expressing support. "Absent were the working stiffs who actually live under the planes, where supper conversations are silenced by flight noise and whose dinnerware rattles beneath the roaring jets," the editorial stated. Activists are complaining at a series of forums sponsored by the Massachusetts Port Authority, which is pushing the new runway to cut down on chronic, costly flight delays by sending more flights over Boston Harbor. "The people under the planes are the underdogs in this fight . With long memories and short fuses, they are deeply mistrustful of an agency that years ago sent bulldozers first and asked questions later." The editorial say in all fairness, under Director Peter Blute, Massport is a better neighbor. Blute works with leaders in nearby communities and spends millions of Massport dollars for all sorts of worthwhile programs. This buys the agency goodwill and some credibility when Blute and Cellucci tell opponents: "Trust us. We're different."
The editorial contends at this point, the runway looks like a done deal if Massport clears environmental hurdles and can lift a court injunction dating back to the 1970s. Everyone understands Logan's economic importance. But it's a question of who bears the pain, and there's potential here for a wildfire of opposition. "With a new runway, air traffic would decline in some areas but increase dramatically in others. In any event, noise reduction will be temporary and air traffic efficiencies short-term, providing relief for seven to 10 years, at best." Peter Looney, chairman of the neighborhood council in Charlestown, a big loser in a new configuration and an area where grass-roots opposition is spreading, said, "'People are just finding out about that now.'"
The editorial said a few hours after Cellucci spoke with business leaders Thursday, Blute and a group of aides and consultants met with the Airside Review Committee, a mix of antagonistic community representatives and supportive business interests. "About 60 activists also attended, and the air was thick with suspicion and sarcasm." When Blute described "Logan University," a Massport public relations program to explain the runway project to individuals and groups, Bill Falcetano, a college professor from Cambridge, muttered, "'They're receiving BS degrees.'" The editorial concludes, "[I]n all likelihood, the burden of a quick fix for Logan will fall on those who have always suffered, the working stiffs who live under the planes."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 13, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Patrick Mcgreevy
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times reports the Los Angeles City Council voted Friday to ask the Airport Commission to develop a new, balanced approach to reducing noise at Van Nuys Airport.
According to the article, the Los Angeles City Council asked the airport Commission to submit the plan for approval within three months. The council was prepared in 1997 to adopt a rule banning additional older and noisier jets, but delayed action to allow the airport to conduct a study of the effects of such a rule on the economy of the airfield. That study said the effects would be devastating.
The article reports the City Council on Friday adopted a motion directing the Airport Commission to work with the Van Nuys Airport Citizens Advisory Committee to develop noise-reduction plan. Such a plan would aim to balance the need to reduce the nuisance to neighbors with the need to protect the economic output of the airport. The Van Nuys Airport Assn., a coalition of airport tenants, responded positively to the council's action. "Most of the 3,400 people who work at the airport also live in the area," said John Dunn, the association president. "We care about the continued success of Van Nuys Airport because the airport's success is good for the community."
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale)
DATE: February 13, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Jill Rosen;
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports Florida's Boca Raton Airport Authority may hire a public relations firm to improve its image with the public who is fed up with jet noise.
According to the article, when the authority meets next Wednesday, it will discuss hiring a public relations firm. This comes after State Reps. Ron Klein and Kurt Levine, both Boca Raton Democrats, declared the Airport Authority doesn't represent the people and they plan to introduce legislation to change the authority's composition. Contributing to the airport's poor image are people who call by the dozens to complain about jet noise, including one recent caller who threatened to shoot planes out of the sky. Practically every candidate in the race for the City Council has focused on the airport's problems.
The article states Diane Gullo, the airport's new noise abatement and communications officer, said on Friday that a PR firm could help with the airport's image because "the complaints are really starting to mount up." But she also said the airport could use them to promote and explain its forthcoming projects. Those projects include the construction of an air traffic control tower that some people think will only bring more jet traffic to the city. Also planned is a Part 150 Noise Study that some people are anxious for, hoping it will finally prove how unreasonably noisy the airport is. However, the study could show that airport noise is within allowable limits. Gullo said no money has yet been budgeted for public relations, nor has the airport started a bid process.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: February 13, 1999
SECTION: Commentary; Pg. 24; Zone: N; Voice Of The People (Letter)
BYLINE: Robert E. Pochron.
DATELINE: Park Ridge, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune published a letter from Robert E. Pochron of Park Ridge, Illinois, who highlights the health dangers of air and noise pollution dispersed by O'Hare International Airport. Mr. Pochron writes:
"Air pollution and noise pollution caused by airplanes over major cities is a health hazard. One of the largest polluters in Illinois is O'Hare International Airport. Air and noise pollution are more destructive over dense cities.
"Of the hundreds of articles I have read about O'Hare expansion, politicians and the federal government do not address the health topic of air pollution, only noise pollution, to the readers. This seems to be the ignored 'elephant in the living room.'
"Now the Clinton administration intends to lift the caps on flights at major airports, expanding more pollution to our environment (Page 1, Feb. 7)."
"A third airport is desperately needed to decentralize the fumes that we breathe. It seems as though the politicians and government know no limits in filling their political needs and ignoring ours!"
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: February 12, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Concord, New Hampshire
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dan Crean, chairman of Canterbury planning board
The Associated Press State & Local Wire reports the New Hampshire Legislature's decision to enter the traffic and noise dispute between the town of Canterbury and a major speedway raises questions about municipal control.
According to the article, State Sen. Fred King, R-Colebrook, has filed a bill to bypass the Canterbury planning board by giving the state Department of Transportation authority over construction of an access road to the New Hampshire International Speedway. The town gave conditional approval this week for the new road and an 876-car parking lot last month, but required completion of noise and traffic studies before construction could begin. Many Canterbury residents, along with Shaker Village officials, have complained about noise from the track and traffic through town and on the busy highway. The Chairman of the Canterbury planning board, Dan Crean, called the legislation an intrusion on local control. "For local planning boards and land use boards to be deprived of their regulatory control is just a complete misuse of legislative power," Crean said. Crean said he has complained to the New Hampshire Municipal Association, which represents towns and cities.
The article reports the 82,000-seat track (which also is trying to add 9,000 seats) is located in Loudon, but the access road would be in Canterbury. The track has been going through the town approval process for more than a year. The access road would connect with Route 106 north of the track. A similar access road south of the track is credited with speeding traffic in and out of the speedway, which fills to capacity for its two Cup races each summer. Bob Ordway of the Loudon Planning Board said the access road would help reduce traffic in Canterbury. "The bottom line to solve the traffic problem is to make the 106 corridor so attractive to people they won't want to go anywhere else," he said. But he said Canterbury, not the state, should be allowed to decide for itself whether to approve the plan. Transportation Commissioner Leon Kenison said he knew of no other state law that gives him the power to approve or deny a town project. "The politics of it I'm going to leave to others," he said. "There's obviously some gamesmanship going on, and I don't think it's appropriate for the commissioner of transportation to referee that."
The article states Richard Wiebusch, a lawyer representing track owners Bob and Gary Bahre, said they have not decided whether to conduct the traffic and noise studies or to appeal the conditional approval in court. Ed Dupont, a lobbyist for the speedway and former state Senate president, said the bill responds to what the speedway sees as an attempt by Canterbury to control the track's activity in Loudon. "We don't want a long court battle," he said. "We think that the legislation will resolve the issue and get the badly needed access road built as soon as possible." He said the bill is aimed at the access road only.
According to the article, meanwhile, a group of Canterbury residents fighting the 9,000-seat expansion has filed another legal charge in that battle. Scott Hogan, lawyer for the group, contends the expansion violates a Loudon zoning provision that should have limited the track's expansion to 25 percent beyond its starting point. He said the track already had expanded seating capacity by 65 percent since 1990.
PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: February 12, 1999
SECTION: Metro/Region; Pg. B2
BYLINE: Stephanie Ebbert
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mona Thaler, Brookline resident and businesswoman
The Boston Globe reports a proposed new runway at Boston's Logan Airport divides many business leaders from numerous residents who live in the city and its suburbs.
According to the article, while business leaders like the prospect of a new Logan Airport runway reducing air commuter delays, activists from 25 nearby communities last night condemned the plan as a blow to their quality of life. "I'm a bit ashamed at my fellow members . . . [of the business community] for being so shortsighted," said Mona Thaler, a Brookline resident and businesswoman. "I don't believe that the way to a successful Massachusetts economy is to make Boston and the surrounding area an unpleasant, unlivable place." During the meeting last night, the Airside Review Committee - a group of community and business leaders created by Massport in 1995 - business members were almost alone in favoring the proposal. They pointed to the inevitable need for airport growth as a welcome sign of Boston's vibrancy. "This isn't Massport's fault," said Kevin Coen, of the South Shore Chamber of Commerce. "It's not that they're trying to force planes to come here."
The article reports assurances don't change the minds of residents who already feel besieged by airplane noise they say interrupts their sleep and drowns out their telephone calls. They take little comfort in Massport's promise that a new runway would change flight patterns and alleviate the traffic over the hardest-hit neighborhoods. Massport officials assured the group the new runway would not bring more traffic, but would eliminate flight delays. When faced with certain wind patterns, Logan now has just two usable runways, said Tom Kinton, director of aviation. Still, many residents continue to see Massport's promise to redistribute the noise as an effort to divide them. A Milton representative whose town stands to benefit was the only community person to speak optimistically about the altered flight patterns. Instead, many residents urged Massport to take the noise even farther from their backyards; they propose sending flights to Hanscom Air Force Base or Worcester Airport, which Governor Paul Cellucci yesterday proposed taking over.
PUBLICATION: Business Times (Singapore)
DATE: February 12, 1999
SECTION: Singapore At Home & Abroad; Pg. 2
BYLINE: Marissa Chew
DATELINE: Singapore, Asia
The Business Times (Singapore) reports the Singapore Parliament yesterday passed a new bill which gives the Ministry of the Environment (ENV) power to enforce many existing noise, air and ground pollution controls.
According to the article, Minister for the Environment Yeo Cheow Tong assured the House yesterday that the bill was a compilation of parts of existing acts and that new clauses in the bill were already administrative requirements. "So what we have done is to now formalize this by converting those administrative requirements into law .... The enactment of this bill will not in any way change the administration of pollution control in Singapore," he said.
The ENV will have the power to stop work at noisy construction sites and work places if these sites do not comply with notices to control the noise. Yeo Cheow Tong said his ministry would consider adding monitoring noise levels as part of the control officer's duties. The bill will also allow ENV to control air pollution from a broad range of sources, including smoky vehicles and industrial and commercial premises. In addition, the new bill empowers the environment minister to make regulations to require companies to clean up any contamination in their land before they are allowed to change the use of the land. The firms will have to bear the costs of the clean-up.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: February 12, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 4B
BYLINE: Douglas Belkin
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Palm Beach Post reports residents along Florida's State Road 7 object to the aesthetics of federally mandated sound walls that will soon enclose their communities.
According to the article, residents fear the stretch of State Road 7 from Boca Fontana to Boca Gardens may soon resemble a large, enclosed prison. That's what residents believe their communities will look like after nearly 2 miles of 16- and 18-foot concrete walls are erected alongside the road, also known as U.S. 441. Federal rules require the walls be built to block noise when the highway is widened next year from two to six lanes between Glades and Clint Moore roads. Because a portion of the construction money comes from the federal government, the road is subject to federal regulations. Those rules require walls when decibel levels exceed 67 at nearby homes, which engineers expect to occur with the extra traffic. The walls could be kept out only if every property owner along the road signed away their rights to have a wall now or in the future. "And that's not going to happen," said Dave Goodstein of the West Boca Community Council.
The article reports "If (the walls) appear the way they appear on the drawings it's going to look like a penitentiary or a concentration camp or a slum neighborhood," said Alan Grubow, president of the Boca Chase Homeowner's Association. "It's going to turn 441 into a junkyard." At a meeting Tuesday between state transportation engineers and community representatives, Grubow asked the government to plant vines on the walls so they won't look so industrial. But Steve Moore, who is overseeing the project for the Florida Department of Transportation, said vines are costly to trim and could penetrate cracks, damaging the wall, he said. The best they can do is plant trees at 20 foot intervals in front of the wall, he said, even though representatives of the seven affected communities already have rejected three proposals that involved trees.
The article states the affected developments, some of which already are surrounded by shorter walls hidden by trees and bushes, are: Boca Chase, Boca Gardens, Boca Landings, Southwind Estates, Boca Fontana, Spanish Isles and Boca Greens. Wall construction is scheduled to begin in spring 2000, just prior to roadwork, Moore said. It is the first time in Florida that the walls will be built on a stretch of road other than an interstate. After this construction, no more walls will be built on the road, even if more homes appear later, said Conway.
PUBLICATION: The Patriot Ledger
DATE: February 12, 1999
SECTION: Business; Pg. 23
BYLINE: Colin C. Haley
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
The Patriot Ledger reports the new runway project at Boston's Logan Airport is being touted by the state as an economic boon while residents of at least one South Shore town predict increased noise pollution will be their lot.
According to the article, a new runway at Logan Airport is part of a wide-ranging proposal by the Massachusetts Port Authority to reduce delays and congestion. "If we do nothing . . . we risk choking off a critical avenue for economic activity as well as an important transportation hub for the people who live and work here," Gov. Paul Cellucci said yesterday at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce luncheon. Massport, the state agency that runs Logan, will file the plan with environmental regulators Tuesday. Massport will then seek to overturn a 24-year court injunction against airport expansion. The $22 million runway would be a mile long and run along the northwest-southeast axis and serve only planes that approach and depart over the Atlantic Ocean. Massport spokesman Jeremy Crockford said the new runway should reduce air traffic in most South Shore communities, including Braintree, Hingham, Milton, Quincy and Weymouth.
The article reports, however, that Hull, which juts into Boston Harbor, will likely see more planes. Crockford said the planes will fly at 4,000 to 5,000 feet and should not increase noise levels. Most air traffic routed over Hull will be propeller planes and smaller jets, he added. But that does little to comfort state Rep. Mary Jeanette Murray, a Republican whose district includes Hull. "I am very disturbed by this . . . it is unfair to Hull," Murray said. For years, the town has battled with Massport over plane routes and noise. Planes still fly low over Hull High School during the day, interrupting teachers, Murray said. She said she will attend public hearings on the planned expansion and voice the town's concerns to Cellucci and Peter Blute, head of Massport. Because Massport does not believe the new runway will add to noise pollution in Hull, the project's budget does not include any funding for soundproofing homes or offices. Other South Shore leaders have voiced concern in the past that the new runway would ultimately bring more flights over the South Shore and worsen noise pollution.
The article states the new runway is one of several Cellucci initiatives to make Logan an "efficient, hassle-free airport." Reducing delays at Logan will save not only frustration but money, Cellucci said. In 1998, delays cost airlines and their customers about $310 million, he said. To reduce the burden on Logan, Cellucci said the state will also do more to promote the use of other regional airports such as those in Worcester and New Bedford.
According to the article, the state still has several hurdles to clear before the new runway becomes a reality. The plan being filed next week with the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency will be discussed at a series of public meetings. If the plan is approved by the MEPA, Massport would then seek to overturn a 1974 injunction against airport expansion. The court order was granted to then-Mayor Kevin White, at the urging of Boston residents. Crockford said Massport is optimistic that if MEPA clears the project, and if safeguards are in place to require that takeoffs and landings take place only over water, the court will lift the order. If the process goes smoothly, construction could begin in two years, officials said.
PUBLICATION: USA Today
DATE: February 12, 1999
SECTION: Life; Pg. 4D
BYLINE: Veronica Gould Stoddart
DATELINE: Yellowstone National Park, Montana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bluewater Network; D. J. Schubert, wildlife biologist
USA Today reports a coalition of environmental groups in the United Sates is calling for the ban of recreational snowmobiles in national parks, setting off a contentious debate covering issues from noise and pollution to local economies and civil rights.
The article reports when Bob Seibert became a park ranger, he never dreamed that he would suffer from nausea, dizziness and headaches caused by noxious fumes while on the job. But that's what has happened to the district ranger at Yellowstone National Park as a result of the 60,000 snowmobiles that now use the park in winter. "We actually had an employee quit over this because she had constant throat and eye irritations," says Seibert, who works at the park's west entrance in Montana, one of the main entry points for snowmobiles. Addressing this issue, a growing number of environmental groups, citing concerns from noise and other forms of pollution to animal safety, are calling for the ban of recreational snowmobiles in national parks, setting into motion a heated debate. "A ban would put me out of business," says Brad Schmier, owner of a 30-year-old snowmobile rental business in the town of West Yellowstone, Montana. "Snowmobiling is our community's only winter economy." Ultimately, the battle boils down to a culture clash. "National parks are not national playgrounds," says wildlife biologist D. J. Schubert, who co-drafted the petition. "They should preserve nature and the serenity that are part of the park experience. "But you can throw tranquillity out the window these days."
The article reports the snowmobile debate, which began years ago at places like Yellowstone and Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota, appeared on the national scene last month when a consortium of 60 environmental groups petitioned five federal agencies, including the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, to bar recreational snowmobiles from the parks. The coalition, led by San Francisco-based Bluewater Network, cited "adverse impacts to park wildlife, air and water quality, vegetation, park ecology and park users" from the 200,000 snowmobiles that annually enter the 36 parks where they're permitted only on groomed trails. Snowmobile advocates, however, say the charges are overblown. "The allegations are nonscientific," charges Christine Jourdain, director of the American Council of Snowmobile Associations. Yet the environmental groups say, based on California Air Resources Board figures, operating a snowmobile 1 hour produces more hydrocarbon pollution than driving a car for an entire year. In Yellowstone alone, snowmobile exhaust at the west entrance caused the highest carbon monoxide levels in the nation in 1996, according to Park Service studies -- a situation so serious, say rangers, that they've had to enclose tollbooths and pump in fresh air. Moreover, the recreation vehicles spilled about 50,000 gallons of raw gasoline into the snow pack last year, based on Bluewater analysis of government data. Concerns about impact on wildlife compelled Steve Martin, superintendent of Alaska's Denali National Park, to close 2 million acres of the park to snowmobiles just last week. "We've seen a tenfold increase in snowmobile use in the last five years or so," he says. "This part of the park is a virtually intact ecosystem -- why put that at risk?"
The article reports manufacturers say snowmobiles don't pollute nearly as much as alleged, but they have no numbers to support their contention. They endorse ongoing independent studies that soon will set future emissions standards. And they, themselves, are studying ways to make the machines cleaner. Manufacturers also object to complaints that snowmobiles are too dangerous and make too much noise, which disturbs park visitors and wildlife. They point out that individual machines meet park noise-level standards. But ranger Seibert says that groups of snowmobiles produce "a constant drone that can be heard for several miles away." And while manufacturers promote snowmobile safety through public awareness campaigns, the environmentalists cite a study for the Alaska Division of Public Health that found that snowmobile operators are nine times more likely to die or be injured in accidents than car drivers on a mile-per-mile basis. The consortium also sent its petition to the National Transportation Safety Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
According to the article, park officials are reviewing the petition, but since regulations are already in place for snowmobile use, no course of action exists to respond to the claims. Still, the petition could have far-reaching consequences. "Businesses in town don't want to hear about health hazards because there's a great deal of money wrapped up in this," Seibert says. Snowmobilers represent 62% of the 119,000 recreational visitors to the park in winter. Nationwide, the snowmobile industry is big business. Retail sales have grown from $122 million to more than $1 billion since 1983, says Ed Klim, head of the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association. Referring to the proposed ban, Klim says, "This is a rather extreme move by a small group that wants to limit access to the parks." The petition calls for an end to trail grooming, which in effect would close some parks in winter to everyone -- even cross-country skiers. But rangers say there are other options. "Yellowstone is so marvelous in winter, it would be a shame not to have people experience that," says Seibert. "If we switched to less-polluting vehicles, like snow coaches (vans with treads), it could be beneficial to the town as well."
PUBLICATION: The Washington Times
DATE: February 12, 1999
SECTION: Part A; Pg. A1
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Don McGlashen, member of the Airport Advisory Committee; Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise
The Washington Times reports the US Senate commerce committee approved a bill yesterday that would add 48 takeoff and landing slots at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, double the number in last year's defeated bill.
According to the article, local citizens groups, fearing that added flights out of Reagan will increase aircraft noise at nearby neighborhoods, are determined to fight the proposal. Don McGlashen, a member of the Airport Advisory Committee, a local watchdog organization, is not happy that the number of requested slots continues to increase. "When McCain started out with this, he only asked for 24 new slots. But now he's been approached by other senators who want more flights going to their home districts. They are forgetting that this is an inner-city airport. Nearly 800,000 people are impacted by the noise of these flights," he said. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, another local watchdog group, has posted updates on the Senate legislation on its World Wide Web site (www.caan.org) and is urging people to call the Senate Commerce committee.
The article reports the bill would allow the secretary of transportation add daily round-trip flights at Reagan, half of them longer than the current 1,250-mile limit on flights from the airport. The provision allowing long-haul flights from Reagan would benefit America West Airlines Inc., an airline based in Arizona, the home state of Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. McCain is concentrating on boosting airline competition and several specific safety measures such as mandating collision-avoidance equipment in cargo planes. The secretary of transportation would be required to give exemptions to carriers operating 30- to 50-seat regional jets to small- and medium-sized underserved communities. Twelve of the new Reagan slots within the 1,250-mile perimeter would be reserved for airlines proposing to use small jets on routes to small and medium-size cities. "If we don't enact this legislation, it will be another clear victory for the major airlines here in Washington," said McCain. The measure also would add 30 slots at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. It would also increase the secretary of transportation's authority to grant exemptions to limits on the number of flights at New York's John F. Kennedy International and LaGuardia airports.
The article states the bill, which also sets funding levels for FAA activities for the remainder of fiscal 1999 and 2000, is more modest than a recently announced Department of Transportation proposal that would remove all limits on the frequency of departures and landings at Kennedy, LaGuardia and O'Hare airports by 2004. Earlier this week, the Clinton administration introduced its own legislation that would end federal rules limiting the number of flights at New York and Chicago and leave to Congress any changes with Reagan restrictions. Reagan is restricted to a maximum of 62 arrivals and departures per hour and O'Hare to 155 per hour. At many times of the day the actual number of flights is far less, and the government now says even these maximums could be safely raised. The legislation must be approved by the full Senate and reconciled with the House version before the current legislation authorizing Federal Aviation Administration programs expires March 31. Last week, the House approved a six-month extension of last year's temporary aviation-funding measure until the end of fiscal 1999 on Sept. 30. Rep. Bud Shuster, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has said a simple extension of existing funding would allow time to debate changes to the support of FAA programs.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: February 12, 1999
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 2; Zone: Nw
BYLINE: Ron Eckstein
DATELINE: Washington, DC
The Chicago Tribune reports a US Senate committee on Thursday approved legislation that would increase the number of flights at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.
According to the article, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation approved the Air Transportation Improvement Act, which is scheduled for a full vote in the Senate in late February. The proposal, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), would increase flights out of O'Hare, Washington's Reagan National Airport and New York's LaGuardia and JFK airports which McCain believes will enhance competition in the aviation industry. "Just last week, the airline industry collectively raised air fares again. The time has come to act on a bill that will inject much needed competition in the airline industry," McCain said. "The bill . . . makes sure that new entrants can get into restricted airports and that small communities can receive the level of air service they deserve." McCain's plan would establish a four-year program to increase air service to smaller communities. It would also provide almost $5 billion over two years for the Airport Improvement Program.
The article reports one of the more controversial parts of the legislation is the section allowing increased flights at O'Hare by granting exemptions to the "high-density" rule. The rule, adopted in 1968, limits the number of flights landing or taking off at the U.S.' busiest airports. Some of O'Hare's neighbors have fought increasing local air traffic, believing more flights will mean more noise. A maximum of 2,400 flights now are permitted daily at O'Hare. McCain's bill would provide 30 exemptions at O'Hare each day: 18 slots would provide service to smaller airports, and 12 slots would be available for general distribution to the airlines.
The article states before any slots are added, McCain's bill would require the secretary of transportation to study the environmental, safety and noise impact of the new flights. The secretary would need to consult with local officials on noise and environmental issues. After three years, the secretary of transportation would be required to conduct a follow-up study on how safety, the environment, noise and the underserved markets have been affected. Thursday's action on McCain's bill followed the Clinton administration's announcement that it plans to eliminate all slot restrictions by the year 2004.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: February 11, 1999
SECTION: National Desk, Environment Writer
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Thomas Kiernan, president of the National Parks and Conservation Association
The Chicago Tribune reports the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation today approved steps to address noise generated by airplane and helicopter tours over national parks.
According to the article, the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) said legislation to regulate commercial air tours over national parks is overdue. "As air tours become more widespread, keeping the noise from getting out of hand is an emerging concern throughout the National Park System" said NPCA President Thomas Kiernan. "We are encouraged that this Congress is moving quickly to ensure that national parks remain sanctuaries where people can get away from the intrusions of everyday life." The legislation would require the FAA to work 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. An NPCA/Colorado State University survey conducted in 1998 found that 87 percent of the American public believes that air tours should at least be limited over national parks. NPCA surveys of park managers have identified 56 parks where commercial tour overflights are a recognized problem and a number of additional parks where managers expressed concerns that commercial air tour operations were imminent. The bill would allow the FAA and NPS to consider the use of flight bans, and time, place and altitude restrictions in order to preserve quiet in the parks and mitigate aircraft noise. The bill also calls for incentives for the use of quiet aircraft technology. The legislation does not apply to the Grand Canyon, where a separate process is in place to regulate the more than 100,000 air tours flown each year, or to national parks in Alaska.
The article states 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. An association of " Citizens Protecting America's Parks," NPCA was founded in 1919 and today has nearly 400,000 members. A library of national park information, including fact sheets, congressional testimony, position statements, press releases and media alerts, can be found on NPCA's World Wide Web site at http://www.npca.org.
PUBLICATION: The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN)
DATE: February 11, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. A16
BYLINE: James W. Brosnan
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Sam Carroll, president of Citizens for Fair Treatment; Louis Yeldell, president of the Airport Residents Alliance
The Commercial Appeal reports Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) said Wednesday he hopes to re-open the issue of how much to pay noise-suffering residents near Memphis International Airport by increasing federal aid for noise mitigation.
According to the article, appearing as a witness before the House Transportation aviation subcommittee, Ford asked for an increase in overall airport improvement grants above the President's $1.6 billion request. He also asked for an increase in the $200 million-a-year budget to help airports buy up nearby homes or pay for sound insulation. But the chairman of the Memphis Shelby County Airport Authority, Arnold Perl, said he believes the noise issue is closed. A $22 million settlement last year offered to pay between $525 to $4,200 to 12,500 residents. Although approved by U. S. Dist. Court Judge Odell Horton, a handful of airport residents appealed that settlement to the U. S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The appeal has held up any payments.
The article reports Ford said he plans to bring Federal Aviation Administration officials to Memphis next Wednesday to meet with representatives of the airport-area residents. Among other things, they will explain the FAA noise tests that helped determine what residents were and were not included in the class-action lawsuit. Payments are based on how long residents have lived in the airport area. Louis Yeldell, president of the Airport Residents Alliance, a group that raised money to finance the lawsuit, said they would have preferred a second factor - distance from the airport - but said, "It's the best settlement we could get." But the money in many cases doesn't even pay to insulate the homes, said Sam Carroll, president of Citizens for Fair Treatment, and one of those who has appealed the settlement.
The article states Ford said he hopes that by assuring a stable source of federal funding for noise mitigation that Memphis airport officials will expand the reach of the settlement. "A substantial number of residents continue to be adversely affected by airport operations," especially during FedEx takeoffs at night, Ford said. "We're obligated as policy makers to address the noise problem," he said. Perl said, "The settlement has already been finalized" and that more federal aid won't change it.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 11, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 4; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times reports Calif. Rep. James Rogan announced Wednesday he and the chairman of the congressional aviation subcommittee will meet with local officials in April to discuss the city of Burbank's long-running dispute with Burbank Airport.
According to the article, Rogan decided to bring to California Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) to discuss issues surrounding Burbank Airport after FAA Administrator Jane Garvey refused to rule on a request by Rogan. Rogan had asked Garvey whether the Burbank Airport Authority could bypass a federal law requiring FAA approval to impose mandatory noise restrictions on aircraft traffic. In Burbank last summer, Garvey pledged to work with local officials to bring an end to the bickering over aircraft noise. But since her visit there have been few public pronouncements from Garvey or from the FAA official who was selected by the agency as its point person on Burbank Airport. "I am concerned that federal inaction further jeopardizes public safety and the quality of life of local residents," Rogan said in a statement Wednesday. "To address these needs, and work toward finding an equitable solution, I have invited Chairman Duncan to Burbank to listen to all concerns."
The article reports since October, Rogan has pressed Garvey repeatedly for her position on claims that there is exception to the Federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. The act mandates a series of long and expensive steps to impose mandatory noise restrictions. Burbank Airport currently maintains a voluntary curfew on flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. In October, the airport authority approved a measure to initiate a Part 161 study, which is required before the FAA can approve a mandatory curfew. Airport officials insist that they have never been opposed to a curfew or other noise cap and that they have explored how such limits could be implemented, but will not violate federal law by acting unilaterally.
The article states for years, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority has been locked in a contentious political and court fight with the Burbank government and residents protesting aircraft noise. Since the early 1990s, the dispute has included the authority's attempts to build a 19-gate terminal, which anti- noise forces oppose, contending it will increase noise. The airport authority claims it is trying to comply with the FAA's urgings to replace the current terminal because it does not meet modern safety standards.
According to the article, those knowledgeable about the airport issue praised Rogan's decision to involve Duncan, whose committee oversees the FAA. "He is a very powerful man and we have a lot of respect for him," Burbank City Manager Bud Ovrom said of Duncan. "We would take any overtures he made very seriously." Added Burbank Airport spokesman Victor Gill, "Mr. Duncan is a well-known congressional figure in aviation matters. The fact that Burbank Airport issues are rising to that level of attention is good for ultimately finding answers to the problems in our terminal project."
PUBLICATION: The San Diego Union-Tribune
DATE: February 11, 1999
SECTION: Local Pg. B-5
BYLINE: Samuel Autman
DATELINE: San Diego, California
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports residents of Serra Mesa, California, learned from an acoustical engineer that noise from a nearby sand and gravel pit can be muffled at the source to allow them to sleep at night.
According to the article, since last spring several Serra Mesa residents whose homes overlook CalMat in Mission Valley have complained of increased noise from the sand and gravel company. The 24-hour operation grinds for six days a week and disrupts area residents' sleep. Don Behrens, a nationally known acoustical engineer, confirmed the neighbors' complaints in a report he delivered at a community meeting Monday night. The sand and gravel giant continuously contributes to the neighborhood noise level, he said. The site creates at least a 50-decibel level of noise constantly, Behrens said, and during peak hours sounds reach as high as 80 decibels. An average conversation registers at 50 decibels. A noisy office registers at 80 decibels. A thunder clap is 120 decibels. Behrens said CalMat is well within the city of San Diego decibel-level code, but between 5 and 8 a.m. the noise -level peaks. The sounds of one large rock hitting against metal during those hours might only last for a second, but will wake up a lot of people. Among Behrens' recommendations to stifle the noise generated by the mine: Line the rock crushers with rubber. Encase the rock separators with polyurethane vinyl. Expand the existing berms and add new ones. "This is a problem that has some ready solutions," said Behrens. "The noise issue can be plugged up on the site. This is a doable thing."
The article reports CalMat operates 55 concrete mixers, scores of bulldozers, four rock crushers and 10 rock separators. Before being acquired last fall, CalMat was one of the largest construction materials companies in the United States, creating a million tons of concrete annually from the Mission Valley site since 1962, before homes bordered the quarry. Vulcan Materials of Birmingham, Ala., is now the parent of CalMat. Edward Gabrielson, a resource manager for CalMat, said the company will not only follow the recommendations but will increase water spraying to address dust concerns. Within two months, he expects the noise problem to have ended. "We are just going to do everything to muffle the sound even though we are within the limits of the code," Gabrielson said. "We want to be good neighbors."
The article states neighbors are pleased that CalMat hired an independent sound specialist and now will wait to see if the noise level indeed drops. "He was very good, but I am not totally satisfied," said Rayene Sperbeck, a resident for 30 years. "I think it's a lot of lip service." Added another neighbor, Dick Gorostiza: "I am skeptical because it's going to be going on for another 14 years," when the conditional-use permit for the operation expires.
PUBLICATION: The San Diego Union-Tribune
DATE: February 11, 1999
SECTION: Local Pg. B-6:7,8; B-5:2
BYLINE: Kathryn Balint
DATELINE: Poway, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jerry Hargarten, president of the nonprofit MARCH Coalition Fund
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports the San Diego City Council will ask the Miramar Naval Air Station to modify its helicopter flight patterns after a number of residents voiced noise complaints.
According to the article, the City Council -- saying it is getting more complaints than ever about Marine helicopters -- has asked that the Marines fly over less populated areas. On a 4-0 vote Tuesday night, the council adopted a resolution asking that the service alter its helicopter flight patterns. When Miramar Naval Air Station was converted to Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, a group of residents from Poway and other North County cities fought unsuccessfully to keep helicopters from being relocated to the base. They listed a number of concerns, including noise and safety. "About half of the helicopters are here now, and they've been operating for a few months," said Mayor Mickey Cafagna. "We're now starting to see the impacts to the communities, particularly in parts of Poway where we're getting a deluge of complaints from people who are being impacted by the noise from the helicopters."
The article reports residents have complained about "extreme noise and vibrations," as well as safety, the mayor said. The safety concerns were highlighted when a Marine Super Stallion cargo helicopter landed in a field north of Rancho Bernardo Jan. 26 after warning lights came on in the cockpit, Cafagna said. A Marine spokesman called it a "controlled landing" that was uneventful. Poway resident Jerry Hargarten said he is also aware of many complaints about helicopter noise. He is president of the nonprofit MARCH Coalition Fund, a group that sued the federal government to try to stop the helicopters from being based at Miramar. The suit is pending, and Hargarten said he expects a settlement soon.
The article states Mayor Cafagna said the council's action is "not an anti-military or anti- Marine vote." The council's resolution asks the Marines to "eliminate or substantially reduce" a route over a large portion of Poway that is used for training purposes and to "shift or eliminate" a route over northern Poway that is used for instrument flying. A Miramar spokesman said yesterday that the base had not received Poway's request but will address it. "We remain committed to being good neighbors, and part of that commitment is listening to and addressing all the concerns of the local communities," he said.
PUBLICATION: The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN)
DATE: February 10, 1999
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B6
BYLINE: Reed Branson
DATELINE: Jackson, Mississippi
The Commercial Appeal reports Mississippi state government endorsed civil immunity from noise pollution for a proposed firing range.
According to the article, the House voted 119-3 Tuesday to provide civil immunity from noise pollution to a proposed shooting range in Marshall County. The bill would prevent residents from suing for noise pollution after a shooting range obtains the necessary governmental approval. Rep. Tommy Woods (R-Byhalia) said the national Amateur Trapshooting Association has included a site in Marshall County among five locations it is considering for a 150-space shooting range. According to Woods, the association is considering a site in the county in the Chickasaw Trail Industrial Park area. Woods said Fayette County in Tennessee is another site under consideration. The Mississippi immunity legislation is similar to that approved in Tennessee.
Previous week: January 31, 1999
Next week: February 14, 1999
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