Issue Of Airport Noise example essay topic

Airport Noise Mitigation It began with the first manned flight of an aircraft by the Wright brothers in 1903 in the town of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, forever changing the face of transportation in not only the United States but indeed the world. The invention of the airplane allowed for the traveling of greater distances in a shorter period of time than had previously been allowed with rail travel, or horse drawn carriage as the more popular modes of transportation of the day. It really wasn't until the late 1940's & 50's that passenger air travel began to take shape in the form we know it today, and since that time the number of air passengers has multiplied exponentially. In recent years alone passenger traffic increased 7.2% between 2003 and 2004, illustrating an increase that wavered only in the immediate aftermath of the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001 (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2005). In order to accommodate the increasing demand for not only passenger air travel but cargo air transport, military traffic, and civilian pleasure craft as well, cities began building airports that required large tracts of land as its major resource. In the initial stages of airport construction and expansion, many communities overlooked the effects of the airport on the surrounding communities in the immediate vicinity of the airport as well as the environmental consequences of construction itself.

Many airports were built in or very near the "core' of their cities or just adjacent to residential areas with no forethought given to the future expansion of the city itself, or the cohesion of the neighborhoods already present, thus heralding in one of the first and still persistent grievances from those affected by the airports; noise. Simply, 'noise' is defined as unwanted sound. Sound is typically measured in what are known as "decibel" units, which reflect intensity, or pressure (Stevenson, p. 2). Noise has been shown to affect health by causing both psychological and physiological damage, most notably deafness.

Numerous studies conducted since the early 1960's (when the fist studies on its affects were commissioned) now conclude that excess noise can indeed produce permanent hearing loss (Stevenson, p. 3). These same studies indicate that prolonged exposure to levels just over 80 dB can promote such loss. As the chart below on average decibel levels of common noise sources illustrates, the average decibel level of the noise in question; jet aircraft, produces approximately 150 dB, far above the 80 dB shown to produce permanent hearing loss (Stevenson, p. 3). Decibel Readings for various Noise sources Decibel Level Sound Source 175 Jet Rocket Launching 150 Jet Aircraft taking off 130 Machine Gun 125 Diesel engine 120 Threshold of physical pain 117 Jet Aircraft ramp 111 Motorcycle 110 Nightclub 104 Subway train 93 Electric food blender 81 Rush hour traffic 60-70 Normal conversation 40 Average residence 10 Breathing It should be noted however, that the degree of such hearing loss depends on the noise level itself, the length of exposure to the individual and the hearer's "individual susceptibility". Interestingly enough a 3 dB difference is noticeable to the average person, while a reduction of 10 dB is perceived by the human ear as a 50% reduction of noise (Thomson, p. 1). Evidence suggests that after an initial adjustment to a particular noise environment, "people become less, rather than more, tolerant of continued exposure to aircraft noise (Stevenson, p. 17).

This would seem to contradict with air industry supporters who have tried to paint the noise mitigation issue as a "nuisance", something to adapt to. The U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. William H. Stewart, perhaps but it best when he stated in 1978 that "calling noise a nuisance is like calling smog an inconvenience. Noise must be considered a hazard to the health of people everywhere". Various psychological effects have also been attributed to excessive noise exposure including what one medical consultant to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has dubbed a "dream deficit"; whereby interruption of sleep and the dreams that result thereof, can result in multiple neuroses and psychoses stemming from such disruption causing chronic fatigue, loss of productivity, and mood swings among others (Stevenson, p. 3). The citizen action groups formed of the affected residents near these airports were not willing to have their complaints dismissed as nuisances that required adaptation and coping on their part.

They took their issue up with local and federal authorities to curtail the noises, resulting in some of the legislation that will be discussed later, complaining that the noises were not simply bothersome, but were making them "sick" (Bronzaft, p. 13). Perhaps the most notable and quantifiable effect of airport noise can be found in the real estate surrounding the airports. The value of residential homes located near airports is usually far less than similar homes in adjacent neighborhoods, and has shown a much lower rate of appreciation and re-sale value. Homes located near these airports are often sold far below market value due to the constant roar of aircraft over the homes and the potential home buyers desire to live away from such constant disruptions of living. Conversely, many businesses and industries look to locate near the airports due to their dependence on transportation logistics for their goods or because of the ability to locate functions such as landfills near these already "undesirable" tracts of land thereby lessening any civic opposition they may have incurred otherwise (Vittek, p. 602). In what has become a model for other communities faced with this issue, the city of Louisville, KY took an innovative approach to mitigate the effects of airport noise on residential housing when seeking to expand the airport in the mid 1990's.

Minor Lane Heights, a community of 552 households located near Louisville International Airport, requested and eventually received state and federal funding that would allow property owners to purchase homes in quieter locales (NY Times, April 9, 1999 p. 14). Minor Lane Heights' officials told the airport authorities that residents would agree to the displacement only if they could stay together. That meant relocating the entire neighborhood to a new community built from scratch 10 miles SE of the existing spot to the new community of Heritage Creek. The elimination of residential areas in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft glide paths have long been viewed as the optimal solution in noise mitigation, but not always the most feasible.

The city of Louisville in an effort to recoup some of the costs of this unprecedented decision, sold most of the razed land to aforementioned businesses that desired to locate near the airport for logistical reasons. The program has not been entirely successful however, with many residents still waiting for funding to relocate as both federal and state budgets have been squeezed over the years since the initial decision was decided in the early stages of the project. In light of this fact many have viewed the addition of two parallel runways at the Louisville International Airport and the subsequent growth of businesses nearby as well as the remarkable development of the United Parcel Service's sorting hub (the sixth busiest cargo hub in the entire US) a success worthy of duplication. It wasn't until 1952 when President Truman appointed the Doolittle commission to study the issue of noise abatement that government began to take more than a passive role on the issue. The commission concluded in its findings that noise was indeed more than a mere "nuisance" requiring the affected to adapt, but provided in little in the way of providing any long term initiatives to mitigate the problem. It was in their view still up to the airline industry, aircraft manufacturers, and local communities to deal with the issue.

Long before airport noise became a major concern of communities everywhere, pilots had already recognized the potential for problems to arise. The pilot unions themselves advocated instituting many different noise abatement controls including preferential runway systems which require using runways pointing away from residential areas, turning away from residential areas during climb-out, and cutting back on engine power shortly after take-off (Stevenson, p. 25). Although these controls were in fact instituted in many areas as early forms of noise abatement, pilot unions have consistently maintained that additional changing of flight patterns will only merely move noise from one affected area to another and could ultimately affect safety. To them, the only real solutions were the removal of residential areas from approach zones and the reduction of noise at its source; the engine (Vittek, p. 599). The airlines themselves have mainly been on the defensive about the issue, stating they have little or no influence with those they feel are mainly responsible; those who permit people to build and live near airports knowing the unintended effects. No one should expect that a strategy of pressure directly on the airlines will produce any thing more than marginal safeguards from aircraft noise especially given the enormous financial constraints faced by the airline industry today leaving little or no funding for the issue on their part.

Additionally, the manufacturers have been reluctant in years past to invest more of their own resources in research and development because their customers (the airlines) would refuse to purchase their products if the prices were increased to cover such costs (Stevenson, p. 32). This is beginning to change however, with the implementation of a "technology forcing standard" by the FAA in the early 1990's requiring that all aircraft engines be able to meet stringent guidelines for noise reduction by 2000 (See the Airport Noise and Capacity Act below). One of the first tangible pieces of legislation calling for a uniform approach to noise mitigation was the Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968. It required the FAA to establish uniform noise standards through consultation with the EPA, and to then apply them in connection with the issuance of civil aircraft certificates (49 U.S.C. 44715 1968). For the first time, the issue of airport noise was not relegated to the airline industry or individual airport operators to seek resolution but rather to a federal agency to promulgate a set of standards to be followed. Although the ANAA of 1968 allowed for the establishment of uniform standards in noise abatement, it did not however provide for a means of enforcing such standards.

The ANAA also placed more strain on an agency that was critically under funded and strained given the heavy workload placed upon it by Congress due to the increasing environmental awareness arising out of the era. Congress enacted the Noise Control Act (NCA) in 1972 to address these shortcomings. The NCA was both pivotal and detrimental to the noise abatement issue for two reasons: pivotal because it established the Office of Noise Abatement and Control to act as the regulatory and executor arm of the EPA, and detrimental partly because "the FAA was to consult with the EPA on the issue of aircraft noise even though the FAA still had the authority to regulate aircraft noise emissions" (Bronzaft, p. 15). To illustrate just how counterproductive the act had become; between December 1974 and October 1976, the FAA did not act on most of the proposals issued to it by the EPA for noise mitigation (Bronzaft, p. 15). The NCA did succeed however in at least putting more pressure on all actors in the policy arena, including the aircraft manufacturers, airport operators, airlines, and the local communities in which the airports operated. The ON AC would be short lived, however, when in 1982 President Reagan (who always felt noise was more of a 'local' issue) terminated funding for the office and put the states on notice that they would no longer be assisted in their efforts to curb noise pollution.

With the passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) in 1990, Congress recognized that a national aviation noise policy was not only necessary but vital to the fitness of the country's air transportation system. The ANCA attempted to create a more comprehensive method for regulating aviation noise and revised the roles of the various players within aviation noise regulation. As mentioned previously, the single most important provision was the required phase out of 'noisier' aircraft (Stage 2), to the 'quieter's tage 3 by the beginning of 2000. Because Stage 3 aircraft represent the state-of-the-art in noise reduction technology, ANCA does not give airports an unlimited right to impose new restrictions on them.

Any proposed restriction or mitigation for Stage 3's must: (1) be reasonable, non arbitrary, and nondiscriminatory; (2) not create an undue burden on interstate of foreign commerce; (3) maintain safe and efficient use of airspace; (4) not conflict with any existing federal statute or regulation; (5) provide adequate opportunity for public comment; and (6) create no undue burden on the national aviation system (Administrative Law Review, p. 414). Because FAA approval is required, these broad statutory requirements provide ample opportunity for the federal government to disapprove any restriction it perceives as inconsistent with federal interests, regardless of how pressing the local concern may be. No actual shift in liability to the federal government has occurred however, because ANCA essentially leaves the local governments and airport operators liable for damages even though these authorities may not have the ability to make any land use changes in the areas surrounding the airports. Although ideally the goal would be the elimination of noise altogether, the preceding acts of legislation have aided in at least mitigating some noise concerns for cities across the country. An interesting alternative solution has been tested in recent years and promises to provide even more promising results in this area. A Group of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology headed by Associate professor John Paul Clarke developed an innovative landing procedure for aircraft that not only reduced the noise output by considerable decibels, but resulted in also significantly cutting aircraft operating costs.

In fact the data indicated that noise was cut by nearly 50% and that fuel consumption during landing and approach was cut by 500 pounds (Thomson, p. 1). The procedure, known as a continuous descent approach (or CDA) was first tested in conjunction with United Parcel Service at Louisville International Airport in 2002. Noise is an ongoing problem in Louisville where UPS has its major hub that lands more than 90 large planes each night. Most of these landings occur between midnight and 2 a.m. when other background noise is low and residents in surrounding communities are trying to get to sleep or have just fallen asleep-the period identified as being the easier for someone to be awoken by noise (Thomson, p. 1). Each time an aircraft descends from an intermediate altitude and levels off, thrust must be applied to maintain level flight, and increasing thrust means increasing noise. In a standard approach the plane is brought down in several stages with the final level-flight segment only 3,000 feel above the airport.

The CDA procedure addresses both the thrust and elevation issues by keeping planes at higher altitudes for longer periods of time and bringing them down in a continuous descent rather than in stages (Thomson, p. 1). The end result is that the aircraft are both quieter and higher as they pass over the affected communities. The results have shown quite convincingly that the CDA procedure reduces noise in the affected areas; so much so that the FAA took note of the tests conducted in Louisville and has taken initial steps to look at implementing the procedure at other airports. The cash strapped airlines have also taken notice with the potential cost savings the procedure would have on fuel consumption, especially in light of the current fuel price dilemma. In concluding, we have seen that noise in fact as been a touchy public policy issue almost since the first jet aircraft ever took flight, one that has required all the actors involved to address with some creativity and prowess. Aircraft noise has been called an "equal opportunity offender" because the affected areas throughout the country have included varying degrees of urban, suburban, and rural residents of varying incomes.

This could indeed be cited as a reason for the pervasive citizen action groups that tend to rally around noise mitigation in communities across the US. There have been over the decades many regulations that have attempted to "solve" this problem all with varying degrees of success. It is perhaps most promising then, that recent innovations by aircraft manufacturers has allowed for greater reduction in noise output and the CDA procedure promises to put on the table a more effective solution that simply diverting noise from one affected area to another. Time will only tell if these measures along with continued vigilance, or lack thereof, on behalf of the government regulators and citizen action groups will make for a 'quieter' life for those living near our country's airports.

Bibliography

Bronzaft, Arline L. PhD. "Noise Pollution Loses Federal Dollars" Hearing Rehabilitation Quarterly, Vol. 23, No 1 1998 Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
web Aviation Administration. web for Economic Co-operation and Development. Airports and the Environment. Paris 1975 Stevenson, Gordon Mckay.
The Politics of Airport Noise. Duxbury Press Belmont, CA 1972 Thomson, Elizabeth.
web April 30, 2004 US Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
Aviation Noise: the next twenty years. Washington, DC 1980 Unknown, "Entire Kentucky Town Relocated in Unique Airport Noise Buyout" New York Times, Sec A p.
14 April 9, 1999 Vittek, Joseph Jr.
Airport Economic Planning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1974.