|
be ignored in the face of the huge financial investment airports
<br />represent, the much larger regional economic concerns, and the
<br />political agendas often p!ayed out through airport politics.
<br /> FederaI Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA, an
<br />agency of the U.S. Department o£Transportation, establishes
<br />and enforces safety standards covering all aspects of civil
<br />aviation from the manu£acture, maintenance, and operation
<br />of aircraft to security measures at airports. It also promotes
<br />the expansion and modernization of the nation's airport
<br />facilities and provides funds for construction and
<br />improvement, as well a~ grants to state and local authorities
<br />to prepare plans for future facilities. The FAA thus plays an
<br />important role in influencing land use around airports,
<br />although it plays a passive role in negotiations between
<br />airports and surrounding communities.
<br />
<br /> Issues
<br /> Noise. Noise has the highest profile of all airport nuisances. It
<br /> is indiscriminate and relentless. Over the last few decades, the
<br /> problem has worsened asfligh~s increase, jets get larger, and
<br /> development crowds closer to airports. Noise has become the
<br /> driving force in most decisions about airports. New runways,
<br /> changes in operations, and proposals to rezone nearby land will
<br /> ultimately be about noise and its effect on nearby residents. In
<br /> many areas, airports have become so unpopular that even the
<br /> slightest hint that noise may increase is enough to stop a project.
<br /> The federal government has made several efforts to encourage
<br /> airports and airlines to address noise issues, including two
<br /> summarized below.
<br /> Part 150-Airport Noise Compatibility Planning of the
<br />Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 150) contains
<br />standards for airport operators to submit noise exposure maps
<br />and airport noise compatibility planning programs to the FAA.
<br />Operators of airports whose maps have been found to be in
<br />compliance with applicable requirements and whose programs
<br />the FAA has approved in accordance with Part 150 provisions
<br />may apply for noise control and general project funding under
<br />the Airport Improvement Program. As part of the planning
<br />process, operators must determine the extent of noise impact
<br />around the airport by developing noise exposure maps using
<br />DNL contours. As part o£the Part 150 planning process,
<br />continuous contours must be developed for yearly day-night
<br />sound average levels of 65, 70, and 75 decibels.
<br /> The Airport Noise and iCapacity Act of 1990, according to
<br />the Guide to FAA's Noise Act Regulations, prep.ared by the Cutler
<br />& Stanfield law firm in conjunction with the acoustical
<br />consulting firm, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., directs
<br />the FAA to "establish a national program to review noise and
<br />access restrictions on aircraft operations imposed by airport
<br />proprietors" and "phase out the operation of all Stage 2 aircraft
<br />by December 31, 1999." This change will effect a dramatic
<br />reduction in noise contourl; around airports.
<br /> For example, according to an article by Ray Walder in ICAO
<br />fourna~ the noise impact area upon takeoff ora Boeing 727 (a
<br />Stage 2 aircraft) is 14 square kilometers; for a Boeing 757 (a
<br />Stage 3 aircraft) it is 1.3 square kilometers. After this major
<br />reduction of noise impact areas, however, current technology
<br />offers the prospect of only minor future reductions.
<br /> Stage 2 and Stage 3 are noise level production designations
<br />given to civil subsonic turbojet airplanes with a maximum
<br />certificated weight of 75,000 pounds or more. As a general rule,
<br />airplanes labeled Stage 3 are quieter than those labeled Stage 2.
<br />Stage 2 aircraft engines ma}, be replaced with quieter engines, or
<br />
<br />their existing engines may be retrofitted with a hushkit to attain
<br />Stage 3 noise requirements.
<br /> Operations. Airports are limited by the number and position
<br />of their runways and their physical settings, but many can take
<br />advantage of nearby features to lessen noise impacts on
<br />residential areas. Flights can be directed over bodies of water or
<br />less populated land areas. Some airports have even limited noise
<br />from aircraft engines during takeoffand landing by requiring
<br />pilots to cut back their engines. But ground noise can also be
<br />disruptive. Airports can dictate how long and how loudly
<br />aircraft can idle their engines on the tarmac, mandate that
<br />engine repair work be done in hush houses built on site, and
<br />maintain a curfew, shutting down operations during nighttime
<br />when nearby residents would be most annoyed by aircraft noise.
<br /> Land Use. A good land-use plan for the area around an
<br />airport will go a long way toward alleviating problems. Airports
<br />are increasingly motivated to engage in this type of integrated
<br />planning because they are more aware of their significant impact
<br />on surrounding areas. At the same time, people disturbed by
<br />airports have become more vocal. Once-quiet suburban
<br />communities have become political forces to be reckoned with.
<br />
<br /> The Day-Night Average'Sound Level (DNL)' is
<br />based on an energy-averaged sound level measured
<br />over a period of 24 hours, with a 10-decibel
<br />penalty applied to nighttime (10 p.m. to 7_a.m.)
<br />sound levels to account for increased annoyance
<br />during the night hours.
<br />
<br /> Federal and state agencies have extended their interest as
<br />well. The FAA has been instrumental in encouraging airports to
<br />consider surrounding communities when planning growth. For
<br />example, Part 150 suggests appropriate land uses in certain
<br />noise contours. The FAA has determined that all land uses are
<br />compatible with noise levels below DNL 65 (see table). The
<br />FAA_ cannot require communities to rezone land within their
<br />jurisdictions to the appropriate use, but it can withhold funding
<br />until an airport can prove that it complies with all FAA
<br />standards, thus forcing airports to negotiate with surrounding
<br />communities and plan more effectively for future growth.
<br /> Cities operating their own airports wholly within their
<br />jurisdiction can address noise most easily. They can analyze the
<br />land uses around the airport and rezone for more appropriate
<br />uses or undertake mitigation measures to alleviate the problem.
<br />The situation is more complicated when the airport is run by an
<br />independent authority or located outside the operating
<br />municipality's jurisdiction. In a chapter in InternationalAir
<br />Transportation, Kristi McKenney writes that, "in general,
<br />delineation of an airport environs planning area should reflect
<br />aircraft flight paths, high noise exposure conditions, natural
<br />terrain, designated community planning jurisdictions, corporate
<br />boundaries, local street and road network, utility system
<br />coverage, surface water drainage provisions, and any other factor
<br />that may be of importance locally."
<br /> She advises that the airport's master plan be made an integral
<br />part of the environs plan and that the two plans should dovetail
<br />in their goals and objectives. McKenney says options for
<br />reducing noise are limited, so airports should become more
<br />involved in land-use planning and encourage redevelopment of
<br />
<br />
<br />
|