JWA: Noise boost minor

Local issues
Post Reply
Hanna
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:11 pm

JWA: Noise boost minor

Post by Hanna » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:47 pm

JWA: Noise boost minor
Airport served more passengers this year, but noticeable noise levels haven’t increased much, spokeswoman says.
Daily Pilot 1/7/08

By Chris Caesar

Despite a record level of passengers at John Wayne Airport in 2007, a new report released by the airport’s Noise Abatement office shows that noise levels around the facility have increased by only one to two decibels — an amount too insignificant to be recognized by the human ear, according to airport officials.

Airport spokeswoman Jenny Wedge attributed the stabilization to quieter and larger aircraft, which are able to handle more passengers without much ostensible change in air traffic.

While final numbers have yet to be compiled, Wedge estimated the airport serviced 10 million passengers this year, a slight increase from the 9.6 million served in 2006.

“From 2003 to 2006, we compared annual data at all of our noise-monitoring stations, and the maximum fluctuation in decibels was no more than two over that period,” she said. “We remained in our noise contours, which are defined in our access plan, which airports are required to follow.”

The airport maintains 10 noise monitors throughout departure and arrival paths in the areas surrounding its runways.

Airlines accused of violating the county’s General Aviation Noise Ordinance more than three times in three years have their flight privileges revoked, according to airport officials.

The airport had negotiated an increase of allowable air traffic with city and community groups in 2003, resolving to cap the airport’s passenger load to 10.8 million passengers by 2015.

Wedge further acknowledged that, while decibels levels have risen only slightly, the new limits permit more frequent takeoffs and landings.

Officials with AirFair, a group representing the airport’s neighbors, said they would decline comment at this time.

CHRIS CAESAR may be reached at (714) 966-4626 or at chris.caesar@latimes.com.

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2008 ... port06.txt

And comments:

annonymous wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:01 AM:
" Chris, you've got to be kidding me!! "Noise Boost Minor"? Where is the 3rd party credibility to these readings? Do we merely take the word of airport personnel? Give me a break! It will be very interesting to hear what AirFair has to say when they come out with a response! Propaganda at its best I'd say. "

Leonard Kranser wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:32 AM:
" Full data on this subject - including noise measurements from the airport monitoring stations going back to 2002 - is available on the web at http://eltoroairport.org/issues/Million ... noise.html "

Felipe D. wrote on Jan 6, 2008 11:27 AM:
" An increase of 1 to 2 decibels is NOT insignificant. The decibel scale is logarithmic in base 10 on the original unit (the bel) and measures the intesity of the sound.
1 or 2 decibels more actually means that the noise is 26% and 58% more intense than before. "

Bruce Krochman wrote on Jan 6, 2008 11:30 AM:
" Does anyone else see something wrong here? We should be looking to REDUCE noise, not pat ourselves on the back for a minor increase. Of course we will hear the platitudes about a “decrease in per-passenger noise”, or “increases at a decreasing rate.” They all add up to the same thing, more net noise for our community. Our new Mayors in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach should take this opportunity to reaffirm their respective communities' goals of reduced impact from the airport. They need to redouble efforts to restrict airport growth, noise, pollution and traffic. "

Concerned wrote on Jan 6, 2008 1:08 PM:
" I remember when airport officials promoted the hope noise would be REDUCED, because airlines would be buying newer airplanes with quieter engines. What they failed to mention is that the increase in planes and passengers would offset that positive and we would be forced to endure MORE noise not less. That increase CAN and has been detected by citizens. So, instead of a noise reduction, we get stuck with an increase and worse yet nobody has even measured the added air pollution those flights have caused or investigated the increased cancer risk. "

Randy Seton wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:07 PM:
" To bad we don't get to have noise level monitors on Balboa Island! The one or two decibels also have a relation to high and low db sound waves that cause vibration (like bass and treble or EQ on your stereo). I have noticed more things rattleling in the house. So, its not all about audible loudness. The comments from the neighbors have been, "Wow! that flight must have a full load, you can feel the rumble".
I will also call airport propaganda on this report. "

Mark J. wrote on Jan 6, 2008 4:17 PM:
" I don’t care if the noise level is the same. It’s still LOUD! The second to last sentence of the article is the key issue. If JW Airport is allowed to grow, the frequency in takeoffs and landing will increase. I’ve resigned myself to a certain number of jets. But if that number of jets goes up, it's a directly proportional reduction in the amount of peace and quiet that we can enjoy. My blood pressure is already high. John Wayne management should consider how to be a better neighbor by stopping growth. "

annonymous wrote on Jan 7, 2008 7:04 AM:
" Oh, and pollution is the other item. Any of us with decks (or sidewalks!) can attest to the increase of spent jet soot. A little wash down (oops, forgot the water police!) and see the increase in black stuff. What a farce this article is! "

Hanna
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:11 pm

Re: JWA: Noise boost minor

Post by Hanna » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:49 pm

JWA flight path wasteful, too noisy - DP letter 1/9/08

The article on John Wayne Airport noise reports that noise did not increase much this year although more passengers were served, (“JWA: Noise boost minor,” Jan. 6).

This clearly is an example of “death by the incremental.” The article focuses on noise within the noise contours, but does not mention the increase in insults where people can hear the noise that extends south of the airport, in the shape of a fan.

Preferred takeoffs from John Wayne Airport are big fuel wasters, requiring flying in the wrong direction before to their destinations.

When the airplanes stop flying over Newport Beach, from this airport that is six miles from the coast, there can be peace, harmony, justice and equity, and there will be a big savings in energy.

DONALD NYRE
Newport Beach

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2008 ... lbag09.txt

Hanna
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:11 pm

Re: JWA: Noise boost minor

Post by Hanna » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:51 am

Officials need to clean up JWA’s act - DP letter 1/15/08

After reading comments by John Wayne Airport officials and the airport’s noise consultant Vince Mestre, both of whom downplayed the noise decibel increase caused by increased flights, I conclude neither of them must live under the flight path of the 350 daily flights.

If they did, as I do, they would know UCI professor [Fan-Gang] Zeng is correct in his opinion that even a 2% increase is discernible by the human ear. If you live under the flight pattern all conversation stops during any take-off since the noise level of the commercial air carriers and biz jets exceeds that sound level.

Every time a flight is added we give up more conversations along with TV listening. I have been calling in noise complaints for the last 20 years. There is a biz jet that goes out at 7:30 a.m. that resonates all the way beyond the coastline.

What has not been carefully studied or accurately discerned is the amount of air pollution those planes cause and how much of it settles on our homes, schools, and environmentally protected Back Bay area.

Daily we spend more time cleaning oily residue from our front and back patios.

If airport officials downplay the noise impact, who can we trust to give accurate evaluation of all the other dangers of a busy, expanding airport that has no business located within blocks of thousands of homes, schools and the Back Bay.

DONALD AND MARCIA MARLOWE
Newport Beach

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2008 ... lbag15.txt

And comments:

Rob wrote on Jan 15, 2008 11:17 AM:
" I enjoy the JWA comments. The big question in all of this, who was there first? Surely you knew you were moving near an airport? Probably got a better deal on your home because of it. "

Jean wrote on Jan 15, 2008 12:27 PM:
"Rob asks a fair question: "Who was there first?".
Actually, a significant number of residents whob ought their homes before the airport was allowed to fly commercial planes still live in the area. An even larger number of residents bought before the number of flights increased to a degree that seriously damaged their quality of life. I am one of them.
Any further expansion could financially harm the whole city due to drastically reduced home values in a large part of the city. "

Jay wrote on Jan 15, 2008 4:33 PM:
" Jean is on the righ track and there will always be a Rob out there somwhere. I don't live right under the flight path but we don't need to in order to be affected by constant noise. There are biz jets that are heard from far away starting just afer 6:30 AM. They must be exempt. "

Timbo wrote on Jan 15, 2008 4:51 PM:
" Making a choice to buy in a certain area such as by an airport or freeway or a shopping center always has the potential to get larger or louder or increase traffic. We are overcrowded in the OC and only going to see more of it to come. I think alot of people have had quality of life issues as the years have seen an increase in population. Sad but true. I remember a sleepy Santa Ana Heights. I also rember orange groves for miles to run in. "

Good news/Bad news wrote on Jan 15, 2008 4:54 PM:
" Good news Santa Ana Heights. You're now part of Newport Beach. Too bad you'll soon have John Wayne runways going through your neighborhood. Oh well, you can move to Costa Mesa "

Jon Rodgers wrote on Jan 16, 2008 7:32 AM:
" As a consultant who specializes in noise mitigation, I would never try to downplay noise, especially when operations increase. Such a statement is essentially impossible to stand behind, which could create reasonable grounds for a lawsuit. "

A Pismo Clam wrote on Jan 16, 2008 11:23 AM:
" What? No letters urging the creation of a 24/7 operating international airport?

Oh wait. That would only work next to the homes in South County, not near the homes of the super wealthy in Newport Beach. "

Post Reply