Connecticut towns fighting flights
The FAA wants to shift flight paths over small towns in Connecticut to improve congestion in the New York area. But folks upset over the prospect of jet-filled skies are fighting the move. Ashley Milne-Tyte reports.
People walking past an Airbus A380 plane. (Carl De Souza/AFP/Getty Images)
More on Airline Industry
TEXT OF STORY
Stacey Vanek-Smith: We still have a couple weeks of summer left. That's peak travel season. With big crowds and of course, long waits. Now the government wants to improve the notorious delay situation at airports in the New York area. Part of the plan involves rerouting flights, and that's ruffling some very affluent feathers. Ashley Milne-Tyte reports.
Ashley Milne-Tyte: Ridgefield, Connecticut is one of several towns that's suing the FAA for trying to shift the flight paths.
Rudy Marconi is Ridgefield's top official. He admits his resistance may sound a little selfish. Still:
Rudy Marconi: That's no reason for us to sit back and say that's fine, relocate 150 to 300 flights a day right down the throat of Fairfield County. We're not gonna be that easy and we're not gonna accept that.
Marconi says the FAA hasn't explored all the alternatives. But Michael E. Levine of the NYU School of Law says the Connecticut towns may see planes thousands of feet overhead, but they'll barely hear them.
Michael Levine: A modern jet airliner flying over at that altitude makes what you could call background noise.
Levine says the proposed changes will mean more noise for some areas near Newark. He says the lawsuits are holding up the FAA's plan to reduce delays, and that's bad for everyone.
In New York, I'm Ashley Milne-Tyte for Marketplace.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Greenwich, CT, 08/03/2009
Heather wrote: "The problem with this project is not noise." Well, it sure is for me and many other area residents! I live in the Greenwich area. I have't had a good night's sleep in a log time, and I wear ear-plugs for most of the day! See my "http://TheGoosingOfGreenwich.blogspot.com" had a good night's sleep in
From Floral Park, NY, 08/14/2008
AirSpace Redesign for JFK arrivals is UNSAFE and BIASED:
On December 19, 2007, the FAA implemented part of their $50 million New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign program. Airspace redesign began in 2000 with various stages allowing input from the public and elected officials. The end results are not good news for our community as well as New Hyde Park and South Floral Park. I believe the JFK runway construction effort that began in April, 2005, was used as a smoke screen to pre-implement this program. In spite of the fact a representative of the Port Authority told us the construction would have little impact on us because of the existing runway rotation schedules, this had not been the case. Now we are hearing that increased volume is the source of the problem. This is just another excuse from the FAA. We have already heard and painstakingly disproven other excuses for using the Floral Park approaches: whenever it is DARK; to avoid the ‘BLACK HOLE’ caused by the ocean backdrop and; the planes are suddenly TOO big to make the turns prior to New Hyde Park and Floral Park!!!
The following information had been provided to our elected officials with some updates added.
o In spite of the fact that sophisticated all-weather navigational aide exists to guide aircraft on approaches east of us, we continue to receive most bad weather approaches in the eastern part of town using an antiquated ground based beacon located in the Village of Floral Park. The planes have been compressed closer together with an increase from 30 to 35 arrivals an hour.
o Now most good weather approaches, that used the routes east of us, are being re-routed over our homes. This almost literally doubles our volume of traffic. Although denied by the FAA, I believe this is a major part of their Air Redesign program.
o In concert with the above change, the FAA shifted a parallel runway at JFK from takeoff’s to approaches. The FAA blames this change on increasing volume but this does not wash as they always used another community approaches, e.g., South Shore, for these arrivals. This change impacts the western part of the Village, which previously only saw arrivals during extreme weather conditions, and initially resulted in up to 15 arrivals an hour for, at times, a total of 50 planes an hour within our borders. I have seen 3 aircraft arriving at once within the Village. Careful examination of the model used by the FAA seems to indicate that the western approach can also handle future growth up to 35 arrivals an hour for a potential total of 70 planes an hour.
From Wilton, CT, 08/14/2008
This issue is about noise pollution as a health risk. It affects every man, woman and child in the world regardless of socio-economic standing. Fortunately, a few champions from Philadelphia to Boston are bringing this issue to national attention - again.
Our SW Connecticut Chapter of the Hearing Loss Association of America is concerned about noise pollution regardless of the source. Whether caused by a low-flying airplane, motorcycle, or lawn mower, noise can be dangerous to our auditory system and can cause damage to our body cells and organs, including the heart, brain and nervous system. Noise stresses fragile hair-cell structures in our ears and elsewhere in our bodies, contributing to deafness and early aging.
Of course, quiet noise like human conversation or birds singing is not risky to our health. But folks should know that impulse noise, like that from low-flying aircraft, especially helicopters, is one leading cause of Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL). Over ten per cent of Americans have hearing loss, and 35% of those cases are caused by NIHL.
Experts say it is the prolonged exposure to loud noise that causes hearing loss, too. This is why Robert L. Weiss, MD, who practices in Norwalk, has recommended not playing iPods at high volume for more than 15 minutes without resting the ears. Furthermore, recent research has found that continuous exposure to noise leads to hearing loss. If the FAA Proposal is implemented, all of us who spend time outside will be confronted with continuous dosages of noise and more noise – annoying and unhealthy.
A 1986 Easter Island confirmed a prior study proving that prolonged exposure to urban noise can result in the acceleration of hearing loss by as many as 25 years. Audiograms of Easter Island people between 45 and 75 years old, average age 60, were divided into groups by age and by time spent on mainland. Those people who spent five years or more on the mainland had poorer hearing than those that stayed on the island. These studies are powerful evidence of why we should strive to eliminate, and not allow, noise pollution.
Many hearing aids in use today amplify the noise along with the desired sounds. Therefore, individuals who wear hearing aids have an even greater risk of damage from noise.
Jonathan Brown
VP SWCT Hearing Loss Assoc. of America
From pound ridge, NY, 08/13/2008
I am an avid NPR listener and am usually impressed with the quality of programming on this station. Unfortunately, your segment about the FAA Redesign Plan is inaccurate on many levels. Towns in Connecticut and New York are not against redesigning the airspace. We all agree the current delays are problematic. However, if the FAA is going to redesign the airspace we all deserve it to be redesigned in a way that actually reduces delays, does not jeopardize the environment unnecessarily, and minimizes the human impact. The towns are suing the FAA because the redesign was not developed according to the law and as a result the redesign was developed in a flawed manner. This is something everyone across the US should be concerned about. Right now the redesign is happening in the Northeast (which explains why towns in the NE are suing the FAA right now) but other parts of the country will be affected in turn as the entire airspace is ultimately redesigned. The FAA must be held accountable for going through all of the proper studies and steps when redesigning the airspace. If the FAA skips studying the safety and environmental impact of plans in the NE, they will skip these studies in other parts of the country. If the FAA does not allow the public to comment to their proposed plan in the NE, they will not solicit public opinions in other parts of the country. If the FAA implements a plan that significantly increases noise and damages the environment while saving a mere 3 minutes per flight in the NE, the same will happen in other parts of the country. The towns currently suing the FAA should be supported by other towns across the nation that are located in close proximity to airports across the nation. The lawsuit is simply to say to the FAA that we want a redesign plan significantly reduces time delay and we want it designed properly taking into account all of the studies, meetings, and other steps required by law. those that are characterizing this as a NIMBY issue of a few rich towns are not only completely off base, but are doing a disservice to the entire nation that ultimately stand to benefit should the FAA be held accountable.
If you care about the noise level, water quality, and/or air quality where you live, I urge you to support the efforts of the towns in the Northeast to hold the FAA accountable for developing and delivering a serious plan that is safe and effective. Your town may be the next town impacted by a redesign. If the FAA is simply allowed to change things without following the law, your town may have to pay the price.
Alison Boak, MPH
08/13/2008
The converage on this subject has been troublingly distorted. Noise pollution is not a minor matter, and the Redesign will hit poor communities far more than rich ones, over 5 states. The resulting noise pollution will have no material benefits for travelers! Even the FAA admits flight times would, at best, be reduced by less than 5 minutes on average, and that assumes a good case. The truth is that the NY Metro airports cannot handle the current flight levels due to constraints not remediable by airspace re-design. The industry is waging a campaign to imply the Redesign is well-conceived. In reality, it just promotes greater numbers of flights without regard to the environmental costs and with no material benefit regarding congestion and flight delays.
From Scotch Plains, NJ, 08/13/2008
Given the recent news reports on Airspace Redesign aircraft noise impacts that are focused on wealthy communities in the metro area, we are taking opportunity to remind the media that the FAA identified “significant environmental justice impacts” that the Airspace Redesign could generate in Elizabeth, NJ. Although the FAA suggests that it has put mitigation in place to address these impacts, we are highly skeptical that the mitigation is adequate. In addition, the FAA’s modeling data barely avoids triggering significant environmental justice impacts and is suspect.
We would like to request that media coverage also focus on the environmental justice impacts of the FAA’s plan when it is reporting on this topic. Below is an old email that we sent out in 2006 when the FAA first introduced the draft environmental impact statement for the plan.
NJCAAN Media Contact
Jerome Feder
www.njcaan.org
Environmental Justice Impacts From FAA Project Significant!
All of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Metro Airspace Redesign proposals would result in “SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS”, except for the Ocean Routing and Future No Action (existing procedures) alternatives. The agency’s proposals are taken to the extent to discard long-established aircraft noise abatement procedures at Newark Airport by fanning departures. The result could be a material increase in aircraft noise (and potentially emissions) for the minority communities in the City of Elizabeth and the surrounding areas.
The New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise (NJCAAN) applauds Governor Corzine, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Menendez for opposing the alternatives that rely upon fanning departures*. We are calling upon the balance of our elected officials also to voice their opposition. We have listed specific language from the FAA’s recently released report that highlights these environmental injustices below.
NJCAAN
www.njcaan.org
“…the significant noise impacts near EWR (Newark Airport) would constitute a disproportionate impact on a minority population.” (p. 4-45)
“The Modifications to Existing Airspace Alternative, Integrated Airspace Alternative Variation without ICC, and Integrated Airspace Alternative with ICC all would result in disproportionate impacts to minority populations and, therefore, would result in significant environmental justice impacts.” (p. 4-45)
Source: Draft Environmental Impact Statement EJ Section 4.2.2
Report Internet Link: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/nas_redesign/regional_guidance/eastern_reg/nynjphl_redesign/
New Jersey Lawmakers Protest Bush Admin. Proposal To Increase Aircraft Noise Over Homes and Businesses In New Jersey Internet Link: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=254591&&
From Pound Ridge, NY, 08/13/2008
This is hardly just about ruffling some feathers in wealthy communities. The FAA's flawed redesign is being forced upon communities large and small across the economic spectrum. Furthermore, the redesign will be rolled out across the country, even though the plan is thoroughly undemocratic (the FAA did NOT meet with or study the impacted communities in advance) and will have a negative impact on the environment. And, just as important, it will NOT solve flight delays. The air traffic controllers are even opposed to the plan. It's time to get the facts straight.
From Scotch Plains, NJ, 08/13/2008
We are puzzled why NPR would focus on only one area of the FAA's plan. It is widespread. The plan has particular implications for the minority communities around Newark Airport where the FAA has identified significant noise and significant environmental justice impacts from the project. We are picking up adverse noise impacts in Elizabeth, Newark, Hillside, and Union, NJ--principally minority communities.
Please note that the Redesign will not solve the delay problem in the metro area, which principally is driven by airlines scheduling operations in excess of instrument flight rule (IFR) or inclement weather capacity. When the weather deteriorates, so does the system's capacity, which results in the delay scenario that we all are used to in the metro area. Finally, the FAA's modeling assumptions for the Redesign are based on rosy, fair weather conditions. As we all know, delays principally are weather driven, and the FAA did not model these conditions when it projected its delay reduction for the project.
NJ Coalition Against Aircraft Noise
Media Contact
Jerome Feder
www.njcaan.org
From New York, NY, 08/13/2008
I am a long time supporter of your programming and this service. Thank you. I must say this radio short you have produced is poorly researched. The problem with this project is not noise. The problem with the project is it is deeply flawed, raises serious safety concerns and the FAA directly violated environmental law and due process by rolling it out prematurely. But what should concern travelers most is that this program failed to achieve it's chief objective of solving flight delay.
The FAA began rolling out some changes in PA and NJ in December 2007, then JFK in July of 08 and as recently as August at LGA. Several of these untested procedures resulted in near misses, wrong turns at Newark and thunderous outcrys from communities who were never made aware of the changes. 2 days ago La Guardia Changes were rolled back. Several weeks ago JFK procedures were rolled back. According to the implementation plan, the design phase has yet to be completed with no supplemental impact statement. That is in direct violation of NEPA.
Please read the GAO study just released this July on flight delay to understand who redesigning the airspace does not help flight delay.
According to the FAA, this project to redesign the airspace will at best save 3 minutes per flight by the year 2012 while increasing fuel burn, emissions and air and noise pollution to hundreds of thousands of residents across 5 states. Read Attachment A Mitre Report of the revised ROD issued by the FAA this July. Please also note that the GAO just audited the program which is due this August and the Department of Transportation's office of the Inspector Generals comments on the project in 2005 were extensive and cause for further assessment of the project.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.