A Brief History of Airport Noise in Somerville

[tom-champion.livejournal.com]

Hello, Ladies and Gents of the DSLJ

I note the airplane noise discussion got ginned up again over the weekend (understandably so, since noise levels were noticeably higher than usual).

I’m going to try once more, as briefly as I can, to provide some crucial historical background, since DSLJ debate on this topic usually resolves so quickly into a match among the “this-is-a-fact-of-life-in-an-urban-environment-and-we-all-need-the-airport” forces, the “my-quality-of-life-my-sanity-my-ability-to-work-are-all-being-destroyed-by-constant-jet-noise” forces and – perhaps most numerous – the “why-discuss-it-when-nothing-ever-happens?” forces.  I am not trying to prolong the discussion, and everyone is entitled to her/his opinion, but it's really important to know the history.

If you lived in Somerville before 2007, your ears do not deceive you: there’s been a sharp increase in jet noise.   The FAA and Massport COULD bring the noise back to past levels with very little change in airfield throughput or on-time performance.  They WON’T, because appealing the most recent court ruling just isn’t cost-effective, so Somerville is unable to carry on the fight.  Policy at the FAA is still largely in the hands of Bush-area appointees, and even Obama appointees don’t like setting precedents that might constrain the authority of the FAA to do whatever it deems necessary to manage air traffic.

So it is what it is.

Here are some key bits of information that  often go missing from these discussions:

1.    Even though commercial jet aircraft are, on the whole, much quieter today than then they were in the ’70s and ’80s, it really IS a lot noisier today in Somerville’s skies than it was five, ten or twenty years ago.  The added noise cannot be explained by changes in wind patterns or in  the number of takeoffs and landings.  
2.    We know to a fair degree of certainty why this change has occurred:  In November 2006, Logan opened a new runway (14/32) that has become part of a favored reconfiguration of how the entire airfield is used by the FAA’s air traffic controllers.  In the new configuration, takeoffs from Runway 33L have nearly tripled – and almost all the aircraft using the runway are so-called “heavies,” i.e., the biggest jets.
3.    In seeking environmental permissions to build the new runway, Massport officials promised back in the late '90's and early '00s that the added capacity would not result in a “significant change” in Logan’s overall noise envelope or in the use of any particular runway.
4.    In June 2009, the City of Somerville brought suit to reopen the settlement of the environmental case against Massport (Massport v. City of Boston et al., 2004) on the grounds that Massport and Logan were no longer in compliance with the terms of the settlement that cleared the way for the construction of 14/32.  (The City of Boston did not join in the request to reopen the case, in part because the noise Somerville experiences today used to be heard over the skies over Dorchester and Jamaica Plain.)
5.    Judge Stephen Neel refused to reopen the case, saying that Somerville wasn’t part of the area of major impact covered by the original agreement (the area in which jet noise regularly exceeds 60 dB) and it’s impossible to determine whether it is now.  There’s a real Catch-22 here, since the noise monitoring equipment needed to verify current levels is expensive and, unlike communities like East Boston or Revere, Somerville would have to pay for it itself and collect data for at least a year before claiming that it should receive protection under the original settlement.
    
So there you have it.  Speaking as someone who worked for Massport from 1983 to 1995 and for the City of Somerville from 2005 to the start of 2010, I can only restate my personal belief that more could and should be done to mitigate the impacts of the sharp increase in airport noise over Somerville in the past four years.  I also readily acknowledge that there is little likelihood that anything will ever be done.

As Rabelais has it, “What cannot be remedied must be endured.”

    

Comments

[gentlescholar.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much for that informative post.

[misterthorn.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Tom, that fills in a lot of gaps in my own knowledge and understanding of the issues. Very much appreciated.

[ron_newman]

Thank you for posting this.

One question -- you say that "The FAA and Massport COULD bring the noise back to past levels with very little change in airfield throughput". Can they do this without increasing noise somewhere else (such as JP and Dorchester)?

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

That's my question, too. This has been one of the most informative and informed posts on the topic, and extremely helpful. But in the reduction of the basic arguments, the last one that comes up a lot is something along the lines of "if-not-over-our-backyards-then-over-whose?" which I find a valid and compelling question.

I *do* notice the increase, having lived in this particular house for 12 years, and in Somerville off and on since the eighties, and I don't like it, or how I'm more or less stuck with it as a home-owner and committed community member. But there's a part of me that feels like if I'm going to argue for S'ville's rights to a Green Line based on the transportation-equality and justice issues, than I should be prepared for my share of the airport noise *if* the increase of noise over my house indicates a more equitable burden-sharing with neighboring communities.

I do also feel that just as we as a society need to figure out how to drive automobiles less often for our ecological and economic security, we also need to figure out how to fly less. Airplane noises are the least of our worries when you look at the carbon-footprint of jet. That's a story for another day, though.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the informative post, Tom.

And miss_chance has managed to describe some of my issues, as far as transportation justice etc.

This really sounds like an opportunity for, eg, environmental engineering folks at a local university to engage in some kind of evidence gathering. Independent research is fun!

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

This is a beautiful argument. Frankly, when this issue began way back in the 1990's, the plan was to heave some of the increased air traffic over to Hanscom Field in Bedford. But back then, Somerville was just another working class city and the communities surrounding Hanscom Field pulled their money and political weight together to successfully lobby against this, even though the proposal showed minimal increased noise for the residential areas around the field (I work here, my office is ON the flightline, and it's quieter here with constant small plane traffic than it is over my home a few miles from Logan).

While there would have been an increase in noise, it wouldn't have been as substantial as people feared - and it would have eased the burden of several urban areas that were highly impacted.

My sense about this, then as now, was that it was wholly unfair for Eastie, Chelsea, and the neighborhoods that would have seen some immediate relief. It would have alleviated some airport traffic, some noise, and generally spread the benefits as well as downfalls of having an active airport serving a metro area across all manner of users.

FWIW: I'm not bothered by the noise. I don't even notice MILAIR when they're around because I'm used to it. But similarly, I do feel that eastie and the areas closest Logan have had too much for too long and it's time to share their pain if we want to keep a viable urban center as an international point for travel - for both business and leisure.

[tom-champion.livejournal.com]

Good point, Ron. Noise is essentially a "zero-sum" game. However, significant relief for Somerville (say, reducing 33L takeoffs as a share of Logan's total T/Os from 18% to, say, 10 or 12%) would in all probability still leave the big winners under the current scheme well below the levels of noise they used to encounter. The problem is that the changes wrought by the adoption of the new runway usage have produced BIG winners Dorchester, JP and points south) and BIG losers (Somerville, Chelsea, Everett, Medford, Arlington) -- which is not only unfair, but also expressly forbidden by the terms of the 2004 settlement that cleared the way for construction of Runway 14/32. Unfortunately, Judge Neel didn't see it that way.
Margot Botsford, the judge who originally tried the case and wrote the original settlement, was elevated by Governor Patrick to the SJC in 2007. It's a great appointment, but she's no longer available to interpret her own ruling. More's the pity.

[veek.livejournal.com]

Wow, yes, informative and useful. Thank you, Tom.

[ifotismeni]

tom, thank you.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Appreciated, thanks. Maybe we can close this book!

[satyrgrl.livejournal.com]

Wow, that you so much for this. I had no idea what the background of the situation was, and was pretty much just enduring the torment of jet noise. Knowing that the city has made an effort to address this makes a huge difference, even if it looks like nothing will be changing any time soon.

FWIW, I first encountered this problem in a major way when I moved from Davis to Ten Hills three years ago. At that point the noise was completely unacceptable. Since then it seems like it has decreased, though it seems to vary with the weather, time of year, time of day, etc.. Perhaps someone with day to day control is making an effort on behalf of our sanity.

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

Although you are no longer the Voice of Somerville, you are the Voice of History, and in all likelihood the Voice of Reason.

Nice to hear from you.

[muffyjo]

She said it best, I'll just point out she's right.

She's right. [pointedly]

[misterthorn.livejournal.com]

How much does noise monitoring equipment cost? Or how much would it cost to retain a consulting firm (if any exist!) that could compile a report for Somerville?

Is it that Somerville doesn't have that kind of money, or is it that the city wants to spend it on something else, in which case an organized and determined group of people might actually be able to make a difference?

[tom-champion.livejournal.com]

"Is it that Somerville doesn't have that kind of money, or is it that the city wants to spend it on something else, in which case an organized and determined group of people might actually be able to make a difference?"

Yes and yes. Let's put it this way: outsourcing the school custodian function was supposed to save the City about $1.5 million per year. Putting in noise monitoring equipment and ding the necessary study would cost about $1.1 million. Follow-up legal fees would have added another $200K, give or take -- and all with no guarantee of long-term success. Mayor Joe weighed the odds and looked at the current fiscal picture and decided not to proceed. At the time, my sense of the Board of Aldermen was that they agreed with his assessment.

Somerville ended up doing far more to take on this issue than its neighbors. Adjacent municipalities were all asked to help underwrite the legal battle -- and every one of them pleaded poverty.

[ringrose.livejournal.com]

Perhaps when the economy turns around we'll be able to consider it again.

[starnois.livejournal.com]

I'm so happy my post last night was the nail in the coffin that got us this informative response.

I think it was the youtube vid that did it.

Thanks Tom

[amy-s1.livejournal.com]

BTW,

The planes almost always use runway 33L during Northwest winds. NW winds are more common in the winter, but we have had a streak of NW wind days lately, and it looks like a few more in the future per the linked forecast.

It amazes me how some people just accept this noise increase. Either they don't spend any time outside, or they simply have no desire to improve the standard of living in their own neighborhood. Sadly, probably both.


http://www.windfinder.com/forecast/boston_logan_airport

[closetalker11.livejournal.com]

Either they don't spend any time outside, or they simply have no desire to improve the standard of living in their own neighborhood. Sadly, probably both.

Hey there, thanks for the judgment! Actually, it has more to do with the fact that a) this has been explained before, and b) growing up under a flight path, I manage to tune it out pretty well. Of course, that doesn't mean I haven't reported extra noise when there was a line to do so through the city. However, I tend to refrain from complaining aboutit on this blog, for all of the reasons stated above.

[somertricky.livejournal.com]

This.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

I also think this is unnecessarily judgmental. Thanks for pigeonholing me into your limited list of options.

[lac.livejournal.com]

Oooh...you got me! How did you know?

Seriously, just because I don't bitch about it on the blog, doesn't mean I am not bothered by it, it just means I don't grouse about it here. I don't grouse about a lot of things here, doesn't mean I don't care about them.

I don't think it's particularly fair or gracious of you to pigeonhole people that way. But I grew up in the city of Boston so I am used to a fair amount of noise as well and it's probably easier for me to deal with it (like closertaker11) than people who didn't grow up with it.

[ratatosk.livejournal.com]

So, we need a scheme of weather control...

I wonder if that would cost more or less than the sound monitoring equipment.

[davelew.livejournal.com]

> 5. Judge Stephen Neel refused to reopen the case, saying that Somerville
> wasn’t part of the area of major impact covered by the original agreement
> (the area in which jet noise regularly exceeds 60 dB)

Judge Stephen Neal is wrong. The sound levels on my front porch from airplanes are regularly that high. At least one low-flying super-heavy per hour hits the 69-70 dB range, although most planes are closer to 65dB.

The price for sound monitoring equipment sounds high. McMaster-Carr sells a NIST-traceable sound meter for under $200, with an accuracy of +/-2dB. My measurements of the noise are so high that such a low-end sound meter could easily demonstrate that sound levels exceed 60dB, even including the margin of error.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Your low-end sound meter isn't reliable dealing with a loud noise from an extreme distance. It's the noise itself, not the noise in combination with anything else. It also has to be a consistent problem. You have to be pulling at least 60 dB, just from that noise, on a regular basis.

Fun fact: the inside of a car is 70 dB.

[tom-champion.livejournal.com]

It turns out I was a little low on the "acceptable" noise level. According to Massport's website:
"65 dB DNL is a level the FAA says is incompatible with residential communities. Population exposed to levels of noise in excess of 65 dB DNL decreased from 9,438 in 2004 to 6,477 in 2005, approximately 31%."

Also, you need several noise monitors at different locations.

Plus you have to include the cost of a consultant to gather, compile and analyze the data, and to prepare a technical report to accompany the legal pleading. All of that costs much more than the hardware.

I dunno, though. It may be you could find somebody experienced and credible to do the work for less, especially in the current economy.

There's a picture on this Massport web page of the type of monitoring station they use:

http://www.massport.com/environment/environmental_reporting/Noise%20Abatement/NoiseMonitoring.aspx

[davelew.livejournal.com]

I don't need several noise monitors at different locations to demonstrate that the lawsuit shouldn't be thrown out. I only need one data point at 1 location to prove that there is a problem that merits further study.

Also, it's interesting to look at the locations of those 30 listening stations from your link. There are 14 stations in Boston, 5 in Winthrop, 1 in Chelsea, 1 in Everett, 1 in Medford, and 0 in Somerville.

[twe.livejournal.com]

I note there's another link on that site, "Complaints by Town." It looks like they keep a count, so perhaps more frequent calls to the complaint number might at least build up data which could be used if the city is able to pursue this issue at a later time:

"You may also call Massport's Noise Complaint Line at (617) 561-3333. This line is staffed by Massport's Noise Abatement Office from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on business days."

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

You raise a very valid point, in that not all airplane noise is created equal. Just look at the departures for today:

You've got one transcontinental flight in there, but the bulk of your transatlantic flights are leaving in an 80min window in the evening, and all the aircraft on that list aren't known for being that quiet.

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Tom.

I'd like to point out that lawsuits are not the only way to make a policy change. And they often end up being the most expensive, and don't create an outcome that's fair to the people involved.

What do Somerville's state and Federal reps have to say about the issue? Massport and the FAA derive their power from the people (in theory).

[tom-champion.livejournal.com]

The FAA literally refuses to talk with city officials outside the context of their Boston-Logan Airport Noise Study (BLANS) Project -- and then only through our representative to the Logan Airport Community Advisory Committee (CAC). Conveniently for the FAA, however, the scope of that study specifically excludes the possibility of reducing noise through changes to runway configuration and utilization.
Congressman Capuano and Senator Kerry are sympathetic and have raised the issue with the FAA, but they have to make the same calculation abou the expenditure of large amounts of political capital that Mayor Joe has had make about spending financial resources.
Our local reps and senators can't do much, because Massport ultimately can hide behind the FAA shield whenever it wants. (As a practical matter, I think Massport wouldn't mind implementing a long-discussed but never deployed Preferential Runway Advisory System - PRAS - that would set and track formal standards for more equitably apportioning noise consistent with the requirements of safety and efficiency. But they can't do that unless the FAA plays ball.)
If there had been a plausible path to a political solution rather than a legal one, the City would have preferred it for the very reasons you suggest.
On the other hand, the threat of legal action is often what gets the political wheels turning.
In this case, though, nothing has worked.
(Caution: there used to be a nice online repository of information about BLANS and FAA policy at www.bostonoverflightnoisestudy.com but it's apparently been infected by nasty malware. Don't go there, 'kay?)

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

The thing is that many of them also represent the areas that would be affected by increased noise if the patterns changed to decrease the noise over Somerville. So making Somerville voters happy at the expense of Dorchester voters is a bit of a zero-sum game.

I think Tom may well be correct that, if Logan went back to a version of its old flight-plan patterning, Dorchester would still have a net reduction of noise from the old days, but it would be an increase from what it is now and that would make the Dorchester voters angry.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

Maybe we can add an "airplane noise" tag (to distinguish it from other things that fall into the "noise" tag), just so we don't keep rehashing the same comments over and over?

I mean, yeah. Nobody likes the airplane noise. Many people would like to do something about it. There are places to make the complaints that are more useful than making the complaints here.

Saying "Well, if you're not complaining about airplane noise in the davis_square LJ, you obviously don't care about the community" is ridiculous. Complaining about airplane noise in the davis_square LJ will accomplish nothing, except perhaps the relief of venting one's annoyance. Complaining through the proper channels may also accomplish nothing except the relief of venting one's annoyance, but there's much more chance of accomplishing something by doing that than by complaining here.

[sparkgrrl658.livejournal.com]

totally agree, i have to admit i was surprised there wasn't a tag for this already.

[ron_newman]

OK, I did just what you asked for -- added an "airplane noise" tag, and moved all of the posts about airplanes to that tag.

[cos]

Thanks. Can you clarify something: Does choosing not to appeal at this time, make it any harder to reopen the issue at some point in the future?

[amy-s1.livejournal.com]

"Well, if you're not complaining about airplane noise in the davis_square LJ, you obviously don't care about the community"

I was referring to the posters that basically attack anyone that brings up the subject, not the people who aren't saying anything. Discussing the subject here raises awareness, and we can discuss ideas for what to do about it. We can also share handy wind forecast links that allow us to know if the weekend is going to be noisy or not, so we can plan accordingly.

http://www.windfinder.com/forecast/boston_logan_airport

So, seems like a perfectly legitimate community discussion topic if you ask me. Sounds like Tom C feels the same way.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

Thank you for making clear what you meant to say in your earlier post.

I don't think this is a poor topic for community discussion; I just think we don't need to reinvent the wheel every time someone wants to discuss it.

Hence my suggestion of a separate "airplane noise" tag so that people will be more likely to find previous posts on the topic which may answer their questions or connect them with the resources they need.

moderator note: tag suggestion accepted

[ron_newman]

I like the idea, but it will take a while to retag all the old posts. Give me a day or two.

[amy-s1.livejournal.com]

A new tag makes sense. Last night was particularly loud and a very low plane woke my daughter up at 11 PM.

The one thing we can do is KEEP CALLING the complaint line over and over, at least once a day on loud days. MAKE SURE you request the report be mailed to you, otherwise I suspect they dont always log the complaint.

On the bright aside, it looks like the predominantly NW winds shift on Wednesday afternoon so the plane should stop for a while. The weekend looks iffy, mostly west winds, so hopefully no planes.

[muffyjo]

Is this something that someplace like Tufts could help evaluate as part of a course on the effects of sound or something? Might they already have that kind of equipment (not to mention the dutiful students who could help take readings)?