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)?

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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)?