I reposted this hastily.
---------
Courier-Post
KEY POINTS
The Federal Aviation Administration is considering four options to make
better use of airspace in and around New Jersey. They are:
Take no action, leaving airspace unchanged since the late 1980s. The FAA
is including this option for comparison's sake, but it does not consider
the option viable.
Modify existing airspace to reduce complexity of air routes. The result
is improved efficiency and expedited departures. Noise will increase for
some communities and decrease for others.
Reroute flights departing from Newark over the Atlantic Ocean to reduce
air noise in North Jersey. This option would have no impact on South
Jersey, but it demonstrates that public outcry can force the FAA to more
closely examine options it otherwise would not have considered.
Integrate airspace by consolidating operations at two major control
centers. Two variations exist for this option, both of which would
require a federal investment of $150 million to $250 million and several
phases over coming years. Integrated airspace is favored by the FAA.
Noise will increase for some communities and decrease for others.
OTHER OPTIONS
U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews is researching the possibility of an additional
runway parallel to the Delaware River, as opposed to the FAA's plan for
a runway perpendicular to the river. Andrews' plan would take longer and
cost more, but bring more flights over the river instead of over South
Jersey, and could greatly increase capacity and reduce delays over the
long term.
Andrews notes Atlantic City's air****t has considerable room to grow at a
lower cost, and the growth would be a bigger boon for New Jersey.
Continuous descent approach is a method to reduce noise being tested at
some air****ts. The plan calls for airplanes to land at a steeper angle,
thereby reducing the area impacted by airplane noise and the duration of
the increased noise.
Take time to fight noisier skies
Public meeting tonight gives residents an op****tunity to question the
FAA on a plan that could mean many more jumbo jets flying over South
Jersey.
The Federal Aviation Administration knows one proposal to improve air
traffic around Philadelphia International Air****t would significantly
increase noise in South Jersey and cost the federal government as much
as a quarter-billion dollars.
It knows another plan to help alleviate air-traffic issues would do so
with less noise and no major costs.
Which do you think it favors?
Not surprisingly in our increasingly bureaucratic world, the FAA is
leaning toward the first option. And that means a number of South Jersey
communities are going to face a lower quality of life and reduced
property values in coming
years.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
FAA officials will be at Paulsboro High School from 6:30 to 9 p.m.
tonight to listen to public comments on the proposals. This is probably
your best chance to get your questions answered and make your voice
heard before this decision becomes final.
The public comment period ends June 1.
FAA options
The FAA is considering four possibilities. Of those four (see Key Points
on this page), only the plans to modify or integrate airspace will have
any impact on South Jersey.
Neither sounds like a winner for the region.
"Each airspace alternative is expected to generate significant noise
impacts in the future," according to the FAA's draft environmental
impact statement, its official study of the proposals.
But the statement also notes one option will be less disruptive than the
other.
"Modifications to existing airspace tend to create the fewest
significant impacts," the statement reads.
So why is the FAA leaning toward the other option -- the more expensive
plan that's also likely to cost more taxpayer money? That's an issue
federal officials must be prepared to clear up tonight.
According to the FAA's study, the plan to integrate airspace offers more
long-term benefits than the plan to modify airspace. But it's unclear
whether those benefits will last or whether the problems will simply be
pushed back 15 to 25 years, requiring another solution at that point.
It's also troubling that the FAA seems less interested in the serious
effects of increased noise pollution in some communities because those
communities already suffer from regular noise disturbances from
aircraft.
"All of the significantly impacted census blocks are located in the
vicinity of (LaGuardia, Newark and Philadelphia international air****ts).
These areas already are exposed to extensive aviation noise," the study
reads.
Problem spreading
Despite the FAA's claims, many South Jerseyans can attest that air noise
problems are not limited to the communities nearest the air****t.
"I've noticed an increasing problem . . . getting worse over the last
five years," U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, D-Haddon Heights, said of noise
around his home. Andrews commented that he has felt vibrations in his
house from aircraft.
Nicholas Boonin of West Collingswood might have it even worse.
"We keep our windows shut all summer and, if we're outside when a plane
goes by, all conversation stops," he said.
The FAA, however, insists the problem is largely isolated to Gloucester
County communities such as Paulsboro, National Park, Gibbstown, West
Deptford and some others.
That's partially because of how it measures noise problems. It does so
by taking an average of the airplane noise spread through the entire
year.
South Jerseyans know such a measure means little.
"The idea of average decibel level completely misses the point of
airplane noise," Andrews said. "One airplane that rattles your house
once a week is disruptive, but it's a low average."
A better indicator, Andrews suggested, would be to measure the highest
decibel level in a community and how often it happens.
If the FAA doesn't track noise spikes in this manner, it should begin
doing so.
More study needed
The FAA's goal in redesigning airspace from New York to Philadelphia
appears to be allowing for growth while reducing delays.
Such an increase in air traffic would promote air pollution and threaten
compliance with the federal Clean Air Act, said Robert Belzer, president
of the New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise.
Belzer suggests residents ask FAA representatives why this isn't
addressed in the draft statement, especially when the region's current
air-quality problems are taken into consideration.
And even if the FAA can justify increased air traffic, one has to wonder
why it has apparently failed to consider several larger solutions that
could tremendously benefit the region.
One option is the construction of another full-length runway in
Philadelphia parallel to the Delaware River.
Such a plan could cost upwards of $300 million and would require
relocation of a UPS warehouse, said Andrews, whose office is looking
into such a plan. But the end result would be significant increases in
capacity while allowing the additional planes to fly closer to the
river, reducing the number of residents impacted by their noise.
Another possibility would be expanding Atlantic City's air****t. That
air****t -- closer than Newark and New York facilities -- needs more
terminals but has plenty of space available for runway expansion,
Andrews noted.
"They could double the flights they handle," Andrews said.
Before the FAA makes any decisions that could severely deflate property
values throughout South Jersey, it needs to listen to residents and make
every attempt to fully investigate every possibility.
We urge residents to use the op****tunity tonight to ensure their
concerns are addressed.
Published: March 27. 2006 3:00AM
|
