On Demand
Not in My Back Sky
Friday, September 07, 2007
The FAA just unveiled its new plan for air space in the New York metro area in an attempt to cut congestion in the skies. Tom Davis, The Record’s transportation reporter, and Alexandra Marks, of The Christian Science Monitor, look at why no one wants planes over their back yard.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
We moved all our factories to China and now our air is clean -- to get rid of the noise why not just move our airports there too?
The best kept secret regarding the airline industry, for years, is that it is one of the most polluting to the air that we breathe, and there is no monitoring of it by any US government agency, nor any regulation of it, and the proposed new plan for the Northeast, if it includes expansion of any kind at the Westchester County Airport, and their are strong indications that it does, will cause major pollution of up to 90% of the New York City area water supply, which comes through the Kensico Reservoir, located only 250 yards west of the airport. The County government passed a resolution a few years ago supposedly freezing the footprint, hangars, gates, parking, and number of planes using the airport, but the limitation applies only to commercial planes, and the number of passengers, executive jets with timeshares, and charter flights has been steadily increasing, and the County government is under steady pressure by the FAA to increase its size and volume of traffic, regardless of any environmental considerations, and with regular financial inducements by the Federal government.
I have already submitted my comment, and I don't care to go through a repetition.
Flying is so bad these days I no longer check baggage, and pack everything I need in two carry-ons.
America's future is in railroads anyway. Mark my words...
Am I missing something here? Does wealth somehow entitle one to a noise-free environment? Are their ears so sensitive they cannot cope with the outside world.
EVERYONE WANTS TO GO TO HEAVEN BUT NOBODY WANTS TO DIE.
Thats the bottom line to such issues.
How about thinking outside the box? There is no reason why one should fly from NYC to Boston, DC, or anywhere up and down the East Coast and the Midwest for that matter. Instead of investing in airports and air traffic schemes why not invest in an efficient high speed train system?
Planes have to go take off and land somewhere!
For 20 years i have lived directly underneath the flight path of Glasgow Airport in the UK, i havent had any issue with regards to noise!
you get used to it!
Excellent point about the rail system but ticket prices here have skyrocketed and with that choice of faster and almost the same price folks opt for flying. In Europe trains are so much less expensive and that's what we need here, pocketbook friendly rail rates.
I agree with Robert. Make Amtrak more affordable and I'll stop flying with low-cost airlines for short-hauls.
I live in Rutherford, NJ under the Teterboro flight path and near the Newark flight path and can continually hear Rte 17. We cannot talk in our back yard at certain times and keep the windows closed because of plane noise. And yes I can smell the jet fuel when planes fly overhead. The private jets fly in very low. I don't want anymore noise and/or air pollution. Perhaps part of the problem is the private jets.
If the air traffic controllers route the planes closer together and get them to the airport quicker, will it help if our airports aren't equipped to help more airplanes land at the same time? I wonder if there were any air traffic controllers on the commitee that designed the new airspace?
Everyone wants to fly but nobody wants to see or hear the airplanes. You can't have it both ways. I suggest you read the FAA analysis of the situation. It is very fair and evenhanded. I think the FAA did an excellent job on this.
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/nas_redesign/regional_guidance/eastern_reg/nynjphl_redesign/media/MP070049_NY_Mitigation.pdf
One solution is to use more larger planes and fewer of the small <45 passenger commercial planes and corporate jets to move more people in less airspace. Two ways to encourage this: 1. The FAA charges it's fees on a per-passenger basis. This should be changed to a per-airplane basis so the fee per-seat is less expensive for large aircraft. 2. Union rules allow paying pilots less working on smaller planes. This should be changed.
I should also point out that larger planes are more fuel efficient per seat and there seems to be no problem filling seats these days. It would also use fewer gates, reduce airplane ground traffic, and reduce accidents.
PART 1: Since its deregulation, The FAA is basically an arm of Commercial Airlines. Their funding comes from a tax on ticket sales and airplane fuel. The ONLY job that they have is to guard against airplane crashes and enhance the Airlines' bottom lines. It is not their job, and they will tell you that, to deal with "Quality of LIfe Issues".Their "Noise mitigation" efforts are minimal and will have negligible effects on the noise. 1000 to 2000' higher is ludicrous. Their measurements are not taken on the ground and are related to engine noise from the planes rather than how they are heard or reflected on the ground. They do not consider geography either. Last year the New York Times stated that traffic in Newark Airport increased by 20%. This year as a result of relaxed limits on JFK the traffic there increased by 27%! The FAA's Project accounts for traffic increase of 3-5% annually , making its design already obsolete and noise levels very underestimated. Furthermore, It is well known that as soon as traffic is made more efficient, the airlines step in to fly more planes. As one can imagine, our elected officials are Beholden to the Airlines for a great deal of contibutions. People are mistaken if they believe that their government agencies have anything to do with their concerns.
PART 2: Your program misrepresented a number of things by not discussing or having more in depth, informed commentary by guests or callers: The opposition to the FAA plan was represented as merely NIMBY on the part of the those affected, and those affected were among the very wealthy. Our rural neighborhood is not wealthy, it is basically working and middle class,we have done our part for the commercial interests in this country by tolerating a certain amount very disruptive plane traffic( low flying at all hours of the day or night- you have to understand that clapboard houses are not as sound proof as brick apt. buildings, And one lives in a rural area in order to be able to enjoy one's outside yard). We have been rewarded for our complicity by a tremendous increase in air traffic - traffic all day long and into the evening which brings planes over every 2 to 5 minutes.
PART 3: On weekends it seems like we are living in a war zone- the planes scream and thunder overhead as they break to come into the landing pattern. We have had to cancel a family wedding because of the extreme disruption.The "Stacking" that they are talking about increases the din because now you have THREE planes directly overhead at various levels (high, medium AND low). We are TWO HOURS away from Newark and NYC and have as much noise as if we lived 10 minutes from the airports.. In New York City there is an enormous amount of ambient noise. The noise of the planes is folded into that and makes the disruption seem less egregious in many places. All in all the FAA is being manipulative and disingenuous by trying spin their efforts to increase airline capacity as something other than just that. They are an unresponsive and mendacious beaurocracy.
Minority Communities Disproportionately Impacted By FAA Airspace Redesign Plan
The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) “fanning” proposal would shift Newark Airport departure traffic to directly over fly the residential communities in the City of Elizabeth. The FAA initially indicated in its draft report that that the “fanning” procedure would cause “significant” noise and “significant environmental justice” impacts. Subsequent to including proposed mitigation, the FAA believes that both of these categories are reduced.
The New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise (NJCAAN) is highly skeptical that the FAA’s mitigation procedures will reduce these impacts below the “significant” level. We believe that the existing noise abatement procedure at a minimum should be maintained. High aircraft noise exposure in the immediate vicinity of the airport increases to 100,893 residents from 53,276 residents in Union County. It also increases to 131,916 residents from 94,407 residents in Essex County (see noise tables below).
NJCAAN Media Contact
Jerome Feder
info@njcaan.org
Airspace Redesign Increases Airport Capacity:
The FAA states that the Airspace Redesign does not increase airport capacity. However, the agency repeatedly states the exact OPPOSITE in promotional and aviation industry documents.
We believe that the FAA does not wish to illustrate this issue because the Airspace Redesign plan WILL increase. ... continued...
the area aircraft noise and emissions. NJCAAN believes that the agency rigs its analysis of the projects impacts in order to EXCLUDE appropriate emissions and aircraft noise mitigation measures that would be required to expand airport capacity. The agency also structures its analysis in other environmental reports in a similar manner, which leaves the public vulnerable to “significant” environmental impacts generated by the aviation industry. We believe that the US Congress should mandate an investigation into this egregious agency behavior.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.