Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 70
70 Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations
Small/Non-Hub Airport with Passenger Service--Long Beach
Airport (LGB)
http://www.longbeach.gov/airport/noiseabatement/default.asp Accessed 7/22/2008. (123)
Long Beach Airport (LGB) in southern California was selected as a case study because it is
a small-hub commercial passenger airport with a large general aviation component that expe-
rienced a sudden upsurge of passenger flights by scheduled air carriers. Because the airport is
completely surrounded by dense development, the community reacted strongly to the intro-
duction of new flights and the airport has developed a communications program for the pub-
lic and a negotiation process with the airline to respond to the concerns. As a case study it
illustrates a combination of solutions for addressing the public, the airlines, and the airline
user group.
Long Beach Airport was built in 1923 and expanded in the late 1920s when the city built
hangars and administrative facilities for the Army and Navy. It was enlarged to 500 acres in 1941.
It is now completely surrounded by dense development of largely industrial and golf course uses,
but dense residential development lies within 1,500 feet of the runway in some directions.
The airport serves nearly 3 million commercial airline passengers annually, with flights to
destinations throughout the United States. It also is among the top five busiest general aviation
airports in the world, with approximately 371,000 annual general aviation operations in 2007,
including Life Flight organ donor and critical care patient delivery flights, law enforcement, and
search/rescue flights. It also is a center for air cargo carriers DHL, Federal Express, and UPS,
which transport more than 49,000 tons of goods each year.
It is one of the few airports that continues to be an important aircraft manufacturing and flight-
training center, hosting the Boeing Company, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, and Flight
Safety as tenants.
Brief History of Noise Abatement
The City of Long Beach began efforts to manage aircraft-related noise through adoption of a
noise ordinance more than 20 years ago. These efforts to control airport noise were challenged in
the courts for over 12 years by the airlines and other user groups. Ultimately, an Airline Settle-
ment Agreement struck a balance between air commerce needs and community noise exposure
concerns. The resulting Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance (LBMC 16.43) was passed in
1995, making Long Beach one of the strictest noise-controlled airports in the United States. In the
meantime, Congress had passed the Airport Noise and Capacity Act in 1990 giving authority over
airport access and noise control actions to the federal government and FAA. However, the City
was able to work with the FAA to get the ordinance "grandfathered", and since that time no other
city has succeeded in enacting an airport noise related ordinance that controls the number of daily
commercial flight operations.
According to an earlier version of the airport's website, the 10 key components of the Long
Beach Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance are: (123)
Long Beach Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance Provisions
1. The Long Beach Airport is operational 24 hours a day.
2. Commercial carriers are allowed at least 41 flights daily and commuter carriers are allowed
at least 25 daily flights.
3. Single Event Noise Equivalent Levels (SENEL) are established for four time periods. The
nighttime period from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. is the most sensitive and therefore has the most
restrictive allowable noise limit.
4. A Violation Process is established.
OCR for page 71
Case Studies in Airport/Stakeholder Communication 71
5. An Alternative Enforcement Procedure is established including referral to the City Prosecu-
tor for action.
6. Five airport user groups were established and assigned an annual noise budget for takeoff
and landing noise. The five user groups are air carriers (commercial airlines), commuter car-
riers, charter operators, industrial/manufacturing operators and general aviation (which
includes all other users). The noise of military operations, public aircraft, law enforcement,
and emergency life flights is excluded in calculating CNEL and in assessing compliance with
CNEL goal and annual noise budget.
7. As an incentive for airlines to fly quietly, the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance pro-
vides that additional flights only can be added if it is determined by the City that the cumu-
lative noise level would remain below the annual noise budget standard with the added flight
or flights included.
8. Single event noise tracking, real-time noise, and actual recorded noise are required, so the
airport has installed 18 noise monitors and a flight tracking system.
9. Limitations on hours of training and run-ups are established, including early curtailment
on weekends and holidays, and all but one runway is closed during late night hours.
10. A pilot education program is established as an on-going program to teach pilots about com-
munity noise issues. This program involves working with pilots on preventing and reducing
noise impacts in the community.
LGB was selected as the southern California hub location for Jet Blue Airlines in 2001. Jet Blue
initiated service with many new flights to the east coast. The airport previously had very limited
commercial passenger service, only 14 flights daily, which increased to the 41 flight limit with
the introduction of service by Jet Blue. The airport, however, had a budget allocation of noise
based on a preexisting Airline Settlement Agreement. The "noise budget" allows up to 41 carrier
flights per day plus 25 commuter flights, but also provides that additional flights can be added if
it is determined by the City that the cumulative noise level would remain below the annual noise
budget standard with the added flight or flights included. The growth of Jet Blue resulted in pub-
lic concern about noise levels, but also business support for the additional low cost service.
LGB has worked to maintain the Settlement Agreement through a combination of public
communication and work with the airlines. For the first year they worked to educate. Staff
engaged in intense public education outreach about noise issues and the Noise Ordinance that
emphasized that an increase in flights was permitted, so long as the cumulative noise levels
remained below the annual noise budget. LGB also emphasized the uniqueness and value of the
local control over aircraft noise that the Noise Ordinance provided. At the same time they
worked with Jet Blue and other commercial airlines, educating them on the requirements of the
Ordinance, warning them of violations, and fining them for flights that violated its various
requirements, such as the curfew. Jet Blue spent $600,000 in fines that went to the Long Beach
Library Foundation and was dispersed into the community for technology in family learning
centers. Subsequently, Jet Blue has maintained the same number of flights, but adjusted its
schedule to direct late night flights into nearby Los Angeles International Airport.
There is also a LGB Aviation Noise Abatement Committee that includes all interested airport
tenants, users, and operators who work cooperatively to police themselves on noise issues and
develop technical solutions to noise problems. LGB reports that the impact of their noise com-
munications program is fewer requests from the community for meetings, a change in public
perceptions, less intense complaint calls and a less angry tone of communications from the pub-
lic. Staff also believes that external factors outside the control of the airport, such as the state of
the economy, may have had an impact on solutions. The airlines in Long Beach may well have
been willing to settle with what became the ultimate solution because airlines were facing diffi-
cult economic conditions.
OCR for page 72
72 Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations
Interview Results
The case study interviews included the primary people responsible for management and com-
munication of the noise abatement program, representatives of formal community groups, as
well as others with insight into the special issues at the airport. For the spring 2008 case study
interviews, the following persons were contacted:
· Public Information Officer, Long Beach Airport
· Former Director, Long Beach Airport
· Chair, Long Beach Airport Advisory Committee
· Representative, Jet Blue Airlines, Long Beach Airport
· Founding member of ANAC (Aviation Noise Abatement Committee)
Key Issues. In determining what particular lessons were learned from this case study, it is
important to understand the issues that complicate the lessons. Long Beach is unusual in its situ-
ation as an airport with a grandfathered, locally controlled noise budget. Its situation evolved out
of a long history of lawsuits, but the "Noise Budget" appears to have been accepted by the airport,
airport users and the community neighbors. All groups have an incentive to work together because
all fear loss of local control to federal oversight that would come with change of the current rules.
It gives the community the assurance that noise levels will not rise above a baseline level. It allows
the signatory users flexibility in operations as long as they do not impact the overall noise levels and
gives them incentives to reduce their noise levels with the potential to increase the number of
flights. The airport and the City have an incentive to fund the noise management staff at a level that
allows for extensive interaction with the community and with the airport users. The downside is
that as a "grandfathered" solution, FAA is unlikely to approve another action of the same type.
Findings. The interviews were open-ended to allow for exploration of the particular situa-
tion at LGB. The observations presented here were drawn from the interviews to report a selec-
tion of the primary ideas about communications techniques from this airport. The lessons include
techniques that worked and those to avoid.
Communication Techniques That Worked for LBG
· A comprehensive strategy for dealing with noise that includes education and engagement on
the public side and monitoring, notification, negotiation, and enforcement on the user side,
with widespread buy-in to the approach.
· The working group model is helpful if it includes meaningful roles for the public and airport
users and incentives for them to work together, and when there is an ability to implement the
results of their efforts.
· Invite participation by individuals who are known to be rational leaders of a variety of broad-
based community groups, and include representatives of airport user groups. This will more
likely lead to widespread acceptance of somewhat controversial solutions and a product that
actually can be implemented.
· Consider organizing an airport user group. Members can self-police and identify problem
operators. They can suggest creative solutions to noise issues because they have expertise, con-
tacts, and resources. Peer review is a proactive business-friendly approach that is more suc-
cessful than penalties.
Communication Techniques LGB Chose to Avoid in the future
· Allowing membership of people with no ability to give and take.
Summary
Long Beach Airport was selected as a case study because it is a commercial passenger airport
that experienced a sudden and significant introduction of new passenger flights by large aircraft.
