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 93
Noise Management and Public Response 93 the contours of significant noise exposure, within which development of incompatible land use had been constrained by early program actions, resulted in more and more land becoming avail- able for development into noise-sensitive uses. In many cases, local authorities yielded to resi- dential development pressures to allow construction adjacent to or within the 65 DNL contour on land that updated contours now showed as being compatible. The result was the creation of a smaller envelope of area within which significant noise levels could remain compatible with under- lying uses. Growing operations or changing missions of airports may now lead to an increase in the noise contour sizes for the first time in many years. Many airports how have smaller contours than in the past and more operations. The airport surveys conducted for this study have shown that many noise complaints are made about the frequency of operation, rather than the overall noise level. Consequently, as the contours shrink and numbers of operations increase, land is opened for more noise-sensitive development to be located closer and closer to the routes of flight and the runway ends. This will likely lead to an increase in noise complaints as operations increase and residences are allowed to develop near the airport in previously incompatible areas. Some airports, like Dallas Fort Worth International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport have maintained contours from many years ago as the control for land use management and mitigation planning, even though more current contours might indicate less area within them. The FAA has established a policy to not fund mitigation of residential properties that have been constructed within the published area of incompatibility at an airport. Air carrier and other user groups are demanding that communities do their share to control the introduction of new noise-sensitive uses into areas exposed to high noise levels. To respond to these demands, air- ports may take a role in the comprehensive planning process to work closely with community planners to develop risk adverse plans for the airport environs. The flight patterns for airports are well established, the noise contours are easily projected, and the land uses already present are known. Airports in many communities are working to review planning proposals and make known the potential for elevated noise exposure over areas before they enter the development phase. These actions may occur in collaboration with planning staff, with community zoning and subdivision regulators, or with developers themselves to seek the greatest level of compatibil- ity between the airport and its surrounding uses. To be fully successful, the political powers within the community must be on board with the decision to limit the risks to the economic engine for the community that resides in the airport. Stakeholder Involvement and Jurisdictional Coordination Interviews and surveys conducted in support of this study indicate that communications about noise and the efforts to manage it are critical to efficiently accomplishing abatement goals. Clear descriptions of the roles and expectations of each participant in the noise management process--the producers of aircraft noise, the recipients of aircraft noise and the controllers of the location and intensity of that noise--are all essential to the success of any program. Honesty and clarity in communication with airport neighbors has been cited by many airport noise man- agers as the most important element in assuring that changes to noise patterns are understood and the public is aware of what to expect. A clear communication and discussion with aircraft operators about their capability and will- ingness to actively participate in noise abatement actions leads to a more effective program by limiting expectations to achievable results. This is also true of interactions with air traffic man- agement personnel regarding their ability to efficiently move traffic through the airport and over areas of greatest compatibility.