Report to Congress
Effects of Airport Noise on a
Neighboring State
October 1980
Required by Section 8 of the
Quiet Communities Act of 1978
(Public Law 95-609)
Jointly Conducted By:
Office of Noise Abatement
and Control
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
AEPA
-------
Report to Congress
Effects of Airport Noise on a
Neighboring State
October 1980
Required by Section 6 of the
Quiet Communities Act of 1978
(Public Law 95-609)
Jointly Conducted By:
Office of Noise Abatement Office of Environment and Energy
and Control Federal Aviation Administration
Environmental Protection Department of Transportation
Agency
SB*
^ TE S O*
U.S. EPA, Region 111
itsgicaai Os-nlcr tor Environmental
Infovmc tirn
i 650 At ch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 1.9103
-------
sJ^ ^ Statement
I
I
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NOISE CONTROL OFFICIALS
P.O. Box 2618 • Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-2618
Phone: 904-243-8129
July 29, 1982
Diane McCreary
Library
EPA Region 3
6th & Walnut
Philadelphia, PA 19106
-------
.v\tO ^T4t
y '
O
z
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C 20460
NOV 6 1980
7HFI AOMiNhSl'HATOR
Honcirable Walter F. Msndale
President of the Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to transmit to you, in conjunction with the Secretary
of Transportation, the enclosed report entitled "Effects of Airport
Noise ciY a Neighboring State". This document is required by Section 8
of the Quiet (immunities Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-609) which asks
that the Secretary of Transportation and I jointly prepare the report.
As a result of this effort, the Secretary and I have concluded
that there are practical measures which, if adopted, can reduce airport
noise effects . These measures are specific to the facility considered
in this report which is Philadelphia International Airport. The
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation
will be considering what further actions we may jointly take to promote
implementation of the report's findings.
4
erely yours,
Enclosure
-------
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
NOV 7 1980
The Honorable Walter F. Mondale
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to transmit to you, in conjunction with the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the enclosed report
entitled "Effects of Airport Noise on a Neighboring State". This docu-
ment is required by Section 8 of the Quiet Communities Act of 1978
(Public Law 95-609) which asks that the Administrator of the EPA and I
jointly prepare the report.
As a result of this effort, the Administrator and I have concluded that
there are practical measures which, if adopted, can reduce airport
noise effects. These measures are specific to Philadelphia Inter-
national Airport, the facility considered in this report. The Depart-
ment of Transportation and the EPA will be considering what further
actions we may jointly take to promote implementation of the report's
findings.
Sincerely
Enclosure
-------
^10SX
i
? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
lC/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV 6 1980
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am pleased to transmit to you, in conjunction with the Secretary
of Transportation, the enclosed report entitled "Effects of Airport
Noise on a Neighboring State". This document is required by Section 8
of the Quiet Comrunities Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-609) which asks
that the Secretary of Transportation and I jointly prepare the report.
As a result of this effort, the Secretary and I have concluded
that there are practical measures vrtiich, if adopted, can reduce airport
noise effects. These measures are specific to the facility considered
in this report which is Philadelphia International Airport. The
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation
will be considering what further actions we may jointly take to promote
implementation of the report's findings.
Enclosure
-------
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
NOV T 1980
The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am pleased to transmit to you, in conjunction with the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the enclosed report
entitled "Effects of Airport Noise on a Neighboring State". This docu-
ment is required by Section 8 of the Quiet Communities Act of 1978
(Public Law 95-609) which asks that the Administrator of the EPA and I
jointly prepare the report.
As a result of this effort, the Administrator and I have concluded that
there are practical measures which, if adopted, can reduce airport
noise effects. These measures are specific to Philadelphia Inter-
national Airport, the facility considered in this report. The Depart-
ment of Transportation and the EPA will be considering what further
actions we may jointly take to promote implementation of the report's
findings.
Sincerely
Enclosure
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is submitted to Congress in response to Section 8 of the Quiet
Communities Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-609) which resulted from Congressional
:oncern that aircraft noise from some airports may impact communities located
in another State. The question was whether the communities in the other State
:ould effect change at the airport to provide relief for their citizens. The
Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental
Jrotection Agency were directed to study jointly this issue and determined
that Philadelphia International Airport satisfied the selection criteria in
the Act. The Act further directed that the study be conducted in cooperation
vith the airport operator, appropriate Federal, State, and local officials,
and the Metropolitan Planning Organization which, in this case, is the
Jelaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). This led to formation
)f an Advisory Committee under the auspices of the DVRPC to assist the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration. This
study illustrates that regional advisory bodies can work effectively on
jroblems which cross political boundaries.
The study included three semi-independent programs: (1) Noise
leasurement, (2) Noise Modeling, and (3) Community Response. The objective of
the measurement program was to obtain actual aircraft noise levels in selected
-esidential areas around the Philadelphia International Airport. These data
vere used to verify the results of the Noise Modeling Program. The FAA's
Integrated Noise Model (INM), a computerized noise simulation, was used to
jredict aircraft noise levels around the airport as a function of all of the
jertinent parameters, i.e., types and numbers of aircraft operating at the
lirport (both current and forecast for 1990 and 2000), flight tracks,
)perating procedures, and time of day of aircraft operations. The Community
Response Program made the public aware of the noise study through standard
jublic information techniques, a toll-free telephone complaint service,
:onduct of a community opinion survey to determine how people feel about the
lirport and its environmental impact, and establishment of an Advisory
Committee to assist in the selection of noise control options.
The telephone complaint service registered 296 complaints during the
118 days in which it was operated. One thousand seven hundred and
:wenty-three interviews were conducted among residents within approximately
>0 miles of Philadelphia International Airport, of whom 447, or 26.0 percent,
lived in New Jersey and the remainder in Pennsylvania. Crime was identified
lost often as the most serious environmental problem, while noise (from all
sources including aircraft) was fifth among the eight categories specified.
The noise exposure conditions, and the relative effectiveness of
ilternative noise control actions, were investigated for the existing 1980
jperations and for projected 1990 and 2000 operations. Alternative noise
:ontrol actions were grouped into five categories: airport layout; airport
-------
and airspace use; aircraft operations; land use; and noise program
management. Detailed results of these analyses are reported, in terms of the
population impacted by several values of Average Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn),
which includes a 10-decibel added penalty on nighttime aircraft operations.
On this basis, the most effective noise control option for Philadelphia
International Airport appears to be a reduction in nighttime operations, in
combination with a preferential runway use program to keep the remaining
nighttime flights away from populated areas. These actions would reduce
aircraft noise impacts in the affected areas of both Pennsylvania and New
Jersey. Before any such use restrictions should be considered by the operator
of Philadelphia International Airport, however, a more detailed study should
be made to account for all economic factors which could be affected by those
restrictions. Any aviation-related options should be complemented by a
continuing citizen involvement program and a broad land-use planning program.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Authority 1
B. Participation 1
C. Methodology 2
II. AIRPORT SELECTION 2
II. STUDY SETTING 3
A. Regional Area 3
B. Population 6
C. Governmental Structure 6
D. Air Transportation 9
IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM . . 9
A. Advisory Committee 11
B. Newsletter 12
C. Complaint and Reception Program 12
D. Community Opinion Survey 13
1. Background 13
2. Survey Procedures 15
3. Survey Results - General 18
4. Summary of General Results 25
5. Survey Results - Aircraft Noise 26
6. Summary of Aircraft Noise Results 29
V. IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 30
A. Airport Layout and Operation 30
B. Airspace Analysis 31
C. Meteorological Conditions 34
D. Runway Requirements 41
E. Existing Noise Abatement Procedures 42
F. Existing Operational Data 43
G. "Existing Noise Exposure 49
1. Noise Methodology 49
2. Development of Noise Contours 52
3. Noise Measurement Program 66
-------
Page
VI. NOISE ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES 69
A. Selecting Possible Actions 69
B. Airport Plan Alternatives 69
1. Displaced Threshold 69
2. Relocated or Added Runway 71
3. Change in Length or Strength of Runway .... 71
4. High-Speed Exit Taxiways 71
5. Relocated Terminals 71
6. Test Stand Noise Suppressors and Barriers . . 71
C. Airport and Airspace Use 71
1. Runway Use Program 71
2. Preferential Flight Track Use 71
3. Limiting Number or Types of Operations .... 72
4. Curfews, Rescheduling, and Moving Flights to
Other Airports 72
D. Aircraft Operation 83
1. Power and Flap Management 83
2. Raise Glide Slope Angle or Intercept 83
3. Limited Use of Reverse Thrust 83
E. Land Use , 84
1. Acquisition of Land or Easement 84
2. Joint Development of Airport Property .... 84
3. Compatible Use Zoning 84
4. Building Code Provisions and
Sound Insulation 84
5. Real Property Noise Notices 84
6. Purchase Assurance 84
F. Noise Program Management 85
1. Noise Related Landing Fees 85
2. Noise Monitoring 85
3. Established Citizen Complaint Mechanism and
Community Participation Program 85
VII. FUTURE NOISE EXPOSURE 88
A. 1990 and 2000 Baseline Contours 88
B. Impact of Noise Abatement Alternatives 88
1. River Approach 88
2. Night Curfew (2200-0700) 88
3. Head to Head Nighttime Operations 88
4. Extended Crosswind Runway 88
5. Extended Crosswind Runway With Additional
Two- and Three-Engine Air Carrier
Aircraft Landing on Runway 35 88
-------
Page
VIII. FINDINGS 113
APPENDIX A - PARTICIPATION - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT NOISE STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE A-l
APPENDIX B - DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION NEWSLETTERS B-l
APPENDIX C - AIRPORT NOISE COMPLAINT CENTER FORM C-l
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE D-l
APPENDIX E - ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS E-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. THE DELAWARE VALLEY REGION 4
2. AIRPORT LOCATIONS 5
3. TELEPHONE HOTLINE COMPLAINTS, PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT NOISE STUDY 14
4. SAMPLING AREA ACCORDING TO AGGREGATED TELEPHONE
EXCHANGE AREAS 16
5. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN 31
6. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - AIRSPACE STRUCTURE 35
7. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - WIND ROSE ANALYSIS 39
8. RIVER APPROACH (VISUAL), PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT .... 44
9. PHILADELPHIA EAST OPERATIONS, EAST OPERATIONS FLIGHT TRACKS .... 45
10. PHILADELPHIA WEST OPERATIONS, WEST OPERATIONS FLIGHT TRACKS .... 46
11. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FLIGHT TRACKS 47
12. DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL METHOD OF MEASUREMENT 51
13. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 1980 -
EXISTING CONDITIONS 55
14. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS,
WESTERLY OPERATIONS 57
15. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS,
1980 -- EASTERLY OPERATIONS . . ' 59
16. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, INDIGENOUS NOISE 61
17. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AIRCRAFT NOISE 63
18. RULES FOR DECIBEL ADDITION . . 65
19. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AIRCRAFT INCREMENT 67
20. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 1980 -
RIVER APPROACH 73
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
FIGURE PAGE
21. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 1980 -
HEAD-TO-HEAD NIGHT OPERATIONS 75
22. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 1980 -
NIGHT CURFEW 77
23. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AIRCRAFT NOISE, 1980 -
NIGHTTIME CURFEW 79
24. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AIRCRAFT INCREMENT, 1980 -
NIGHTTIME CURFEW 81
25. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 1990 -
BASELINE CASE 89
26. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 2000 -
BASELINE CASE 91
27. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 1990 -
RIVER APPROACH 93
28. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 2000 -
RIVER APPROACH 95
29. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 1990 -
NIGHT CURFEW 97
30. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 2000 -
NIGHT CURFEW 99
31. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 1990 -
HEAD-TO-HEAD OPERATIONS 101
32. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 2000 -
HEAD-TO-HEAD NIGHT OPERATIONS 103
33. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 1990 -
EXTENDED CROSSWIND RUNWAY 105
34. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 2000 -
EXTENDED CROSSWIND RUNWAY 107
35. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 1990 -
EXTENDED CROSSWIND RUNWAY, TWO- AND THREE-ENGINE AIR
CARRIER AIRCRAFT LAND ON RUNWAY 35 109
36. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, 2000 -
EXTENDED CROSSWIND RUNWAY, TWO- AND THREE-ENGINE AIR
CARRIER AIRCRAFT LAND ON RUNWAY 35 Ill
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. REGIONAL AND SUBREGIONAL CENTERS BY COUNTY 7
2. DECENNIAL CENSUS POPULATION TOTALS, HUB AND NATIONAL,
THE PHILADELPHIA HUB: 1950-1990 8
3. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE DELAWARE VALLEY REGION: 1972 8
4. PERCENT OF TRIPS OVER 200 MILES COMPLETED BY AIR:
FROM 1972 NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY, PHILADELPHIA HUB 10
5^ PERCENT AND NUMBER OF THE SAMPLE AND THE GENERAL POPULATION
LIVING WITHIN THE PARTS OF THE FIVE COUNTIESrWHICH
WERE SURVEYED 15
6. FINAL DISPOSITION OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS 17
7. PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS, BY COUNTY, RATING THE AREA
IN WHICH THEY LIVED 18
8. PERCENTAGE OF RESPOONDENTS BOTHERED BY VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY WERE BOTHERED 19
9. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS, BY COUNTY, WHO IDENTIFIED
PROBLEMS IN THEIR AREA 20
10. PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS, BY COUNTY, WHO RATED THE EXTENT
TO WHICH THEIR AREA WAS QUIET OR NOISY 20
11. PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS LIVING IN VARIOUS TELEPHONE
EXCHANGE AREAS WHO RATED THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEIR
AREA WAS QUIET OR NOISY 21
12. PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS LIVING IN HIGH IMPACT AREA
OR OUTLYING AREA WHO RATED THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THEIR AREA WAS QUIET OR NOISY AND THE PERCENT
OF RESPONDENTS ANNOYED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE 22
13. PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS, BY COUNTY, WHO INDICATED NOISE
IN THEIR AREA INTERFERES WITH VARIOUS ACTIVITIES 22
14. NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO COMPLAIN THAT
NOISE CAUSES THEM SPECIFIC HEALTH PROBLEMS 23
15. PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO ARE ANNOYED, BY LEVEL OF
ANNOYANCE, AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT ANNOYED BY SPECIFIC
NOISE SOURCES 23
16. PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS, BY TELEPHONE EXCHANGE AREA, WHO
SUPPORT A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM 24
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE PAGE
17. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS NOT SUPPORTING NOISE
CONTROL PROGRAMS, WHO GAVE VARIOUS REASONS FOR NOT
SUPPORTING A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM 24
18. NUMBER AND PERCENT.OF RESPONDENTS WILLING TO ASSUME
VARIOUS LEVELS OF TAXATION TO SUPPORT A NOISE CONTROL
PROGRAM IN THEIR COMMUNITY 25
19. PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS IN HIGH IMPACT AND OUTLYING AREAS
BY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY ARE ANNOYED BY JET AIRPLANES 26
20. PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS ANNOYED BY NOISE IN GENERAL WHO
ARE ALSO ANNOYED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE 27
21. NUMBER AND PERCENT ANNOYED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE REPORTING
TIME PERIOD DURING WHICH THEY ARE ANNOYED 27
22. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF THE RESPONDENTS BY THE EXTENT
TO WHICH THEY HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO AIRCRAFT NOISE 28
23. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF THOSE ANNOYED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE WHO
HAD TAKEN VARIOUS ACTIONS TO REDUCE NOISE FROM
AIRCRAFT IN THEIR HOMES 28
24. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS, ANNOYED BY AIRCRAFT
NOISE, WHO IDENTIFIED VARIOUS GROUPS AS THE ONE WHO
SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REDUCING AIRCRAFT NOISE 29
25. RUNWAY CHARACTERISTICS 30
26. PERCENT WIND COVERAGE : 41
27. RUNWAY UTILIZATION. PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 42
28. 1980 BASE AIRCRAFT DAILY OPERATIONS FOR PHILADELPHIA
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 50
29. COMPARISON OF EXISTING ANNUAL DAY-NIGHT NOISE LEVEL
CONTOURS WITH "WORST CASE" 54
30. CALCULATED VERSUS MEASURED EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVELS 66
31. SELECTING POSSIBLE ACTIONS 70
32. 1990 BASE AIRCRAFT DAILY OPERATIONS FOR PHILADELPHIA
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT . 86
33. 2000 BASE AIRCRAFT DAILY OPERATIONS FOR PHILADELPHIA
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 87
34. NOISE ABATEMENT SUMMARY 114
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Authority
This report responds to the legislative mandate of Section 8 of the Quiet
Communities Act of 1978, which states:
"(a) The Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall jointly study the aircraft noise
effects from an airport on communities located in a State other than the
State in which the airport is located. The criteria to be used in
selecting the airport to be studied shall include:
(1) The airport shall be operated by a State, a unit of general
purpose local government of a State, or a special purpose entity
constituted for the purpose of operating an airport, and
(2) The airport shall have a point on the airport boundary
within one nautical mile from a State boundary, and
(3) The airport shall have had in excess of sixty thousand
scheduled air carrier departures during the preceding calendar year.
(b) The study shall be conducted in cooperation with the airport
operator, appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, and the
appropriate Metropolitan Planning Organization.
(c) The Secretary and the Administrator shall prepare and submit to
Congress a report within nine months of the conclusion of the study, but
not later than twenty-four months after enactment of this section."
B. Participation
The Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Office of Environment and Energy (AEE) of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), acting for the Administrator and the
Secretary,_respectively,-determined -that- Phi ladelphi a International Airport
(PHL) uniquely met the selection criteria of Section 8 of the Act. Therefore,
the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission (DVRPC), was requested to assist the EPA and FAA in
conducting the study. In addition to assuming prime responsibility for the
coordination and conduct of the Community Response phase of the study, the
DVRPC organized and chaired an Advisory Committee to provide guidance,
technical advice and assistance during the course of the study. Membership on
this committee included Federal and state agencies, city and county
departments and commissions, including the airport operators, local elected
officials, environmental and health organizations, commercial air carriers,
and interested citizens.
1
-------
Advisory committee meetings, open to the public, were held in the
Philadelphia metropolitan area, both in New Jersey and in Pennsylvania.
Through these coordinative and consultative procedures, the provisions of
paragraph (b) of Section 8 have been fully complied with in spirit and in
principle.
C. Methodology
The study included three semi-independent programs: (1) Noise
Measurement, (2) Noise Modeling, and (3) Community Response. The objective of
the measurement program was to obtain actual noise levels in selected
residential areas around the Philadelphia International Airport. These data,
including ambient noise levels as well as noise due to aircraft operations,
were used to verify the results of the Noise Modeling program. The FAA's
Integrated Noise Model (INM), a computerized noise simulation, was used to
predict aircraft noise levels around the airport by taking into account all
pertinent parameters, i.e., types and numbers of aircraft operating at the
airport (both current and forecast for 1990 and 2000), flight tracks,
operating procedures, and time of day of aircraft operations. The Community
Response Program made the public aware of the noise study through standard
public information techniques, a toll-free telephone complaint service,
conduct of a community opinion survey to determine how people feel about the
airport and its environmental impact, and operation of the Advisory Committee.
II. AIRPORT SELECTION
Section 8 states that the criteria to be used in selecting the airport to
be studied shall include:
1. The airport shall be operated by a state, a unit of general purpose
local government of a state, or a special purpose entity constituted
for the purpose of operating an airport.
2. The airport shall have a point on the airport boundary within one
nautical mile from a state boundary.
3. The airport shall have had in excess of 60,000 scheduled air carrier
departures during the preceding calendar year.
The following airports had more than 60,000 scheduled air carrier
departures in 1978 as required in Item 3 above:
Chicago O'Hare International
Atlanta International
Los Angeles International
Dallas Fort Worth Regional
John F. Kennedy International
LaGuardia
San Francisco International
Denver Stapleton International
Miami International
2
-------
Boston Logan International
Washington National
Pittsburgh Greater International
St. Louis International
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County
Philadelphia International
Minneapolis St. Paul International
Houston Intercontinental
Newark International
Cleveland Hopkins International
Memphis International
Kansas City International
Seattle-Tacoma International
Tampa International
Two of the airports listed above also meet selection criterion in Item 2.
They are:
Washington National
Philadelphia International
Since Washington National is operated by the FAA, it does not meet the
selection criterion in Item 1. Since Philadelphia International is operated
by the Director of Aviation for the City of Philadelphia, it uniquely meets
the selection criteria of the Act.
III. STUDY SETTING
A. Regional Area
Philadelphia International Airport is located within the Delaware Valley
region which covers a total of 3,833 square miles in the center of the eastern
seaboard "megalopolis" which encompasses the Philadelphia and Trenton Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware,
Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden,
Gloucester and Mercer Counties in New Jersey (see Figure 1). The region
includes a number of airports in addition to Philadelphia International.
Figure 2 illustrates the location and primary runway configurations.of each
airport in the region.
Climatically speaking, the Delaware Valley region has been described as
"amorphic." Weather conditions rarely differ drastically from north to
south. The proximity to the Delaware Bay and the Atlantic Ocean has a
moderating effect on the region's weather, with sustained periods of very high
or low temperatures seldom lasting more than three or four days. January is
the coldest month with an average temperature of 32.3 degrees F. July is the
hottest month with an average temperature of 75.6 degrees F. Winds are also
moderate and generally blow from west to east.
Within the region there are a number of intensely developed locations
containing a mix of activities, such as commercial, cultural, recreational,
governmental, industrial and residential, that provide a focus for community
3
-------
FIGURE 1
THE DELAWARE VALLEY REGION
PENNSYLVANIA
N
CHESTER
NEW JERSEY
BUCKS
MONTGOMERY
CHESTER
iar
CAMDEN
BURLINGTON
GLOUCESTER
CAMDEN
IO
20
SCALE IN MILES
-------
FIGURE 2
Airport Locations
Vansant -*
Butter Valley Golf Port^
Quakertown
Pennridge ^
New Hanover ^
^ Sunset Strip
Pottstown Municipal^ ^
Pottstown Limerick
Perkiomen Valley
Montgomeryville\
/ Doylestown
\ Warrington
Twin Pine
/
'Mercer County
STurner Field
Buehl Field/;
~ Wings Field
3-M
X
North Philadelphia
Trenton-
xRobins ville
Redwing Airpark
/
Memorial Field
Chester County
, West Chester
^Burlington County
~
Pemberton
^Red Lion
New London
~
/ Oxford
/Conowingo Greater Wilmington
f Farmington / ^
Cecil County!
Airport
Philadelphia International
^The New Garden
Flying Field
Airpark
/ Kettlerun Airpark
\ Salem Airfield
Summit Airpark \
Plney Hollow Airfield
Vineland-
Downstown
5
-------
life. Their intensity of development also make it possible to provide public
services (especially public transportation) more efficiently than if their
activities were spread out over a larger area.
The Philadelphia central business district (CBD) is the principal
concentration and focus of activity in the region. Its major importance is as
an economic and cultural center. The CBD is the hub of the region's economic
activity, with its concentration of business and financial headquarters,
government offices, retail, service and research establishments. The
Philadelphia CBD accounted for over 12 percent of the region's jobs in 1970,
the largest concentration of employment in the region. The maintenance of a
center of such importance is considered necessary for the continued health and
vitality of the entire region.
Regional centers, identified in Table 1, serve a county or major portion
thereof and contain most of the types of activities mentioned above. They are
frequently the central business areas of the region's older cities and include
all the county seats. Subregional centers, also shown on Table 1, generally
serve more specialized activities and/or smaller areas of the region.
Typically they contain a more limited selection of activities than regional
centers, and may be focused on a major shopping center, strip development, or
market town.
The Philadelphia Standard Consolidated Statistical Area (SCSA), a major
transportation hub in the Nation's Northeast Corridor, is served by an
extensive network of highways, inter-city and commuter rail lines, air
carriers, and ocean-going ships. Two of the busier modes of transportation
are rail and air transportation.
B. Population
The United States population increased by 34 percent from 151.2 million in
1950 to 203.7 million in 1970. Following the national trend during these
population boom years, the Philadelphia SCSA population increased 34 percent
from 4.2 million in 1950 to 5.6 million in 1970. By growth rate, the
Philadelphia SCSA and national populations are growing at the same rate. As
shown in Table 2, the SCSA's population is expected to reach 6.7 million by
-1990,-a projected 19 percent increase over 1970. Comparatively, the 1990
national population is forecast at 246 million, a projected 20 percent
increase over 1970.
C. Governmental Structure
The organization of government in the Delaware Valley region is quite
complex with 891 units of local government in the Philadelphia-
Trenton area. These include 9 counties, 144 cities and boroughs, 207
townships, 193 school districts, and 338 special districts, as shown in
Table 3.
-------
TABLE 1
REGIONAL AND SURREGIONAL CENTERS BY COUNTY
County
Regional Centers
Subregional Centers
Bucks
Doylestown
Neshaminy
Oxford Valley
Perkasie-Sellersvi lie
Quakertown
Chester
West Chester
Coatesvilie
Downingtown
Exton
Phoenixvilie
Upper Main Line
Delaware
Chester City
Media
Granite Run
Springfield
St. Davids
69th Street
Montgomery
Norristown
Pottstown
Abington-Wi1 low Grove
Ardmore
City Line (part)
Jenkentown-Cheltenham
King of Prussia
Lansdale-North Penn
Plymouth Meeting
Philadelphia
City Line (part)
Cottman-Bustleton
Germantown
Kensington & Allegheny
South Philadelphia
Temple-North Broad
University City
Burlington
Mt. Holly
Burlington City
Moorestown
Camden
Camden City
Berlin-Lindenwold
Cherry Hill
Echelon
Gloucester
Woodbury
Beckett
Deptford
Glassboro-Pitman
Mercer
Trenton City
Hightstown
Princeton
Quaker Bridge
7
-------
TABLE 2
DECENNIAL CENSUS POPULATION TOTALS
Hub and National
The Philadelphia Hub: "T950-1990
Philadelphia SCSA
United States
1950
4,213,500
151,237,000
1960
5,042,280
179,937,000
1970
5,638,300
203,794,000
1980
6,205,600
223,532,000
1990
6,733,800
246,039,000
TABLE 3
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE DELAWARE VALLEY REGION: 1972
Types of Local Governments Number
Counties
8
Cities and Boroughs
145
Townships
207
School Districts
193
Special Districts
338
School Building
114
Fire Protection
34
Highways
3
Hospitals
1
Housing and Urban Renewal
16
Irrigation, Water Conservation
1
Soil Conservation
4.
Parks and Recreation
4
Sewerage
92
Water Supply
13
•
Transit
1
Sewerage and Water Supply
24
Other
31
Total
891
Source: 1972 Census of Governments
Of the 338 special districts, 34 have property taxing powers; and all but
one of these are located in the New Jersey counties. In addition, 154 of the
special districts involve more than one township or borough and eleven are
multi-county districts.
8
-------
Functional planning takes place at all these levels of government and this
fragmentation of governmental authority creates a multitude of difficulties in
the determination and implementation of public policies and programs.
However, the need for regional cooperation has been recognized and
communication among local, state and Federal governments, and between
governments and citizens is firmly established.
Among these is the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), a
bi-state agency formed in 1967 by interstate compact between Pennsylvania and
New Jersey. Fourteen member governments are represented: the two.states,
plus the eight counties and four cities shown on Figure 1. The Federal
Government also has non-voting membership on the DVRPC Board. Membership and
participation in DVRPC is voluntary. The Commission is an advisory body and
operates essentially through cooperation and consensus.
D. Air Transportation
International, domestic, and commuter air service in Philadelphia, as well
as general aviation (GA), is handled by 42 airports located within the SCSA.
Of these 42 airports, 4 are FAA towered and 1 is non-FAA towered.
The six foreign flag and three U.S. flag international air carriers
serving the SCSA significantly contribute to Philadelphia's reputation as a
major transportation hub in the United States. Domestic and international air
service is offered by 19 airlines. All major air support services, including
those of 56 air freight agents, are available in the Philadelphia hub. In
addition, Philadelphia is the headquarters of Altair Commuter Airlines.
Based on travel data for all transportation modes collected by the U.S.
Census Bureau in a 1972 national survey of 24,000 households, people traveling
to Philadelphia for business or pleasure fly more often than the average
traveler for all SCSAs and SMSAs. Similarly, people traveling from
Philadelphia for business or pleasure purposes choose air travel more often
than the average traveler for all SCSAs and SMSAs. The findings of this
national travel survey in absolute number of trips as well as the modal share
percentages for air travel trips (as opposed to travelers) for the
Philadelphia SCSA are presented in Table 4.
IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
The EPA/FAA study team was unanimous in its belief that a strong program
of public involvement would be critical to the success of this study.
Furthermore, based upon experience accumulated in other airport planning and
environmental analysis programs, it was agreed that the public involvement
program must be operated by an organization located within the greater
Philadelphia area.
In their application to EPA for a grant to study the noise impacts
resulting from operations of Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), the
DVRPC proposed that they undertake a public information program. The focus of
the program would be to disseminate information regarding the noise study to
9
-------
TABLE 4
PERCENT OF TRIPS OVER 200 MILES COMPLETED BY AIR:
FROM 1972 NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE SURVEY
Philadelphia Hub
To Philadelphia
From Philadelphia
Total
Purpose/Miles
(000)
%
(000)
%
U.S.
%
Business
200-399
186.1
61.9
122:3
45.5
28.9
400-599
50.5
90.1
106.6
73.2
53.2
600-799
44.1
78.8
65.7
90.8
69.2
800-999
9.1
42.7
113.7
94.7
74.0
1000-
81.4
100.0
160.3
92.6
82.9
Pleasure
200-399
28.4
7.9
40.9
*3"
•
CO
4.7
400-599
12.4
23.3
35.2
18.6
18.1
600-799
21.3
28.1
19.6
19.4
21.8
800-999
21.3
64.5
12.6
23.3
28.7
1000-
30.1
31.1
202.9
60.2
44.9
Source: 1972 National Transportation Survey, Census Bureau
10
-------
the public through all standard public information techniques. The effort was
intended to encourage citizen participation in the study. The DVRPC further ,
proposed that they establish an advisory committee to provide policy and
technical advice and assistance to their study. The EPA/FAA study team agreed
that the DVRPC should establish an Advisory Committee and that this
organization would become the primary instrument of the public involvement
program.
A. Advisory Committee
The Advisory Committee was established to provide policy guidance and
technical advice and assistance to the DVRPC, its consultants, and the EPA/FAA
study team during the DVRPC's program. Membership on the Advisory Committee
included: Federal and state agencies, city and county departments and
commissions, local elected officials, environmental and health organizations,
lobbying groups, industry and trade organizations, community groups, and
interested citizens. Meetings of the Committee were open to the public. The
functions of the Advisory Committee included:
o Review and discussion of community response survey for content,
format, methodology and evaluation of working papers and data
received.
o Review of noise monitoring and modeling results.
o Assist with interim planning decisions required while noise study is
in progress.
o Assist in selecting and screening noise control strategies, based
upon supporting analysis performed by consultants and Federal
agencies.
o Review reports.
o Coordinate the noise study with other on-going planning activities in
the area and adjoining areas.
o Review public participation structure and serve as a conmunications
channel to residents of the study area, both in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey.
The Advisory Corranitee first met on Monday, December 17, 1979, in Cherry
Hill, New Jersey and reconvened in Cherry Hill on February 20, 1980. The
third and fourth meetings of the Committee were held at Philadelphia
International Airport on March 26, 1980, and May 7, 1980, respectively. The
fifth and last major meeting of the Committee took place in Cherry Hill, New
Jersey on Monday, June 16, 1980. Attendance and participation at all of the
Committee meetings was excellent, reflecting the high level of community
interest in the noise study and the airport; a membership list is included
herein as Appendix A.
11
-------
The activity of the Advisory Committee, especially with regard to the
selection of alternative noise control strategies for detailed analysis is
reflected throughout the remainder of this report. Again, the importance of
the Committee to the successful completion of this unique program cannot be
overemphasized.
B. News Letter
An integral part of the public involvement program was the production and
distribution of a newsletter called "Noise News" which is a bulletin of the
Philadelphia International Airport Noise Study. The newsletter was published
on a monthly basis during the peak activity period of the study, i.e., March
through July, and was distributed by mail. Approximately 600 copies of each
newsletter were sent out to a mailing list developed from DVRPC lists of local
officials and citizen group representatives. Any individual wishing to.
receive the newsletter was added to the mailing list. The newsletters are
included as Appendix B.
C. Complaint Reception Program
The impacted area surrounding Philadelphia International Airport consists
of several counties in two states. Elected representatives of several of
these jurisdictions indicated that their constituents were disturbed by the
noise from aircraft operations at Philadelphia International Airport. Yet the
airport management maintained that it had received almost no complaints. In
an attempt to resolve this difference of experience it was noticed that in
many areas where one would expect noise complaints to come from, the airport
was a toll call. This led the study team to consider initiation of a
toll-free number for receiving airport noise complaints.
The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission instructed its
contractor, CSR, Incorporated, to develop and operate a Complaint Reception
Program which was referred to as the "Hotline." The Hotline program was
operated on a round-the-clock basis, seven days a week, from December 8, 1979,
to April 3, 1980. This type of coverage, in order to be effective, required
that an answering service be established to receive the calls and log the
information on a standardized reporting sheet; the Hotline complaint form is
included herein as Appendix C. Operators were trained to record complaint
information and, on December 8, 1979, the Hotline was started, using the toll
free number 1-800-424-5145. At the close of the service on April 3, 1980, 296
complaints had been received during the 118-day period. Since the Hotline was
operated during the winter months, complaint levels may be lower than would be
experienced during summer months.
The existence of the Hotline was publicized via public service
announcements, newspaper articles, and the Newsletter. Hence, there was some
degree of "study effect" internal to the Hotline results, i.e., it can be
expected that some portion of the complaints received by the Hotline were due
only to the existence of the Hotline itself. However, the primary importance
of the Hotline lies not in the number of calls received but in the geographic
distribution of those calls. The geographic distribution of callers and the
rate at which calls are generated in specific areas should mirror the results
of the other analytic techniques, e.g., social survey and noise predictions.
The level of confidence in the overall analysis is dramatically increased by
the correlation of results.
12
-------
Figure 3 represents the Hotline results at the highest level of
aggregation, i.e., all complaints are displayed without regard to specific
details of the individual complaint. The greatest density of complaint
response is clustered in New Jersey in the Camden, Gloucester City area with
lower response extending out into Cherry Hill. The high level of response is
also evident to the north of the cross-wind runway (Runway 17-35) in the
Eastwick redevelopment area. Significant response also occurs on the west
side in Essington. The three geographic areas noted above account for the
vast majority of the Hotline complaints. Of the remaining complaints, the
complaint nature and its location often indicated that the triggering activity
was not Philadelphia International Airport but rather from Moorestown Airport,
North Philadelphia Airport, Woodbourne Airport, and Delaware County Airport.
The response area did not extend into the State of Delaware and so none of the
Hotline complaints can be attributed to Greater Wilmington Airport which is
south of the City of Wilmington.
As will be seen in later sections of the report, the geographic
distribution and density of Hotline complaints very accurately reflect the
primary social survey results and the base line noise monitoring and
prediction program.
D. Community Opinion Survey
1. Background
Section 8 of the Quiet Communities Act directed that "The Secretary of
Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall jointly study the aircraft noise effects from an airport on
communities . . ." The impact of aircraft noise on communities has been
extensively studied over the past 25 years. The primary method used in those
studies has been an opinion survey in which attitudes about the airport,
airplane noise, agencies concerned with the airport and its operations, and
other factors have been solicited. Frequently, surveys have sought opinions
on other environmental factors in order to develop a context for the aircraft
noise specific responses.
An opinion survey was developed for this study of the impact of operations
of Philadelphia Airport. The questionnaire used in this survey (Appendix D)
was derived in large measure from similar questionnaires used in other
aircraft noise surveys. The methodologies of these earlier surveys have been
evaluated and refined over the past several years and were synthesized for use
in the Philadelphia opinion study.
The intent of the survey was to obtain a body of information from a
representative sample of residents living within an approximate 20 mile radius
of Philadelphia International Airport. A smaller area for independent
statistical analysis was also established within the 20 mile radius to
represent the area of highest predicted noise impact. The information
obtained in the survey concerned citizen attitudes about noise and other
community problems with emphasis on aviation related noise problems. Other
environmentally oriented information was also sought from survey respondents
13
-------
TELEPHONE HOTLINE COMPLAINTS
PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE STUDY
-------
concerning specific noise problems and other community problems in order to
put the aircraft noise problem into perspective. Results of the survey were
used to assess impacts of the operation of the airport and to guide the
development of noise control options.
2. Survey Procedures
The respondent sample was selected from the City of Philadelphia and
Montgomery and Delaware Counties in Pennsylvania and from Gloucester and
Camden Counties in New Jersey. The sample was further restricted to those
portions of these Counties- lying within an approximate 20 mile radius of
Philadelphia International Airport.
The survey was to be conducted over the telephone, therefore, the involved
Pennsylvania and New Jersey telephone companies were contacted for assistance
in identifying telephone exchanges within the desired sampling area. Figure 4
shows the sampling area broken down by aggregated telephone exchange
boundaries.
A random digit dialing method was used to contact households in the
sampling area. Random lists of four digit numbers were generated for
identified exchange prefixes. Then numbers from these resulting lists of
complete telephone numbers were randomly selected for calling potential
respondents. Once a household had been contacted and cooperation assured, a
respondent over 18 years of age was randomly selected from those living in the
residence. All of these selection procedures were done to minimize selection
biases. Table 5 shows the distribution of respondents by residence and
compares the sample with population distributions in the sampling area.
TABLE 5
PERCENT AND NUMBER OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS AND THE
PERCENT AND NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AND
POPULATION LIVING WITHIN THE PARTS OF THE
FIVE COUNTIES WHICH WERE SURVEYED
Sample of Households Household Population
County
Number of
Households
Percent
Number of
Residents
Percent
Pennsylvania
Montgomery
229
13.3
623,799
16.4
Del aware
297
17.2
600,035
15.8
Philadelphia
750
43.5
1,948,609
51.8
New Jersey
Gloucester
77
4.5
172,681
4.5
Camden
370
21.5
456,291
12.0
15
-------
BRISTOL
& -J
i ^ I ^ )
) ^ 1 \
/ i \
1 ,^-
-------
TABLE 6
FINAL DISPOSITION OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS*
Category
Number
Percent
1.
Ineligibles
Wrong number (unassigned # in exchange)
19
0.2
Disconnected/Not in service/New tt provided
3,886
43.8
Nonresidential number (business, government,
hospital, nursing home, dormitory, pay phone, etc.)
1,342
15.1
Other (no adult 18 or over lives there or
not in survey area)
62
0.7
Subtotal
5,309
59.8
2.
Unknown Eligibility
No answer (minimum of 4 calls)
431
4.9
Line busy (minimum of 4 calls)
22
0.2
Answering service/Recorded message (could not
determine if residential tt or in survey area)
10
0.1
Language barrier (could not determine if
residential number or in survey area)
27
0.3
Callback arranged (breaks 3 appointments
before determining eligibility)
5
0.1
Initial contact refused (before determining
eligibility)
890
10.0
Other
42
0.5
Subtotal
1,427
16.1
3.
Eligible But Not Interviewed
R not available (breaks 3 appointments or
gone during survey period)
70
0.8
Language barrier (non-English speaking R)
9
0.1
Initial contact refused (includes refusing for R)
114
1.3
R refuses (completed screening: respondent
refuses)
101
1.1
Terminated (R terminates interview before
completing)
22
0.2
Incapable (mentally or physically)
50
0.6
Other
45
0.5
Subtotal
411
4.6
4.
Completed Interviews Subtotal
1,723
19.4
Grand Total
8,870
99.9
~Excludes approximately 400 additional telephone numbers for which the
required number of callbacks had not been made at the time the quota of
interviews was completed.
Grand total of calls: 15,781
Average number of calls per interview: 9.2
Average number of interviews per hour: 1.5
17
-------
A total of 1,723 interviews were conducted between November 9 and
December 8, 1979. The weather during this period was unseasonably warm;
hence, the opinion data are expected to be representative of a time when
windows mignt be open during the day and some outdoor activity would be taking
pi ace.
Interviewers were experienced from previous telephone social surveys and
were especially trained for this project using materials 1/ prepared for this
purpose.
A total of 8,870 telephone numbers were called in order to complete the
1,723 interviews. The disposition of these 8,870 numbers is shown in
Table 6. Interview time ranged from seven to fifteen minutes. All interviews
were conducted in English with the exception of six Spanish language
interviews. A Spanish speaking interviewer was retained for these latter
interviews.
3. Survey Results - General
The data in the following sections were obtained from the report
"Philadelphia International Airport Noise Study: Community Opinion Survey"
prepared for the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) by its
contractor, CSR, Incorporated, of Washington, D.C. DVRPC was responsible for
the overall conduct of the study of community reaction and used part of its
grant from the EPA and FAA for this purpose.
The initial sections of the survey questionnaire dealt with respondent
opinions of the area in which they lived including opinion of environmental
factors such as noise, traffic congestion and air pollution. Table 7 shows
the distribution of resident's ratings of their local areas.
TABLE 7
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS, BY COUNTY,
RATING THE AREA IN WHICH THEY LIVED
(Column Percentages!
County
Rating
Montgomery
Delaware
Philadelphia
Gloucester
Camden
PA
PA
PA
NJ
NJ
Very
Good
52.8%
38.0%
22.5%
49.4%
33.2%
Good
33.2%
43.4%
35.5%
28.6%
36.8%
Fair
10.9%
14.1%
30.1%
19.5%
20.0%
Poor
1.7%
2.7%
7.7%
1.3%
7.8%
Very
Poor
1.3%
1.7%
4.1%
1.3%
2.2%
1/ Community Noise Assessment Manual. Wyle Research Report WR77-4. Wyle
Research and Institute for Social Science Research of the University of
California at Los Angeles, July 1978.
18
-------
This table shows that people surveyed were generally favorable about their
area. With the exception of the city of Philadelphia and Camden County,
relatively few people rated their area poorly.
Table 8 shows the percentages of respondents who identified various
factors as problems in their area, and breaks down the degree of seriousness
for these problems. Crime was identified most often, while noise (from all
sources including aircraft) was fifth among the eight categories specified.
Table 9 shows a county breakdown of percentages identifying these problems.
The percentage of respondents identifying noise as a problem is consistent
with the results of a 1978 Gallup Poll, done for the National League of
Cities, which revealed that about 40 percent of urban residents considered
noise to be a serious problem. These numbers are also compatible with Census
Bureau data (Annual Housing Survey, 1975; Part B, Indicators of Housing and
Neighborhood Quality, February 1977) in which noise is identified as an
undesirable neighborhood condition by 35-40 percent of the respondents in
SMSA's in the Northeast and in the U.S. as a whole.
TABLE 8
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS IDENTIFY INGE
SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
AND THE SERIOUSNESS OF EACH PROBLEM
Environmental Respondents Manner in Which
Problems Identifying Respondents Rated Seriousness
(Listed Problem of Problem
in Order
Presented to
Respondents)
Number
Percent
of
Sample
Ex-
tremely
Serious
Serious
Modera-
tely
Serious
Not
Very
Serious
Don'
Know
(Percentage Below Relate to
"Number" shown at Left)
Traffic Congestion
675
39.2%
16.0%
23.3%
42.8%
17.8%
0.1%
Polluted Water
316
18.3%
17.5%
23.5%
30.5%
27.3%
1.3%
Noise
607
35.2%
13.0%
16.5%
39.9%
30.4%
0.2%
Crime
795
46.1%
11.8%
19.4%
38.4%
30.1%
0.4%
Run-down areas in
need of improvement
547
31.7%
19.6%
23.9%
30.5%
25.4%
0.5%
Unclean air
638
37.0%
15.8%
17.2%
41.7%
24.6%
0.6%
Parking
628
36.4%
25.0%
24.0%
35.2%
15.8%
—
Inadequate low-
income housing
354
20.5%
24.9%
23.4%
30.8%
17.8%
3.1%
19
-------
TABLE 9
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS, BY COUNTY,
WHO IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS IN THEIR AREA
(Multiple Response Permitted)
Problems in County
Community
Montgomery Delaware
PA PA
Phi la.
PA
Gloucester
NJ
Camden
NJ
Traffic congestion
38.9%
43.8%
38.1%
20.8%
41.6%
Polluted water
16.2%
14.1%
18.1%
20.8%
23.0%
Noise
25.8%
29.0%
41.9%
20.8%
35.7%
Crime
40.2%
47.5%
51.1%
22.5%
41.6%
Run-down areas in need
of improvement
13.1%
22.6%
44.7%
18.2%
27.3%
Unclean air
21.4%
30.6%
46.4%
22.1%
35.9%
Parking
20.1%
35.7%
50.5%
15.6%
23.0%
Inadequate low-
income housing
17.9%
14.5%
26.3%
14.3%
16.8%
Respondents were asked specifically about noise in general and its
annoyance in their area. Tables 10 and 11 show the percentages of respondents
rating their areas quiet or noisy.
TABLE 10
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS, BY COUNTY,
WHO RATED THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEIR AREA MAS QUIET OR NOISY
(Column Percentages!
County
Rating
Montgomery Delaware
PA PA
Phila.
PA
Gloucester
NJ
Camden
NJ
Very Noisy
1.3%
3.7%
7V.3%
5.2%
4.6%
Noisy
18.3%
21.9%
31.6%
9.1%
21.9%
Quiet
51.5%
55.9%
49.9%
57.1%
55.1%
Very Quiet
28.8%
18.5%
11.2%
28.6%
18.4%
20
-------
TABLE 11
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS LIVING IN
VARIOUS TELEPHONE EXCHANGE AREAS WHO RATED THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THEIR AREA WAS QUIET OR NOISY
AND THE PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
ANNOYED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE
(Row Percentages)
Exchange Area
Very Noisy
Noisy
Quiet
Very
Quiet
Annoyed By
Aircraft
Noise
South Philadelphia
12.0%
41.4%
40.6%
6.0%
23.3%
Darby
4.1%
29.7%
59.5%
6.8%
24.3%
Media-Chester
5.7%
16.1%
59.8%
18.4%
28.7%
Broomall-Upper Darby
1.1%
21.8%
48.3%
28.7%
11.5%
Lower Merion
0
0
67.3%
32.7%
13.5%
Overbrook-Logan
4.6%
26.4%
58.6%
10.3%
5.7%
Roxborough-Germantown
4.0%
21.3%
61.3%
13.3%
6.7%
West Philadelphia
8.2%
40.8%
41.8%
9.2%
5.1%
Central Philadelphia
10.6%
42.4%
40.0%
7.1%
8.2%
Lower N.E. Philadelphia
7.8%
31.4%
53.9%
6.9%
7.8%
Col 1i ngswood/Merchantvi11e
3.6%
32.1%
51.2%
13.1%
39.3%
Gloucester-Runnemede-
Haddon Heights
10.4%
23.4%
49.4%
16.9%
49.4%
Lindenwold
2.6%
10.5%
64.5%
22.4%
7.9%
North Gloucester
3.4%
6.8%
59.3%
30.5%
20.3%
Camden
6.3%
27.8%
53.2%
12.7%
17.7%
Haddonfield-Cherry Hill
1.4%
9.7%
58.3%
30.6%
30.6%
It is important to note that these questions referred to noise in general
without identifying specific noise sources. These tables show that ratings of
"noisy" or "very noisy" were given by 15 to 25 percent of residents of areas
other than Philadelphia. However, about 40 percent of Philadelphia residents
rated their areas as noisy or very noisy. Also, it can be seen from Table 11
that a higher percentage of Philadelphia residents give higher noise annoyance
ratings than other areas.
The area consisting of Lower Darby, Eastwick, Camden, South Philadelphia,
Col 1ingswood, Gloucester, Haddonfield and Haddon Heights was defined as a
potentially high impact area based on the flight patterns of aircraft
operating from Philadelphia Airport. Table 12 shows that a higher percentage
of residents in close proximity to the airport consider their area to be noisy
than do residents of the remaining survey area.
21
-------
TABLE 12
ftRCENT OF RESPONDENTS LIVING IN POTENTIALLY
HIGH IMPACT AREA OR OUTLYING AREA
WHO RATED THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEIR
AREA WAS QUIET OR NOISY
(Column Percentages)
Rating
Potentially
High Impact
Area
Remaining Areas
Very Noisy
7.8%
4.4%
Noisy
28.2%
24.1%
Quiet
49.3%
53.6%
Very Quiet
14.8%
17.8%
Survey respondents were asked for the effect of noise on various
activities. Table 13 shows that noise disturbance of sleep and rest is
considered to be most important while communication of various types is next
in importance in all counties. These effects mirror those found in most other
studies of noise impacts.
TABLE 13
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS, BY COUNTY, WHO
INDICATED NOISE IN THEIR AREA INTERFERES
WITH VARIOUS ACTIVITIES
County
Rating
Montgomery Delaware
PA PA
Phi l a.
PA
Gloucester
NJ
Camden—
NJ
Sleepi ng
17.0%
24.6%
35.7%
23.4%
24.6%
Talking or listening
to radio, watching
TV, etc.
11.4%
16.2%
25.7%
11.7%
20.8%
Reading
10.9%
14.1%
19.5%
15.6%
14.9%
Resti ng
14.0%
19.5%
26.7%
19.5%
22.4%
Outdoor activities
10.0%
12.5%
14.5%
7.8%
11.9%
22
-------
Table 14 shows that a substantial number of people feel that noise
contributes to health related disturbances. Approximately 22 percent of those
interviewed felt that noise caused irritability.
TABLE 14
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO COMPLAIN
THAT NOISE CAUSES THEM SPECIFIC HEALTH PROBLEMS
Specific Health Problems
Number
Percent
Headaches
149
8.6
Tiredness
181
10.5
Irritability •
381
22.2
Hearing loss or difficulties
75
4.4
An existing health problem to get worse
76
4.4
Another survey question on noise dealt with the annoyance caused by
specific noise sources. Table 15 shows that traffic and motorcycles
contribute to annoyance to a greater degree than other noise sources. Jet
airplanes were judged more annoying than small airplanes or helicopters. This
ranking of aircraft types may be partly due to the rate of their appearance
over the affected communities.
TABLE 15
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO ARE ANNOYED, BY LEVEL OF
ANNOYANCE, AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT ANNOYED BY SPECIFIC NOISE SOURCES
(Row Percentages)"
Noise Source Not at all
SIightly
Moderately
Very
Extremely
Annoyed
Annoyed
Annoyed
Annoyed
Annoyed
Traffic
55.5%
22.1%
12.5%
6.0%
3.8%
Motorcycles
53.6%
18.3%
10.7%
9.2%
8.1%
Trucks
60.8%
16.5%
10.8%
7.3%
4.6%
Buses
75.9%
10.5%
7.6%
3.3%
2.7%
Automobiles
63.7%
19.7%
11.0%
3.8%
1.9%
Emergency vehicles/
sirens
66.5%
16.0%
9.1%
4.8%
3.6%
Garbage trucks
80.2%
10.3%
4.6%
3.1%
1.78%
Pets/animals
72.3%
12.2%
7.3%
5.0%
3.3%
Air conditioners
90.9%
4.8%
2.6%
1.0%
0.6%
Jet airplanes
73.1%
13.6%
7.7%
3.1%
2.6%
Small airplanes
88.5%
7.4%
2.9%
0.6%
0.7%
Helicopters
89.2%
.6.2%
2.9%
0.8%
0.8%
Trains
86.7%
7.4%
2.9%
1.6%
1.3%
Construction
86.5%
6.6%
3.3%
2.0%
.7%
Commercial or
industrial equipment
89.2%
5.3%
3.2%
1.3%
1.0%
Nei ghbors
74.1%
12.1%
7.2%
3.8%
2.B%
23
-------
Respondents were asked if they thought their community should have a noise
control program to specifically work on reducing noise levels. Table 16 shows
percentages of respondents who replied affirmatively to this question. This
shows that in most cases the largest percentages in favor of such a program
reside in Pennsylvania.
TABLE 16
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS, BY TELEPHONE EXCHANGE AREA
WHO SUPPORT A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
Telephone Exchange Area Percent
South Philadelphia
43.6
Darby-Tinicum
35.1
Medi a-Chester
41.4
Broomall-Upper Darby
27.6
Lower Merion
13.5
Overbrook-Logan
34.5
Roxborough-Germantown
41.3
West Philadelphia
31.6
Central Philadelphia
58.8
Lower N.E. Philadelphia
40.2
Col 1i ngswood/Merchantvi11e
40.5
G1oucester-Runnemede-Haddon Hei ghts
33.8
Lindenwold
39.5
North Gloucester
20.3
Camden
35.4
Haddonfield-Cherry Hill
33.3
Those who did not feel their community should have a noise control program
were asked for their reasons for this judgment. Table 17 shows the breakdown
of these reasons. Most of this group felt there was no need for a noise
control program.
TABLE 17
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS NOT SUPPORTING
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS, WHO GAVE VARIOUS REASONS FOR
NOT SUPPORTING A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
Reason
Number
Percent
There is no need for a noise control program
909
82.6
Nothing can be done about noise
120
10.9
It is not the responsibility of the community
20
1.8
It is too costly
20
1.8
24
-------
Respondents were asked how much additional taxes they would be willing to
pay for each household member if there was a noise control program. Table 18
shows the responses to this question.
TABLE 18
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
WILLING TO ASSUME VARIOUS LEVELS OF
TAXATION TO SUPPORT A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
IN THEIR COMMUNITY
Level of Support
Number
Percent
Would not be willing to pay anything
777
45.1
Would pay 25
-------
5.
Survey Results
- Aircraft Noise
Several interview questions dealt with the topic of airplane noise rather
than noise from all sources. Respondents were asked in the context of several
other noise sources if they were annoyed at home by aircraft noise. Table 19
breaks the responses down by impact area for jet airplanes.
TABLE 19
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS LIVING ADJACENT
TO
AIRPORT
AND IN OUTLYING
AREAS
BY THE
EXTENT
TO WHICH THEY ARE ANNOYED
BY
JET AIRPLANES
Rating
Areas
Adjacent to
Airport
Remaining Areas
Not at all annoyed
59.2%
77.4%
Slightly annoyed
16.7%
12.7%
Moderately annoyed
11.9%
6.3%
Very annoyed
5.6%
2.3%
Extremely annoyed
6.6%
1.3%
This table shows that as expected, greater percentages of people are
annoyed in the areas adjacent to the airport than in other areas.
Later in the interview, respondents were asked specifically if they were
annoyed at home by aircraft noise. Again, in this case a greater percentage
of respondents in areas adjacent to the airport expressed annoyance than other
area residents (30.8 percent for the airport adjacent area versus 13.6 percent
for other area residents). To further break down aircraft noise annoyance,
49.4 percent of respondents from the Gloucester-Runnemede-
Haddon Heights area are annoyed by aircraft noise compared to 5.1 percent of
respondents from West Philadelphia.
Respondents were asked whether aircraft regularly fly near their home. Of
those who replied affirmatively, 29.2 percent also reported annoyance with
aircraft noise compared to 3.8 percent annoyed among those who do not have
regular flights near their home. Thus, without regard to noise level of
frequency of operation, almost one-third of the persons exposed to aircraft
overflight are annoyed by them. Also, those annoyed generally by noise are
more inclined to be annoyed by aircraft noise, as shown in Table 20.
26
-------
TABLE 20
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS ANNOYED BY NOISE IN GENERAL
MHO ARE ALSO ANNOYED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE
(Column Percentages)
Extent to Which Annoyed By
Noise in General in Area
Annoyed By
Aircraft Noise
Not Annoyed By
Aircraft Noise
Not at all annoyed
28.2%
49.5%
Slightly annoyed
39.7%
29.1%
Moderately annoyed
19.5%
14.3%
Very annoyed
8.5%
5.4%
Extremely annoyed
4.3%
1.6%
Those who responded "yes" to the aircraft annoyance question were asked
what times of day they were annoyed. Table 21 breaks the day down into four
periods. Respondents were free to identify more than one time period, so that
the percentages tabulated in Table 21 add to more than 100 percent. As shown
in this table, more people are annoyed in the evening hours than other parts
of the day. Almost 80 percent (78.9 percent) of those living in the areas
adjacent to the airport who are annoyed by aircraft noise find the evening
hours to be most sensitive compared to 63.8 percent of those in the remaining
survey areas. The large number of reports of annoyance during evening hours,
compared with nighttime hours, contradicts somewhat the data shown earlier in
Table 13, in which sleeping was most often identified as the activity with
which noise interfered.
TABLE 21
NUMBER AND PERCENT ANNOYED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE REPORTING
TIME PERIOD DURING WHICH THEY ARE ANNOYED
Time Period
Number
Percent
Morning (7:00 a.m. - Noon)
76
24.9
Afternoon (Noon - 6:00 p.m.)
107
35.1
Evening (6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.)
214
70.2
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.)
119
39.1
Those who are annoyed by aircraft noise were asked to what extent they
have become accustomed to the noise. Table 22 shows that most responded they
had become moderately accustomed although relatively few stated they were
highly accustomed to the noise.
27
-------
TABLE 22
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF THE RESPONDENTS
BY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY HAVE BECOME
ACCUSTOMED TO AIRCRAFT NOISE
Extent to Which Accustomed
Number
Percent
Highly accustomed
53
17.4
Considerably accustomed
73
23.9
Moderately accustomed
116
38.0
Not very accustomed
38
12.5
Not at all accustomed
25
8.2
Those annoyed by aircraft noise were asked to describe any actions they
had taken to reduce aircraft noise in their home. Table 23 shows various
actions taken by either respondents. This table shows that most people taki
some sort of action closed their doors or windows or turned up their radios,
TV's, or stereos to block out the noise. More than 10 percent considered
moving while nearly as many used insulation or soundproofing.
TABLE 23
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF THOSE ANNOYED BY
AIRCRAFT NOISE WHO HAD TAKEN VARIOUS ACTIONS
TO REDUCE NOISE
IN THEIR
FROM AIRCRAFT
HOMES
Action Taken
Number
Percent
Used insulation or soundproofing
25
8.2
Closed doors or windows
169
55.4
Turned on or turned up radio, TV, or
stereo to block out noise
111
36.4
Wore earplugs
8
2.6
Changed location of sleeping quarters
10
3.3
Considered moving
34
11.1
28
-------
Finally, those annoyed by aircraft noise were asked who they thought
snoula De responsible for reducing aircraft noise. Table 24 snows that most
thougnt government snoula be responsible for this function, followed by
manufacturers, airlines and airports.
TABLE 24
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS, ANNOYED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE,
WHO IDENTIFIED VARIOUS GROUPS WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR REDUCING AIRCRAFT NOISE
(Multiple Responses Permitted)
Group Responsible
Number
Percent
Airplane manufacturers
186
61.2
Airl ines
151
49.7
Airports
151
49.7
Government
205
67.4
Federal
159
82.4*
State
91
44.4*
Local
37
42.4*
Someone else
20
6.6
~Percent of total government number.
6. Summary of Aircraft Noise Results
Fifty-five percent (54.9 percent) of the sample reported that
aircraft regularly fly near their house.
Wnen asked indirectly (y. 9 on the questionnaire) about various noise
sources including aircraft noise, 27.0 percent expressed some degree
of annoyance with jet airplanes; 11.5 percent with small airplanes,
and 10.8 percent with helicopters.
- When asked directly about aircraft noise (Q. 12 on the
questionnaire), 17.7 percent of the sample expressed some degree of
annoyance.
Place of residence is significantly related to whether someone is
annoyed with aircraft noise.
Respondents' perceptions of whether aircraft regularly fly near their
home are positively related to their annoyance with aircraft noise.
Many who are annoyed by aircraft noise have, to some degree, become
accustomed to the noise.
Those annoyed by aircraft noise most often identified Government as
the group responsible for reducing aircraft noise and, within the
broad categorization of Government, the Federal Government was most
often singled out.
29
-------
V. IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Airport Layout and Operation
The Philadelphia International Airport, located on the north shore of the
Delaware River, seven miles southwest of the city center, is the area's
primary air carrier airport and air cargo facility. Philadelphia
International provides services for all domestic and international carriers
(including supplemental) and all-cargocarriers serving the Pniladelpitia
hub. 2/ Facilities for commuter aircraft are also available for the numerous
communities serving the hub.
Airfield facilities at Pniladelphia International Airport include parallel
east-west runways and a north-south runway. Table 25 contains the aimensions
and ratings of these runways; Figure 5 shows the airport layout.
TABLE 25
RUNWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Effective
Dual Tandem
Double Dual
Runway
Length
Width
Gradi en t
Rati ngs
Tandem Ratings
(Ft)
(Ft)
(Percent)
(lbs)
(lbs)
9R-27L
10,500
200
0.12
340,000
600,000
9L-27R
9,500
150
0.05
150,000
250,000
17-35
5,460
150
0.04
125,000
200,000
Runway 17-35 is used primarily for general aviation and commuter traffic
while the east-west parallels are used primarily by air carrier aircraft.
Simultaneous IFR operations on the parallel runways are precluded since the
runways are only 1,400 feet apart.
Aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) may use one of
several instrument approaches. These include a nondirectional radio beacon
approach procedure to runway 27L, Category I Instrument Landing System -(ILS)
to runways 9R, 27L and 27R, a Category II ILS to runway 9R and Area Navigation
(RNAV) approaches to runways 17 and 35. There is also a visual approach up
the river to runway 9R.
2/ The Philadelphia hub is the 12-county Standard Consolidated Statistical
Area (SCSA) of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia
Counties in Pennsylvania; Burlington, Camden, Alamesta, Mercer, and Salem
Counties in New Jersey; Cecil County in Maryland; and New Castle in
Delaware.
30
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
B. Airspace Analysis
Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) lies within the Northeast
Corridor, a high density air traffic area extending southward from Boston,
Massachusetts, to the Washington, D.C. area. In addition, approximately
30 percent of all operations at the airport are to or from airports within the
Northeast Corridor. Moreover, the airport is located proximate to a non-hub
area air carrier airport, Greater Wilmington Airport (ILG): four military air
bases; North Phi 1adelphia Airport (PNE), a major general aviation airport; and
several smaller general aviation facilities (Figure 6, Airspace Structure).
This high level of activity in the airspace within a 25 nautical mile radius
of the airport requires well defined approach, departure, and overfly
procedures. To this end, PHL and neighboring control facilities have
developed Letters of Agreement defining respective responsibilities in
maintaining control of aircraft operations. Several aspects of these Letters
are discussed below.
With two exceptions, departure procedures are detailed in Standard
Instrument Departures (SIDs) except for traffic to the New York area airports,
Newark (EWR), LaGuardia (LGA), and John F. Kennedy International (JFK). These
departures are handled by Terminal En Route Control, proceeding direct to the
Yardley (ARD) or Robbinsville (RBV) VORTAC where they are handed off to the
New York Common IFR room. This is generally low altitude traffic at or below
6,000 feet Mean Sea Level.
Aircraft arriving at PHL and operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
are directed by the appropriate radar control facility to one of several
holding fixes before a clearance to the final approach fix is given. Holding
fixes are primarily used to regulate the flow of air traffic into an airport,
especially during peak-hour periods. In addition, holding fixes are used to
keep aircraft within short range of the airport during such times as when a
disabled aircraft is on the runway, or when weather is below minimums, etc.
Arriving aircraft are stacked at 1,000-foot intervals with the latest arriving
aircraft entering the stack at the next highest altitude. The aircraft at the
bottom of the stack is the first to receive clearance to the final approach
fix. As that aircraft exits the holding fix, the remaining aircraft descend
1,000 feet to maintain the sequencing procedure. Each holding fix has
restrictions as to the number of aircraft that may be held at one time. The
designated holding fixes for arrival operations at PHL are also shown in
Figure 6. They are Turner Intersection, Bucktown Intersection, New Castle
VORTAC (EWT), and Woodstown VORTAC (00D). These holding fixes may be stacked
to 8,000 feet MSL. On occasion, aircraft may be held over the outer marker to
6,000 feet MSL.
Flights arriving from the New York area airports are cleared to Turner
Intersection at or below 7,000 feet MSL. Flights arriving from other
directions are cleared to appropriate holding fixes. Further approach to PHL
is directed by PHL approach control according to primary operating conditions
at PHL.
33
-------
Operations to and from the Baltimore area (BAL) are conducted at or below
7,000 feet MSL, with approaches to PHL cleared to the New Castle holding
area. Operations between the New York area airports and Baltimore (overflying
traffic) are maintained at or below 6,000 feet MSL and are usually routed
along Victor Airway 157 (V-157) or V-433 to the Princeton Intersection or RBV
V0RTAC, respectively. Continued flight to the New York area is controlled by
the New York Common IFR Room.
IFR operations to and from the Greater Wilmington Airport are handled by
Philadelphia approach and departure controls. The Wilmington Tower hands off
all departures at time of departure and accepts control of arriving aircraft
approximately three miles from the approach fix.
IFR departure operations from the North Philadelphia Airport are handled
by the New York Center with Philadelphia Terminal Radar Approach Control
Facilities (TRACON) advised. Instrument approaches to PNE are vectored by
Philadelphia TRACON to a point approximately three miles from the approach
fix. Aircraft operations to and from PHL are kept above 2,000 feet MSL in the
PNE control zone.
In summary, coordination of aircraft activity by the various control
facilities in accordance with the respective Letters of Agreement should serve
to insure that airspace capacity is not constrained.
It should be noted that other jet routes traverse the PHL area, however,
these are at altitudes at or above 14,500 feet MSL and, therefore, do not
affect arrival or departure operations at PHL.
Another aspect of the airspace analysis concerned simultaneous operations
at PHL--specifically, the investigation of potential airspace conflicts due to
the required missed approach areas.
Simultaneous IFR operations, such as an arrival on Runway 9R and departure
on Runway 9L, or an arrival on Runway 27R and departure on runway 27L, may not
be conducted at PHL due to insufficient lateral separation between the
parallel runways. Therefore, to preclude conflicts between missed approach
and departure airspace, a departure must be held until the arriving aircraft
has touched down on the landing runway.
C. Meteorological Conditions
The effect of meteorological conditions at Philadelphia International
Airport was analyzed based on weather record summaries obtained from the
National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina. These data consisted of
hourly measurements of ceiling, forward visibility, and wind velocity, and
were recorded for the five-year period of January 1959 through December 1963.
It is essential to analyze weather conditions at an airport since these
parameters determine when and where various types of operations are to be made
on the field. From the planning point of view, analysis of weather conditions
aids in determining the number and direction of runways required, the most
34
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
efficient use of the airport and the requirements for certain navigational
aids (NAVAIDS). By comparing the adequacy of the existing system with the
additional benefits' of future construction programs and implementation of
various NAVAIDS with respect to wind-weather coverage, one may determine
whether such an upgrading of airport facilities is warranted.
Ceiling and visibility greatly affect the flow of air traffic. When the
visibility is at least three statute miles and the ceiling is at least-
1,000 feet, aircraft may operate under visual flight rules (VFR). If either
the ceiling or the visibility falls below these specified minimums, the
airport is forced to operate under instrument flight rules (IFR). This
requires that approaches to the airport be cleared of obstructions above a
specified plane and that landing aircraft and runways be equipped with
specific navigational aids.
There are generally five different types of IFR approaches which are made,
dependent upon various ceiling-visibility minima. 3/ These minima are
established by the Federal Aviation Administration and are based upon the
navigational equipment available and any fixed obstructions within the
approach area. Landing minima are normally expressed in terms of visibility
and Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) for non-precision approaches and visibility
and Decision Height (DH) for ILS or precision approaches. Both MDA and DH are
indicated in feet above the elevation of the landing threshold and represent
the lowest altitude to which an aircraft may descend until visual contact is
made with the runway/approach light environment. MDA and DH can vary slightly
according to type of aircraft. Representative values and a description of the
various procedures used at Philadelphia International Airport are as follows:
1. Circling - Visibility 1 1/2 miles and MDA 600 feet. An aircraft
approaches the airport on a localizer beam or V0R radial and, at a
specified altitude, may circle the airport and make a visual landing
on another runway.
2. Back Course - Visibility 1 mile and MDA 400 feet. An aircraft
approaches the airport on the localizer beam (either in front or in
back) and continues straight in to land without the aid of a glide
slope.
3. Category I ILS - Visibility 1/2 mile and DH 200 feet. An aircraft
makes a straight-in approach using the front of the localizer beam
and, also, the glide slope beam. The runway must also be equipped
with special approach lights, runway lights, and runway markings.
4. Category II ILS - Visibility 1/4 mile and DH 100 feet. The runway
must be equipped with centerline and touchdown zone lighting and
various other sophisticated features. Presently, only a few of the
very large airports, PHL included, have this capability.
37 Other approaches, such as Nondirectional Beacon (NDB) and Very High
Frequency Omnidirectional Range (V0R), are available but rarely used at a
major air carrier airport.
37
-------
5. Category III ILS - Category III approaches have been divided into
three types dependent on forward visibility. Type A requires
700 feet forward visibility, Type B requires 150 feet, and Type C has
no minimum.
The above minima were obtained from published FAA procedures for
Philadelphia International Airport.
Analysis of ceiling, visibility, and wind data was facilitated through the
use of a wind rose, which is a graphical representation of wind velocity.
Utilizing the data obtained from the National Climatic Center, a plot was made
of the percentage of wind at various velocities. From these plots, the
average percentage of time that winds of various speeds originate from each
direction was determined.
Wind roses for VFR, Circling, Back Course, Category I ILS, Category II
ILS, and Category III ILS conditions were developed by computer analyses and
are depicted on Figure 7. An all-weather wind rose is shown on Figure 5.
Wind affects the operation of an airport in that pilots will usually
prefer to operate into the wind in order to reduce aircraft ground speed.
During landing, it is especially desirable to keep the crosswind component at
a low velocity, thus requiring only a minimum of correction for wind during
the final approach and landing.
Crosswind limitations are a function of an aircraft's, stall speed, pilot
proficiency and airline policy. For general planning purposes, a crosswind
limit of 13 knots (15 mph) for air carrier aircraft and 10.5 knots (12 mph)
for general aviation aircraft has been established by the FAA. When the
crosswind to the primary runway(s) at an air carrier airport exceeds 13 knots
(15 mph) more than 5 percent of the time on an annual basis, construction or
lengthening of a crosswind runway is eligible for ADAP funding. At
Philadelphia International the 15 mph crosswind coverage of Runway(s) 9-27 is
94.3 percent.' In order to allow maximum use of the parallel runway system and
to avoid, to the extent possible, noise-sensitive areas north of the airport,
a 20 knot crosswind criteria was selected to reflect current air carrier
operating conditions. While it is desirable to land into the wind, a 4 knot
tailwind is considered acceptable when estimating preferential runway usage.
Applying the aforementioned guidelines to all-weather conditions, it was
determined that Runways 9R-27L and 9L-27R provide 99.7 percent wind coverage
for air carrier aircraft and 85.0 percent wind coverage for general aviation
aircraft.
The overall wind coverage of the airport's three-runway system is quite
adequate, with 100.0 percent and 98.4 percent coverages with a 20-knot and
10.5-knot crosswind limit, respectively. An analysis of the all-weather and
IFR wind roses was made to determine which runway provides the greatest
coverage during these conditions. The results are shown in the following
table:
38
]
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 26
PERCENT WIND COVERAGE
(4-Knot Tailwind)
Percent Coverage
Runway
All-Weather
20 Kt (23 mph)
Crosswi nd
IFR
10 Kt (11.5 mph)
Crosswind
9R, 9L
47.0
71.6
27L, 27R
74.0
53.4
17
54.7
61.1
35
63.6
23.0
Runways 27L and 27R provide best coverage during all-weather conditions;
however, during IFR conditions, Runways 9R, 9L cover more of the wind. This
indicates that NAVAIDs are properly provided for landings to the east.
D. Runway Requirements
The length of the parallel runways are such that every aircraft currently
in the fleets of, or on option to, the air carriers serving the airport can
operate into and out of the airport at or very near their maximum
payload-range capabilities. The forecast aircraft mix is such that the vast
majority of air carrier flights will be able to operate on the shorter of the
two parallel runways (9L-27R) without a payload restriction. Only
intercontinental flights by large aircraft will be required to use the longer
of the two parallel runways. Most of these flights will be operational with a
full complement of passengers and their baggage. For these reasons, the'
lengthening of either Runway 9R-27L or 9L-27R is not required at this time.
In the future, however, if it becomes operationally desirable and is
economically feasible, the eastern end of Runway 9R-27L could be extended
1,500 feet. The runway would then be 12,000 feet long and all aircraft with
the exception of the DC-8-63 could take off from it at their maximum
structural takeoff weights. The maximum takeoff weight of a DC-8-63 from a
12,000-foot runway at a temperature of 89°F would be 345,000 pounds, which
is only 10,000 pounds less than its maximum structural limit.
The crosswind runway (17-35) is of sufficient length to accommodate all
utility class aircraft and most basic transport class operations without any
restrictions. The length of 5,460 feet is adequate for all current air taxi
aircraft. Two- and three-engine air carrier aircraft can currently operate on
Runway 17-35 at practical operational weights with zero wind conditions.
Virtually all air carrier operations on this runway will, however, be
41
-------
conducted when relatively strong headwinds (20 knots or greater) are present.
Under these wind conditions and if the runway were to be lengthened to 7,000
feet, 4/ most air carrier aircraft could land at their maximum structural
landing weights. Many two- and three-engine air carrier'aircraft could also
take off at or near their maximum structural takeoff weights. Therefore, the
capability of lengthening runway 17-35 to 7,000 feet should be maintained.
Current runway usage data contained in Table 27 provided by FAA Air
Traffic Control Tower personnel was used in the development of the 1980
aircraft noise contours.
TABLE 27
RUNWAY UTILIZATION
PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
G.A.* Air Carrier G.A. Air Carrier
Runway Landings Landings Takeoffs Takeoffs
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
9L 28
9R 28
27L 72
27R 72
17 70 70
35 30 30
*General Aviation
E. Existing Noise Abatement Procedures
The location of Philadelphia International Airport on a cape-like
protrusion into the Delaware River minimizes the noise impact of air carrier
operations on the east-west parallel runways. Normally, air traffic
controllers instruct landing aircraft to maintain 3,000 feet or above until
intercepting the ILS glide slope, thus reducing the noise impact throughout
the terminal control area.
T? Due to obstructions north and south of the airport, displaced thresholds
would be required thus reducing available landing length from 7,000 feet
to 6,500 feet.
42
-------
Whenever the ceiling is at least 4,500 feet and the visibility is at least
3 miles, aircraft approaching from the west may be cleared for a river
approach (Figure 8). When cleared for this approach, aircraft will be able to
descend from 4,000 feet over the Delaware River and follow the river to the
airport. Similarly, on departures to the west, all aircraft make a 15° left
turn to 255° immediately after takeoff and follow the river downstream until
cleared en route by air traffic control (ATC). These procedures lessen the
noise from arriving and departing aircraft in Essington and Chester and other
communities west of the airport.
Except under severe crosswind conditions, all air carrier operations are
conducted on the east-west parallel runways. Atlhough general aviation jet
aircraft frequently use the parallels, most general aviation operations are on
runway 17-35.
The discussion of the existing noise abatement program is noteworthy for
two basic reasons. First, the existing procedures were found to be effective
in minimizing existing levels of aircraft noise impact. It is expected that
these procedures would be retained in any ongoing noise abatement program.
The second reason they are discussed is that the existing procedures and their
effectiveness affects the range of other possible alternate noise abatement
measures which would be considered for the future.
F. Existing Operational Data
Existing noise exposure in the airport vicinity was defined in order to
assess current impact and provide a basis for comparison with predicted future
conditions and with current and future alternative noise abatement options.
Data describing the existing operation (1980) at the airport were accumulated
to develop the necessary impact for the noise modeling methodology. Data were
collected regarding flight tracks, runway utilization and the number of day
and night operations.
The flight tracks used for assignment of air carrier and general aviation
operations were based on aircraft track data obtained from the Automated Radar
Terminal System at Philadelphia International. Figures 9 and 10 show the
tracks for east and west operations, respectively. Figure 11 depicts the
consolidated track data which were used as input for the FAA's Integrated
Noise Model.
Aircraft operations were assigned to designated flight tracks based on
wind rose data and estimates by air traffic personnel of runway utilization.
The destination of departing aircraft (or the city of origin of arriving
aircraft) determined air carrier track usage away from the immediate vicinity
of the airport. General aviation operations on runway 17-35 were based on a
two-day tower traffic count during February 1980. Table 27, which presents a
summary of the annual average runway utilization percentages, shows that most
of the time (72 percent of the time) the airport is in a "west operation,"
whereby air carrier landings and takeoffs are to the west.
43
-------
FIGURE 8
RIVER APPROACH (VISUAL)
PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL
'•vIADELPH.a PfNNS^L
RIVER APPROACH (VISUAL)
Whenever the ceiling is at least 4500
feet and the visibility is at least 3
miles, radar vectors may be provided to
the EWT R-063. When cleared for a River
Approach aircraft will be able to descend
from 4000 feet over the Delaware River
and follow the river to the airport A
descent profile of approximately 3° may
be made starting at the EWT R-063 10 DME
790
A
. A270 £
380A
,*261
170A
A'«5
A618
jar
j>iS V4—
CHART NOT TO SCALE
RIVER APPROACH (VISUAL)
VORTAC
EWT
6 DME
4000
-0638
EWT
10 DME
4000
3000
EWT
15 DME
1500s"
RIVER APPROACH (VISUAL)
39°53'N - 75° U'W
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL (PHL)
44
-------
Hi/.PHILADELPHIA EAST OPERATIONS (PHL)vf
%' V' EAST OPERATIONS FLIGHT TRACKS -V
S*
¦'a&- .
'. ORDINATE- OF PLQf iS flLKfNEtt
.. ¦ WITH GEOGRfl'PH fCflL iSjjCjffTH
' ;:\sYSTf0f "
•• * * *• ** • •• * •. r. • • .... V\ •'
. -\ ; ••./-. y v ,:"i•••-••
.•••«. • -*¦' •t-.f.'.J • ' * ;T- ¦ •. • •. •••-. •.
» * •- - • ¦.•• • •.•••• •••v ; s-;- ....
45
-------
H'*-.
•••
• -.y>*
. -.Vfri:,
V -if':
\
PHILADELPHIA WEST OPERATIONS (PHL)
WEST OPERATIONS FLIGHT TRACKS
•FIGURE 10 f:.
•• • *. -v •
,v ?
a *«l.
' * ORQINRfE QK/'TNi^./PLQ^ $ flLIGflEO^ "
. WITfr GEOGfW>rirC^U ;NORTd\ . ' • ¦
"V i'^v . •: • \
• .'i'",+y-&t t ^ ' •
.••• • S >
» • •** Ot • ¦
46 '
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
The total number of scheduled operations used in the evaluation of
existing conditions were obtained from the Official Airline Guide (OAG). The
breakdown of daytime/nighttime operations and the necessary stage length
information required for air carrier operations were also obtained from the
airline schedules in the OAG. Table 28 presents a summary of the operational
data used to describe the existing noise conditions at the airport.
G. Existing Noise Exposure
1. Noise Methodology
In order to define the noise environment resulting from aircraft
operations in the vicinity of an airport, an appropriate measure of cumulative
noise exposure must be selected.
The day-night sound level (Ldn) was selected as the measure for describing
the cumulative noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations at
Philadelphia International Airport. The Ldn measure is especially significant
in that it can be related directly to a wide variety of other community noise
environments. In addition, the U.S. Air Force, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency have selected this
metric for the purpose of measuring cumulative noise exposure. It is
presently being used in numerous noise and land use studies for airports
around the country.
a. Ldn Noise Metric
Ldn can be defined as the average A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour
period with a lOdB penalty applied to nighttime sound levels (2200 to 0700
hours). Ldn describes the relationship between daytime and nighttime
equivalent sound levels (Leq). Leq is formulated in terms of the equivalent
"steady" noise level which in a given period of time would contain the same
noise energy as the time-varying noise during the same time period.
Historically, almost every scientific investigation of airport/community
noise, regardless of the country or origin, shows that the impact of
aircraft/airport noise is a function not only of the noise intensity of a
single event, but also a function of its duration and the number of events
occurring throughout the day and night. The method of measurement of Ldn is
shown in Figure 12.
b. Purpose of Noise Contours
Ldn noise levels are indicated by means of contour lines superimposed on a
map. These levels are computed for each designated point on the ground around
the airport from the weighted summation of the effect of each aircraft
operation. Some operations are far enough away from the point being
considered that their contributions are minimal. Conversely, other operations
are close enough and noisy enough to dominate the noise exposure at that
location.
49
-------
TABLE 28
1980 BASE AIRCRAFT DAILY OPERATIONS FOR
PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Departures by Stage Length
(Nautical Miles)
Aircraft Type Day/ 0 500 1000 1500 2500 3500 4500
Night Arrivals 500 1000 1500 2500 3500 4500 +
747
D
3
1
1
N
DC-10
D
11
4
6
N
1
L-1011
D
11
1
4
2
N
1
DC-8
D
5
1
N
1
1
707
D
15
4
6
2
N
3
1
*1
A-300
D
2
2
1
N
1
727-100
D
27
13
7
5
N
2
2
2
727-200
D
43
17
19
7
N
8
3
4
1
727 Adv.
D
N
DC-9
D
64
49
14
2
N
3
1
1
737-100/-200
D
6
4
2
1
N
1
STOL
D
N
BizJet
D
25
14
9
3
N
2
1
50
-------
FIGURE 12
DAY—NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (Ldn)
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
SINGLE EVENT
NOISE MEASUREMENT
"A" — LEVEL
Measurement of
Each Event
(Takeoff or Landing)
0
Apply
DURATION
FACTOR
t >
SEL
Sound
Exposure
Level
CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE
MEASUREMENT
v- .y
-------
This summation of noise levels, as shown in Figure 12, is on an energy
basis. Thus, one might think of the acoustical energy of the noise from the
passing aircraft as a passing snow storm with the distribution of snowfall in
proportion to the distribution of the aircraft noise. Therefore, if each
homeowner has a snow or noise energy gauge, at the end of the day his gauge
will indicate the total noise energy or Ldn received at his location. Final
lines or contours can then be drawn through points of equal gauge level.
Noise exposure contours are developed primarily as a planning tool to be
used by those who plan aircraft operations at an airport and those who plan
the growth of the communities in the vicinity of an airport. It is important
to understand that the noise contours developed in this study do not
constitute definitive standards for enforcement of land use controls, nor do
they represent any absolute boundaries of noise tolerance.
The measured range of day-night sound levels outside dwelling units is
quite large. The measured range goes from 40dB on a typical farm to 90dB
outside an apartment next to a freeway. Ldn levels of 65 dB will result in
sleep and speech interference and adverse response. Ldn levels below 65 have
generally been considered as the acceptable range for residential uses even
though some sleep and speech interference still exists. Also, all of the
Federal agencies which operate in the aircraft noise field and which have
developed criteria for compatible land use, agree that residential uses are
acceptable at Ldn levels less than 65 dB. The EPA has recommended that 55 Ldn
is requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of
safety. Thus, between Ldn 55 and 65, some noise controls may also be needed.
Restrictive costs may impede the development of such controls but that does
not mitigate against their necessity.
For these reasons, most noise analyses concentrate on the land areas
within the Ldn 65 and up since this range has been accepted as the area in
which land use controls and operational modifications should be addressed.
However, since many of the complaints regarding aircraft noise from
Philadelphia International Airport were from outside the Ldn 65 contours, the
Ldn 60 contours were also developed for this study.
2. Development of Noise Contours
As stated before, the methodology used to develop the aircraft noise
exposure contours was the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM), 5/ a noise
simulator computer-based program. The INM describes and defines the levels of
aircraft noise around the airport by taking into account all pertinent
parameters, including types and numbers of aircraft operating at the airport,
flight tracks, operating procedures, and time of day of aircraft operations.
The existing noise exposure (1980) for the airport vicinity is presented and
discussed in terms of Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) contours.
57 A detailed description of the INM is contained in report No. FAA-EE-79-09
"Integrated Noise Model Version 2 User's Guide," which is available upon
request from the Director, Office of Environment and Energy, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20591.
52
-------
Selected scenarios were also analyzed according to the EPA1s Aircraft
Noise Evaluation Process (ANEP). 6/ This technique is used to determine the
incremental contribution of aircraft noise, over and above background levels,
and the results are presented for discrete land areas such as census tracts.
The ANEP indicates where aircraft noise levels intrude above background
levels, which are predicted as a function of population density, and so ANEP
recognizes the lower background level of lower density development.
a. Annual Average Day-Night Sound Levels
The Ldn contours for the 1980 existing conditions are shown in Figure 13.
The contours reflect the high percentage use of the parallel east-west runways
and are wider on the west side of the airport than on the east, since the
general landing/departing pattern for air carrier aircraft is from east to
west. The contours caused by general aviation aircraft using runway 17-35 are
considerably smaller than the contours extending from the parallel runways.'
As shown in Figure 13, areas exposed to Ldn 75 are all on airport property
or the Delaware River except for a segment of Essington, west of the airport,
where about 290 people reside. The areas exposed to Ldn 65 extend
approximately 6 1/4 miles to the east along the river into the Gloucester City
area of New Jersey. To the west, the Ldn 65 contour encloses all of
Essington, the industrial waterfront of Chester and branches inland from the
river 1.6 miles to the north in the Faltonville area and about 2 miles south
near the Bridgeport area of New Jersey. The Ldn 65 contour from the primary
general aviation runway, 17-35, extends 2.2 miles north from the airport in
the Eastwick area and about the same distance south of the river into the
sparsely populated area of West Deptford. Population centroids identified
from Bureau of the Census data indicate that there are 37,574 people in 11,478
homes within the Ldn 65 contour. Recent developments such as in the Eastwick
area are not included.
Ldn 60 contours are also shown on Figure 13. This contour encompasses
188,133 people in 59,935 residences, about five times as many as within the
Ldn 65 contour,- and extends 3.6 miles east of the river into the Oaklyn/Haddon
area with lobes into Camden on the north and Bellmawr on the south. West of
the airport, the Ldn 60 contour extends northwest past Chester nearly to the
Middletown/Fisher Corners area and south into New Jersey past the Cedar Swamp
nearly to the Turnpike. The contour from runway 17-35 reaches 5.6 miles north
to the Highland Park area and south into New Jersey a mile past the Turnpike.
67 A detailed description of the ANEP is contained in "Airport Noise
Regulatory Process," Notice of Proposed Rule Making, EPA, October 1976.
53
-------
b. Daily Day-Night Sound Levels
The DRVPC requested that "worst case" noise levels be investigated, i.e.,
daily Ldn contours assuming west operations for all air carrier aircraft and
again assuming all east operations for the day. These contours are shown in
Figures 14 and 15 while the associated population information is presented in
Table 29.
TABLE 29
COMPARISON OF EXISTING ANNUAL DAY-NIGHT
NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS WITH "WORST CASE"
Day-Ni ght
Population Within Contours
Noise Level (Ldn)
Annual
Average
East
Operations
West
Operations
75
290
290 (0%)
1,446 (+900%)
65
37,574
55,102 (+47%)
43,303 (+15%)
60
188,133
343,990 (+83%)
173,279 (-8%)
( ) Percent change from Annual Average.
As can be seen from the "worst case" contours, departure noise dominates
except for the narrow approach corridors. Therefore, during the 28 percent of
the time that all air carrier operations take off to the east, many more
people are impacted by aircraft noise. When the wind is from the west, the
departures down the Delaware River and south over the sparsely populated Cedar
Swamp area minimize the number of people impacted even though about one-half
of the departures proceed to the northwest, overflying the relatively densely
populated area north of the river. On the other hand, people in New Jersey
living directly under or adjacent to the approach flight path are subjected to
noise from every air carrier aircraft landing at PHL.
c. Aircraft Incremental Impact - 1980 Base Case
The study area surrounding PHL was divided into approximately 400
individual study units. Each study unit is a census tract, or portion
thereof, which contains residential development; Figure 16 illustrates the
array of study units. For each study unit, a background or indigenous noise
level was predicted according to the ANEP process, and an aircraft noise level
was also developed via the same type of computer model used to produce the
noise contours; indigenous and aircraft levels are illustrated in Figures 16
and 17. In the ANEP process the predicted aircraft and indigenous noise
levels are added logarithmically to obtain a total noise level and then the
indigenous level is subtracted arithmetically from the total level to
54
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
determine the aircraft increment. It should be noted that since Day-Night
sound levels, expressed in decibels, are logarithmic quantities, they cannot
be added in the usual arithmetic manner. Figure 18 provides a simple means
for adding two sound levels.
FIGURE 18
RULES FOR DECIBEL ADDITION
To add together two noise levels, L^ and L2, where L2 is higher
than Lj:
1. Subtract L^ from |_2
2. Determine L from the following table:
L2-L1, dB L, dB
0 or 1/2 3
1 or 1-1/2 2-1/2
2 to 3 2
3-1/2 to 4-1/2 1-1/2
5 to 7 1
7-1/2 to 12 1/2
13 or more 0
3. Add L to L2.
4. L2 + L is the decibel sum of L^ and L2-
For example, if the aircraft and indigenous levels were both 60dB, their
total would be 63dB and if one subtracted the indigenous level from the total
level, the results would be 3dB, i.e., the aircraft increment is 3dB. The
process just described was accomplished for each of the study units and the
results are shown in Figure 19 for only those study units to which there is an
incremental impact due to the operations of aircraft at PHL. As can be seen,
the most significant increments occur in the close-in areas just west of the
airport, e.g., Ridley, Ridley Park, while the most extensive occurrence of
incremental impact is in New Jersey, e.g., Camden, Col 1ingswood, Gloucester
City. The moderate values of incremental impact in New Jersey reflect the
distance from the airport to the New Jersey shore of the river. However, the
incremental values shown in Figure 19 are sufficient to trigger public
awareness and complaint. The geographic distribution of Hotline calls shown
in Figure 3 and the location of incrementally impacted areas is highly
correlated.
65
-------
3. Noise Measurement Program
An aircraft noise measurement program was conducted during the week of
June 4, 1979, to obtain actual data to compare with modeling results. Three
stations east of the airport in New Jersey and one west of the airport in
Essington, Pennsylvania, monitored both east and west operations. Table 30
compares the calculated equivalent noise level (Leq) with the results of the
measurements. 7/
TABLE 30
CALCULATED VS MEASURED
EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVELS
Location
Leq
Calculated
Leq
Measured
Difference
Remarks
Gloucester City,
N.J.
63.6dB
64.ldB
+0.5dB
Audubon, N.J.
54.2dB
60.9dB
+6.7dB
Considerable Background
Noise
Cherry Hill, N.J.
52.6dB
57.2dB
+4.6dB
Some Background Noise
Essington, Pa.
72.OdB
68.4dB
-3.6dB
The measured level at Gloucester City is very close to that calculated and
verifies that the relatively high noise level at that location is aircraft
dominated. The measured levels at Audubon and Cherry Hill, further from the
airport, indicate that the equivalent noise levels in these areas are probably
not aircraft dominated. The operators of the noise monitoring equipment noted
several noise sources such as a power lawn mower and a trail bike that
understandably biased the measurements. The difference between the calculated
and measured levels west of the airport at Essington exceeded the tolerance
expected at that location by 0.6dB. A check of both the calculated and
measured values showed no systemic error and the data extracted from the radar
tapes could not resolve the difference. However, the noise measurement team
had no way to verify aircraft takeoff weight or engine power settings; these
factors could account for the difference.
77 The report on the Noise Measurement Program, D0T-TSC-FA053-LR-80-1, is
available upon request to the Director, Office of Environment and Energy,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20591.
66
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
VI. NOISE ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES
A. Selecting Possible Actions
Potential noise abatement actions for the Philadelphia International
Airport should reflect airport master planning considerations, the existing
noise condition, the existing abatement program, and the noise reduction
benefit of additional options. Data were collected from a variety of sources
regarding many potential noise abatement options; the options were then
assessed by the Advisory Committee as to their applicability to and potential
effectiveness at Philadelphia International.
All of the operational options identified were combined into several
categories to simplify their review and application to Philadelphia
Internati onal.
* Airport Plan
* Airport and Airspace Use
* Aircraft Operation
* Land Use
* Noise Program Management
These categories of options were discussed and screened at length by the
Noise Study Advisory Committee. Table 31 presents a listing of the specific
options considered under each category.
At Philadelphia International, most of the area impacted by noise from air
carrier aircraft is not "close-in" but is several miles away under the
approach and departure paths. However, there is a "close-in" noise problem in
Eastwick due to general aviation aircraft and also at Essington from air
carrier aircraft.
B. Airport Plan Alternatives
1. Displaced Threshold - A displaced threshold is a runway marking that
identifies the point on a runway beyond which landing aircraft may touch
down. Since the displaced threshold is located down the runway and not at the
physical end of the runway, aircraft on the landing approach maintain a higher
altitude to reach the touchdown point than would be necessary if the threshold
were not displaced.
At Philadelphia International, the south parallel is the runway primarily
used for landing jet aircraft. The residential area under the approach path
to runway 9R in Chester, Pennsylvania, is 4.4 miles from the runway. At this
location, an aircraft on the approach glide slope would be at an altitude of
1,250 feet. Displacing the landing threshold 1,000 feet would result in a
0.3dB decrease in noise. Similarly, Gloucester City is 5.5 miles from the
approach end of runway 27L and would receive even less benefit from a
displaced threshold. At Essington, about one mile from the runway, the
benefit from displacing the threshold 1,000' or 2,000' recorded would be 1.3
and 2.5 decibels, respectively.
69
-------
TARLE 31
SELECTING POSSIBLE ACTIONS
DISPLACED THRESHOLDS
1
9
9
RELOCATED OR ADDED RUNWAY
2
•
©
9
9
9
CHANGE IN LENGTH OR STRENGTH
Oe RUNWAY
3
©
•
9
9
9
aiKK)HI ^lan
HIGH SPEED EXIT TAXIWAYS
4
•
9
RELOCATED TERMINALS
5
e
9
9
LOCATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE RUNUPS
TEST STAND NOISE SUPPRESSORS
AND BARRIERS
6
©
9
9
PREFERENTIAL OR PRIORITY RUNWAY USE
ROTATIONAL RUNWAY USE
7
•
e
9
9
9
AIRPORT AND
AIRSPACE USE
PREFERENTIAL FLIGHT TRACK USE
APPROACH AND DEPARTURE
PROCEDURES
8
•
9
9
limited repositioning of aircraft
9
•
RESTRICT TIMES FOR
maintenance runups
CONTROL OF GROUND EOUIPMENT
10
9
9
LIMITED NUMBER OR TYPES
OF OPERATIONS
LIMITED TYPES OF AIRCRAFT
II
9
•
9
9
9
9
9
CURFEW
RESCHEDULING
MOVE FLIGHTS TO ANOTHER AIRPORT
12
e
9
9
9
9
9
9
AIRCRAFT
OPERATION
POWER AND FLAP MANAGEMENT
13
e
9
9
RAISE GLIDE SLOPE ANGLE OR INTERCEPT
14
9
9
LIMITED USE OF REVERSE THRUST
15
9
LAND USE
LAND ACQUISITION
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
16
•
9
•
•
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
JOINT DEVELOPMENT
OF AIRPORT PROPERTY
1?
9
•
9
9
9
e
9
COMPATIBLE USE ZONING
IS
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
BUILDING CODE PROVISIONS
SOUND INSULATION OF BUILDINGS
19
•
•
9
9
9
9
9
REAL PROPERTY NOISE NOTICES
20
9
O
9
9
a
9
PURCHASE ASSURANCE
21
9
•
•
9
•
9
NOISE
PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
NOISE RELATED LANDING FEES
22
•
9
•
•
9
NOISE MONITORING
23
9
9
9
•
ESTABLISH CITIZEN
COMPLAINT MECHANISM
ESTABLISH COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
24
o
9
9
9
9
©
9
70
-------
2. Relocated or Added Runway - The size and location of Philadelphia
International rule out this potential noise control action. Operations from
the primary runways, the east-west parallels, are directed over the Delaware
River to minimize the noise impact. Relocation or addition of a runway, if
there were sufficient real estate, would not reduce the number of people
exposed to aircraft noise.
3. Change in Length or Strength of Runway - The primary runways (9L, 9R,
27L, 27R) at PHL, are of sufficient strength and the minor runway extensions
possible would not materially reduce the noise impact. However, extensions at
both ends of runway 17-35 are under consideration in order to provide a
"crosswind runway" at PHL. According*to windrose data, crosswind conditions
requiring the use of the lengthened runway (to 7,000') exist about 5 percent
of the time. Use of extended runway 35 for takeoff, except when wind
conditions mandate, would unnecessarily impact the Eastwick area; therefore,
such usage is not under consideration.
4. High Speed Exit Taxiways - The runways used primarily by air carrier
aircraft already have high speed exit taxiways. Therefore, this alternative
was not given further attention.
5. Relocated Terminals - The terminal and associated buildings such as
the parking garages tend to shield aircraft generated noise from the nearest
residential areas to the north while the river provides a buffer zone between
the airport and the New Jersey shore. Thus, the current location of the
terminal appears to be optimal for noise abatement.
6. Test Stand Noise Suppressors and Barriers - Although there are
currently no restrictions on maintenance run-ups, there apparently is not a
significant noise problem from this source. The run-up area is at the west
end of the airport and the usual practice is to point the tail of the aircraft
toward the river. As maintenance which requires high power run-up is
infrequent at Philadelphia International, installation of noise suppressors or
barriers is not considered necessary at this time.
C. Airport and Airspace Use
1. Runway Use Program - The current informal runway usage program in
which air carrier aircraft use the east-west parallels and most general
aviation aircraft are directed to the north-south runway appears to be nearly
optimum for both airport capacity and for noise abatement. However, Air
Traffic Control personnel are considering a restriction on the use of
Runway 9L-27R from 2200 to 0700. This would keep approaches from the west and
departures to the west further from Essington.
2. Preferential Flight Track Use - The current flight tracks up and down
the Delaware River effectively minimizes the noise impact from operations at
PHL. At the request of the Noise Study Advisory Committee, noise contours
were developed to show the change in noise impact if, during west operations
under visual flight rules, arriving air carrier aircraft followed the Delaware
River from Palmyra to the airport instead of using the current
71
-------
straight-in-approach over Cherry Hill. As is shown in Figure 20, the noise
impact on Collingswood and Haddon is decreased at the expense of added impact
on Camden. The number of persons within the Ldn 60 contour changed less than
2 percent, from 188,133 to 184,763.
Another example of preferential flight track use that was examined in this
study was head-to-head nighttime operations; i.e., all air carrier operations
between 2200 and 0700 would land from the west and take off to the west. Such
operations would only be initiated during periods of low traffic when weather
conditions permit. The population within the Ldn 60 and Ldn 65 contours would
be reduced by about 15,700 (8.3 percent) and 1,300 (3.5 percent), respectively
(Figure 21). The contours would shrink east of the airport but would expand
in the Chester area west of the airport.
3. Limiting Number or Types of Operations - Noise abatement restrictions
currently in effect at PHL include prohibition of practice instrument
approaches and touch and go landings. Air carrier aircraft operate from the
east-west parallel runways except during severe crosswind conditions when they
may use runway 17-35. Additional limitations on numbers or types of aircraft
do not appear appropriate as there is no nearby airport from which air carrier
aircraft can operate nor is PHL operating at capacity.
4. Curfews, Rescheduing and Moving Flights to Another Airport - The use
of other airports is not considered to be a reasonable alternative as any
airport in the Philadelphia area capable of handling large transport aircraft
already has a noise problem that would be exacerbated by traffic diverted from
PHL.
An analysis of the change in noise impact which would result from a full
nighttime curfew (2200-0700) showed that, with such a curfew, about 105,000
people would no longer reside within the Ldn 60 contour and the number of
people within the Ldn 65 contour would be reduced from 37,574 to 11,250
(Figure 22).
Using the Aircraft Noise Evaluation Process, an analysis of the 1980 full
curfew scenario was undertaken to determine the change in impact severity.
The indigenous levels used for the analysis are the same as those used in the
1980 base case incremental impact analysis (see Figure 16). Aircraft noise
levels, by study unit, for the curfew scenario are shown in Figure 23 and the
incremental impact due to those levels, over and above indigenous noise, is
shown in Figure 24.
A comparison of Figures 19 and 24, the incremental contribution of
aircraft noise without and with the curfew, respectively, indicates the
effectiveness of this option for noise impact mitigation. Close in to the
airport, in those areas just west of the main runway complex, there is a
marked reduction in the level of incremental impact. Further out, both east
and west of the airport, there is also a noticeable reduction in impact level
and, more important, there are now many study areas which receive no
incremental impact even though they were impacted without the curfew. This is
perhaps most noticeable in the Camden and Gloucester City areas just east of
the river. Thus, the curfew will substantially reduce the extent and severity
of the noise impacts of aircraft operations at PHL.
72
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
D. Aircraft Operation
1. Power and Flap Management - Power and flap management is a general
noise abatement technique concerned with basic flight procedures and pilot
techniques. The takeoff procedure described in FAA Advisory Circular 91-53
recommends takeoff power to 1,000' followed by acceleration to zero flap speed
after which:
(a) The thrust for airplanes with low bypass ratio engines should be
reduced to below normal climb thrust but not lower than that necessary to
maintain the final takeoff engine-out climb gradient.
(b) The thrust for airplanes with high bypass ratio engines should
be reduced to normal climb thrust.
The Air Transport Association (ATA) procedure calls for acceleration to
zero-flap speed at 1,000' and reduction to climb power. Northwest Airlines
follows a similar procedure but the power reduction is greater than for the
ATA procedure. The effect on noise exposure will differ since the larger the
power cutback, the less noise the airplane produces but the lower its altitude
will be as it gets further from the airport. The two factors are
counterproductive for reducing noise on the ground. At PHL, air carrier
aircraft taking off to the west follow the center of the Delaware River until
vectored on course toward their destination. Takeoffs to the east pass over
Gloucester City at an average altitude of over 3,000 feet. Since the distance
from the airport to Gloucester City is about 5 miles, a deep thrust cut close
in would not benefit residents in New Jersey.
Power and flap management can also be utilized during landing, although,
for noise abatement, turbojet-powered airplanes are already required to use
the minimum certificated landing flap setting on final approach to the runway,
safety permitting.
2. Raise Glide Slope Angle or Intercept - An aircraft on a 3 degree
glide slope 4 miles from a runway would be approximately 184 feet higher than
an aircraft on a 2 1/2 degree approach. The higher aircraft at that distance
would be about 1 1/2 dB quieter directly under the approach path and less than
that off to the side or closer to the runway. The glide slopes at PHL are set
at 3 degrees, the maximum glide slope angle the FAA has determined to be safe
for normal instrument approaches.
Although the published instrument approach procedures specify a glide
slope intercept altitude of about 2,000' over the outer marker (about 6 miles
from the runway), in practice the intercept altitude is much higher, normally
over 3,000' and this will reduce noise levels on the ground below those which
would occur with the 2,000' intercept altitude.
3. Limited Use of Reverse Thrust - Due to the distance from the airport
to residential communities, this action would not materially improve the noise
situation at PHL.
83
-------
E. Land Use
1. Acquisition of Land or Easement - Land acquisition and purchase of
noise easements are noise control methods that have been successfully used at
several U.S. airports to solve "close in" noise problems. The location of
Philadelphia International Airport on the Delaware River minimizes the "close
in" problem for air carrier operation on the primary runways.
2. Joint Development of Airport Property - The limited acreage under the
control of the airport effectively precludes development of airport land for
non-airport related uses.
3. Compatible Use Zoning - Zoning for compatible use is the
responsibility of the city or town zoning authority. The designation of the
area adjacent to the western side of the airport as a wildlife refuge should
preclude any residential use of the area. The industrial zoning near the
airport minimizes the number of people subjected to severe aircraft noise.
4. Building Code Provisions and Sound Insulation - Building code
provisions, as zoning, are the responsibility of local jurisdictions. In this
case, building codes could insure that sites near airports would not be
developed for sensitive uses, or that sites, as they are developed, would
incorporate adequate sound insulation construction techniques, to keep
interior noise at acceptable levels. Obtaining comparable noise reduction
from sound insulation of existing structures is usually more difficult. The
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 authorizes Federal grants for
the soundproofing of public buildings but no such assistance is available for
private buildings or residences. However, FAA objections to residential
development north of the airport resulted in a Housing and Urban Development
condition for that development to require soundproofing.
5. Real Property Noise Notices - Real property noise notices serve to
notify prospective buyers of homes near airports that they will be living in a
noise-impacted area. Again, such a requirement would be the responsibility of
the local jurisdiction. While present home owners are often opposed to real
property noise notices because of their potential effect on future sales of
property, such notices are effective in channeling noise sensitive individuals
away from high noise zones. Not all prospective home buyers are noise
sensitive.
6. Purchase Assurance- This would be a guarantee from the airport
proprietor that, if a homeowner is unable to sell his house, the airport will
buy the property at its appraised value or pay the difference between the
appraised value and the amount the owner is actually able to get on the
market. Purchase assurance, in select areas, is an effective mechanism for
disarming opposition to land use activities which might have some negative
economic impact on present home owners.
84
-------
F. Noise Program Management
1. Noise Related Landing Fees - One approach to this charge would be to
levy an extra landing fee for aircraft not meeting Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 36 (Stage 2)) noise levels. However, in response to the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, all air carrier aircraft must meet
Stage 2 noise levels by 1985 (except two-engine aircraft with less than 100
seats).
2. Noise Monitoring - Installation of noise monitors allows
identification of those aircraft that contribute most to a community's
cumulative noise exposure.. Several airports in the U.S. have continuous noise
monitoring. The effectiveness of a noise monitoring system depends upon what
the airport proprietor does with the information. Relations with the
surrounding communities tend to improve and if the airport proprietor works
with the noisiest airlines or pilots, since some noise reduction can be
achieved on a voluntary basis.
3. Establish Citizen Complaint Mechanism and Community Participation
Program - A citizen complaint mechanism such as the telephone "hotline,"
especially in conjunction with a noise monitoring system, allows
identification of the aircraft, getting in touch with the pilot to obtain
additional information, and calling the complainant back. Such a positive
response to callers should help community relations.
Airport communities provide valuable inputs to airport planning. The FAA
requires that they be invited to participate in the Master Planning process so
that airport development plans are coordinated with community interests.
Regular meetings between the airport operator and community organizations
allow for an open exchanges of ideas and concerns and keeps all parties
i nformed.
VII. FUTURE NOISE EXPOSURE
A. 1990 and 2000 Baseline Contours
Future aircraft noise estimates form the basis for any planning program
since" one must jointly consider the solution of existing problems with the
prevention of new ones. Thus, noise analyses were developed for the years
1990 and 2000 (recognizing that a 20-year forecast is tenuous). Tables 32 and
33 present summaries of the aircraft operational data used to describe the
future noise conditions at PHL. These tables indicate 29 percent and
49 percent increases in commercial jet operations for 1990 and 2000,
respectively. General aviation operations are expected to remain relatively
constant in total numbers but the smaller aircraft types will tend to be
phased out as the airport runway capacity is approached by air carrier
operations alone.
Figures 25 and 26 present the Ldn contours associated with these
operations. The elimination of those aircraft that do not meet FAR Part 36,
Stage 2 noise levels and the introduction of new, quieter aircraft will shrink
the contours so that the population impacted by Ldn 65 or more is reduced by
18 percent and 37 percent in 1990 and 2000, respectively, from the 1980 levels.
85
-------
TABLE 32
1990 BASE AIRCRAFT DAILY OPERATIONS FOR
PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Departures by Stage Lenyth
(Nautical Miles)
Aircraft Type
Day/
Niqht
Arrivals
0
500
500
1000
1000
1500
1500
2500
2500
3500
3500 4500
4500 +
747
D
4
1
1
1
1
N
1
1
DC-10
D
21
4
7
2
6
2
1
N
1
L-1011
D
22
3
6
4
5
2
2
N
2
1
1
DC-8
D
1
1
N
707
D
N
A-300
D
14
4
6
5
N
3
1
1
727-100
D
2
1
1
N
2
1
1
727-200
D
33
15
15
3
N
5
2
2
1
727 Advanced
D
35
9
19
8
N
4
1
2
DC-9
D
36
29
7
N
1
1
737-100/-200
D
3
3
1
N
1
757/DC-9-80
D
54
30
20
4
N
4
2
2
BizJet
D
44
23
15
5
2
N
4
2
1
86
-------
TA3LE 33
2000 BASE AIRCRAFT DAILY OPERATIONS FOR
PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Departures by Stage Length
(Nautical Miles)
Aircraft Type Day/ ~0 500 1000 1500 2500 3500 4500
Night Arrivals 500 1000 1500 2500 3500 4500 +
747
D
9
1
1
2
N
2
1
1
DC-10
D
27
4
8
4
7
N
1
L-1011
D
25
3
7
4
6
N
2
1
1
DC-S
D
N
707
D
N
A-300
D
27
10
11
6
N
4
1
2
1
727-100
D
N
727-200
D
6
2
4
1
N
1
727 Advanced
D
59
18
30
12
N
8
2
4
1
DC-9
D
11
9
2
N
1
1
737-100/-200
D
N
757/DC-9-80
D
36
50
30
5
N
6
3
4
3izJet
D
68
35
21
8
3
N
7
4
3
1
87
-------
B. Impact of Noise Abatement Alternatives
1. River Approach - As for 1980, noise contours were developed for 1990
and 2000 to compare the change in noise impact of air carrier aircraft
following the Delaware River from Palmyra to the airport. Figures 27 and 28
show that, within the L,jn 65 contours, there would be about 4,100
(2 percent) fewer residents in 1990 and 7,500 (5 percent) fewer in the year
2000.
2. Night Curfew (2200-0700) - The effectiveness of this noise control
option is as marked in 1990 and 2000 as it was in 1980. There would be 19,545
(63 percent) fewer persons within the L
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
VIII. FINDINGS
The results of the EPA/FAA analysis of the five major scenarios, i.e.,
(1) baseline, (2) river approach, (3) head-to-head nighttime operations,
(4) nighttime curfew, and (5) additional use of runway 17-35, for Philadelphia
International Airport are illustrated in Table 34 which lists population
impacted for each Ldn level, scenario, and analysis year. The data presented
in this table clearly show that a night curfew coupled with a highly tailored
preferential runway system would provide the best noise control mode for
operation of the facility. While the analysis only considered a full curfew
from 2200 to 0700 hours, a flight by flight investigation should be undertaken
prior to the imposition of operational restrictions. This analysis should be
done in conjunction with the preferential runway use system development, e.g.,
head to head operation and/or air carrier landings on runway 35, if that
runway is extended. The combination of specific operational restrictions and
preferential runway uses can then be "fine-tuned" to minimize both the noise
impacts and the potential disruptions to the airport's normal operating mode.
Prior to imposition of any operational restriction, a detailed analysis of the
resultant economic impacts, as well as any effects on international and
interstate commerce, must be accomplished. It should be noted that the
current airline fuel situation may make restrictions on numbers of operations
for noise control more palatable to the carriers. The scope of this analysis
precluded the requisite flight by flight analysis for actual curfew design.
However, this analysis has laid the groundwork for such a program.
All of the descriptive material pertaining to the full range of noise
abatement alternatives listed in Table 31, along with the scenarios submitted
to detailed analysis, were given to the Advisory Committee for their review.
Additionally, the committee was asked to rank all of the possible
alternatives. This ranking exercise was accomplished in a two step procedure.
o A noise abatement strategy fact sheet and evaluation matrix was
prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission staff
and submitted to the committee members.
o At its final meeting, the Advisory Committee came to a general
agreement on ranking each of 17 specific alternatives as being of
high priority for further study and implementation, low priority for
further study and implementation, or not recommended. The
committee's recommendations were not unanimous and minority positions
on several of the alternatives were submitted at a later date.
Unless otherwise specified, the Federal Government takes no position
on the findings of the Advisory Committee or on the minority
reports.
The Advisory Committee ranking of alternatives is as follows:
High Priority
o Sound Insulation of Buildings
o Noise Monitoring
o 9R-27L Departures and Arrivals at Night (Preferential
Runway Use)
o Preferential Runway Use in General
o Power and Flap Management
o Real Property Noise Notices
o Land Use Controls
113
-------
TABLE 34
NOISE ABATEMENT SUMMARY
....
Case Ldn Contour Impacted
1980 3ase
50
188,133
65
37,574
1990 Forecast
60
179,185
65
30,795
2000 Forecast
60
149,783
65
23,619
1980 River Approach
60
187,237
65
37,574
1990 River Approach
60
175,079
65
30,795
2000 River Approach
60
142,206
65
21,979
1980 Head to Head
60
172,446
55
36,260
1990 Head to Head
60
172,887
65
31,035
2000 Head to Head
60
161,207
65
26,751
1980 Night Curfew
60
82,270
65
11,250
1990 Night Curfew
60
62,071
65
5,507
2000 Night Curfew
60
47,675
65
4,224
1990 Crosswind Runway
60
215,261
65
52,627
2000 Crosswind Runway
60
183,241
65
48,306
1990 Max. # of Landings
on Runway 35
60
214,569
65
50,907
2000 Max. # of Landings
on Runway 35
60
151,791
65
49,192
-------
Low Priority
o River Approach
o Two- and Three-Engine Air Carrier Aircraft Approaching
from the South Will Land on Runway 35 (applicable if
runway is lengthened)
o Distributing Noise Impacts Around Airport
o Specific Curfew (less than the full curfew analyzed)
Not Recommended
o Full Night Curfew
o Displaced Threshold
o Raise Glide Slope
o Head-to-Head Nighttime Operations
o Lengthen Runway 17-35
The committee eliminated any consideration of noise related landing fees
based upon recently enacted legislation which established a compliance
schedule for all air carrier aircraft to satisfy Federal aircraft noise
standards.
The deliberations and conclusions of the Advisory Committee indicate
that--in general--they favor a fine-tuning approach to noise reduction coupled
with a broad based array of ground side activities to ensure no further
encroachment upon the hopefully noise optimized airport. Perhaps one reason
that the committee did not favor any complex aviation option is the common
realization that the airport is already doing much of what can be done,
considering the nature of the problem and the available courses of action.
For example, of the seven high priority items, two are related to preferential
runway use, one is a refinement of operating procedures, and the remainder
relate to land-use activities and continuing citizen involvement. The four
lower priority items all represent more complex operational changes and the
five options not recorrenended by the committee represent even more complex
aviation operational issues.
The rankings of the committee were based upon majority votes of the
members present at the end of a marathon eight-hour meeting and, as such, may
not represent the perspective of the entire committee. In fact, several
members felt strongly enough about the issues to submit "minority reports."
The representative of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Quality
disagreed with the high priority placed on sound insulation and felt that
source noise control should have received much greater emphasis. The EPA/FAA
study team is in general agreement with this view of the importance of source
noise control. However, recent legislation has established noise levels and
compliance dates for all certificated air carrier aircraft and it is
unrealistic to expect additional legislative action.
-------
A second minority report was received from the representative of Eastwick,
which is the area just north of the airport. The Eastwick report disagreed
with the overall committee findings on several specific issues. First, they
would prefer that any additional use of runway 17-35 not be recommended.
Second, they disagreed with the committee's opinion that raising the glide
slope not be investigated. Third, they strongly disagreed with the high
priority given to real property noise notices feeling that such an action
might depress real estate values in areas close to the airport. Finally, the
Eastwick delegation disagreed with the low priority ranking given to the
specific or limited night curfew.
A letter from the Air Transport Association of America questioned the
benefit of any type of noise distribution or the river approach and noted that
"A third item, limited curfew, still cannot be accepted in any way by the air
carriers or, we believe, by the passengers and shippers who depend on
Philadelphia International Airport."
Congressman Robert W. Edgar (7th District, Pennsylvania) and the
Commissioners of Tinicum Township commented on the limited curfew in the
following manner. "It is the opinion of both myself and my constituents from
Tinicum that a limited curfew should be included in the high priority
category. In addition to being one of the more effective abatement
strategies, it would cause little or no economic disruption." In a separate
communication the Tinicum Township Planning Board called for a detailed
economic study of the curfew question along with Congressional approval of
Airport-Airway-Trust-Fund monies to finance sound insulation of buildings in
Ldn 75 areas. Later communicaton from the Commissioners of Tinicum Township
expanded on the earlier comments and called for lengthening and greater use of
Runway 35 for jet approaches from the south, noise distribution and adherence
to voluntary preferential runway use plans developed in the 19601s and 1970's.
A group of twelve individuals from several New Jersey communities
submitted a revised ranking of strategies which they felt would be in the best
interests of the affected southern New Jersey areas; the revised list is
reproduced below.
"HIGH PRIORITY
o Limited Curfew*
o Noise Distribution
o Modified River Approach
o Use of Runway 35 for Jets Approaching from the South (south
river approach; lengthening of runway may be necessary)
o Preferential Runway Use
~Provided that the limited curfew is combined with one or more
alternate strategies of noise abatement or noise distribution.
116
-------
LOW PRIORITY
o Sound Insulation of Buildings
o Noise Monitoring
o Night Operations on 9-R, 27-L on River Side
o Power and Flap Management
o Real Property Noise Notices
o Land Use Controls
Any other strategies are not recommended."
The Delaware County Planning Department submitted comments on several
noise abatement options as well as calling for further analysis of the limited,
curfew noting that "Although the limited curfew was only judged a low priority
by the committee, we suspect that it may have ranked higher had more contours
for the condition been developed. We feel that the case was made for a
further analysis of this procedure and urge that this be given a high priority
for further study."
Simple abstracting of the minority reports and study comments, as included
in the preceeding discussion, cannot do justice to the efforts of many members
of the Advisory Committee. So that a permanent record of those substantial
efforts be made a part of this study, all of the Advisory Committee
communications pertaining to minority reports and study comments are included
herein as Appendix E.
The activities of the Advisory Committee, both in its majority findings
and the efforts of individual members to develop minority reports, speaks most
highly of the involvement of these individuals and the organizations which
they represent. Based upon the Advisory Committee findings, including
minority reports, and the analyses developed by the EPA/FAA study team, it
appears that the most effective noise control option for Philadelphia
International Airport is a reduction in nighttime operations in combination
with a preferential runway use program to keep the remaining nighttime flights
away from populated areas. Before any such use restrictions should be
considered, however, a more detailed study should be made to account for all
economic factors which could be affected by those restrictions. These
activities should be augmented, in_parallel, with a program of land use
controls, perhaps including sound insulation, noise monitoring, and real
property notices.
The EPA/FAA study team strongly recommends that the activities of the
Advisory Committee be continued to advance the development of both an airport
noise abatement plan and local land use activities. Both agencies would be
pleased to provide technical assistance in the translation of the study into
actual noise impact mitigation measures suitable for implementation at
Philadelphia International Airport and in the surrounding environs.
117
-------
APPENDICES
A. PARTICIPATION - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE
STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
B. DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION NEWSLETTERS
C. AIRPORT NOISE COMPLAINT CENTER FORM
D. COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
E. ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION
-------
APPENDIX A
PARTICIPATION
PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL' AIRPORT
NOISE STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Achitoff, Louis
Ackroyd, Eileen
Aitken, Sherrie
Anderson, Diann
Anderson, Patrick
Barrett, Barbara
Barrett, Carol
Bay, John
Bill era, Domenick
Billingsley, Judy
Binder, Lois
Borak, Barbara
Borden, Ernest
Burkins, Frederick
Callahan, Joseph
Coscia, John
Curci, Joseph
Currie, Richard
Cutler, Maury
Dahms, Siegfried
DiPolvere, Edward
FAA Eastern Region, N.Y.
Citizen
CSR, Incorporated
Citizen
EPA, Region III, Philadelphia
CSR, Incorporated
Sierra Club
Staff of Congressman Edgar
New Jersey Department of Transportation
Citizen
Delaware County Planning Department
Camden Courier Post
Citizen
Air Traffic Controller
Air Traffic Controller (Retired)
Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission
Penrose Park Residents Association
Eastwick Project Area Committee
Citizen
Pilot
New Jersey Department of Transportation
A-l
-------
Dommermuth, Rita
Elliott, Charles
Evangelista, Albert
Farley, Barbara
Glezerman, David
Green, William
Hargens, C. William
Hargens, Mary
Hauser, Frank
Hubbell, Richard
Jacobs, Susan
Kaiser, John
Korzeniowski, Bohdan
Levine, Leon
Lisicky, Anton
Madrack, Bernard
Martin, Frederick
McMullen, James .
McVey, Harry
Melia, Peter
Neal, Jack
O'Hare, Emmett
Paris, Allan
Patermo, Joseph
Pembleton, Mary
Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission
Citizen
Penrose Park Resident Association
Eastwick Project Area Committee
Camden Courier Post
Philadelphia Air Management Services
Franklin Institute
Citizen
West Deptford Township Planning Board
Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission
Citizen
New Jersey Department of Transportation
Philadelphia International Airport
Delaware County Planning Department
Cherry Hill Planning Board
Staff of Congressman Florio
City of Camden
Councilman, City of Gloucester
City of Camden
FAA, Harrisburg, Pa.
Air Traffic Controller
Air Transport Association
Innovative System Research, Inc.
Camden County Planning Department
Camden Courier Post
A-2
-------
Poloncarz, Norman
Randalls, Leon
Robinson, Bill
Rogers, Charles
Schrock, Roy
Sellman, Edmund
Shephard, William
Sheridan, Michael
Starley, Steven
Stuck, John
Summer, Elliott
Van Cleve, Earl
Vodges, Judson
Wilk, David
Wolf, Michael
Tinicum Township Planning board
Philadelphia Air Management Service
Pilot
Philadelphia International Airport
EPA, Region III, Philadelphia
FAA, Washington, D.C.
FAA, Washington, D.C.
City of Gloucester
EPA, Washington, D.C.
FAA, Philadelphia Control Tower
FAA, Eastern Region, N.Y.
Citizen
Citizen
Eastwick Project Area Conmittee
Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission
-------
APPENDIX B
DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
NEWSLETTERS
-------
B-l
Inews
A BULLETIN OF THE PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE STUDY
MARCH, 1980
WELCOME READERS
Welcome to the first issue of Noise News,
the newsletter of the Philadelphia Inter-
national Airport Noise Study. We hope to
provide a timely update on the events of
the study. If you have questions or need
more information, please call Michael
Wolf, Program Manager at L07-3000, Ext.
189.
NOISE STUDY BEGINS
DVRPC has received funds under Section
8 of the 1978 Quiet Communities Act to
evaluate aircraft noise generated at
Philadelphia International Airport. The
study will determine to what degree air-
craft noise is a problem for the sur-
rounding community. For this effort, a
noise complaint telephone "hotline" has
been set up; a community response survey
has been completed (see accompanying
articles); and noise monitoring was con-
ducted by the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration at selected sites in Pennsylvania
and New Jersey. Based on this informa-
tion, alternative noise control strategies
will be developed and reviewed; the re-
sults will be presented to community
leaders and the airport operator. The
final objective of the study is the prepara-
tion of a report to go to Congress docu-
menting the severity of the problem and
recommending certain noise control strat-
egies. This report will be submitted to
Congress by November, 1980.
COMMUNITY SURVEY COMPLETED
To learn more about how people are
affected by aircraft noise, a Community
Response Survey was conducted by CSR,
Inc. for DVRPC during November, 1979.
Questions were asked of households within
a twenty-mile radius of Philadelphia
International Airport; telephone numbers
were selected at random according to the
exchange area. It was hoped that the
survey would contact a cross-section of
people, and in fact, the respondents
ranged in age from 18 to 92.
After 15,781 calls, 1,727 interviews were
completed. Each interview lasted about
twenty minutes, and included general
questions about community problems and
more specific inquiries about aircraft
noise.
Of those spoken to, 35% felt that noise
was a problem in their neighborhoods.
The same percentage favored a commun-
ity noise control program. Eighteen per-
cent reported that they were bothered at
home by aircraft noise, and 11% said they
had considered moving because of the
noise. Most of those annoyed by the
noise of airplanes felt that government
should be responsible for improving the
situation.
The data will be further analyzed in order
to determine which communities are most
severely affected, what times of day are
most critical, and whether variables such
as background levels of noise, age of
respondent, or length of residence are
statistically significant.
DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
-------
HOTLINE REGISTERS COMPLAINTS
Rarely are complaints desired commodi-
ties; currently, the Philadelphia Inter-
national Airport Noise Study is the excep-
tion to the rule. A telephone complaint
hotline has been operating 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, since December 8, 1979, to
accept complaints about aircraft noise.
The toll-free number is 1-800-424-5145.
All complaints received are being for-
warded to the FAA and the airport.
A Washington-based consultant, CSR, Inc.,
is coordinating the hotline effort for
DVRPC. Approximately 150 complaints
have been received since its inception.
People have reported rattling windows,
interrupted conversation, and television
interference caused by planes flying over-
head. Most of the complaints received so
far have originated in Camden County —
areas such as Gloucester City, Audubon,
Oaklyn, and Camden City. Other com-
plaints have been registered from Eastern
Delaware County, Gloucester County, and
the Eastwick section of Philadelphia. The
hotline will remain in service until April,
1980.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED
An Advisory Committee has been formed
as part of the Airport Noise Study. The
committee's role is to provide policy
guidance and technical advice to the FAA,
EPA, and DVRPC. It will evaluate a
"shopping list" of potential noise abate-
ment strategies to determine which would
be most practical for the Philadelphia
area. The committee's recommendations
will be included in the report submitted to
Congress at the conclusion of the study.
Because the committee handles both pol-
icy and technical questions, it is com-
prised of a variety of groups and interests.
Among those represented are county and
city agencies in the study area, the
airport, air traffic controllers, pilots,
neighborhood organizations, citizens, and
the federal agencies. In addition, Con-
gressmen James S. Florio of the 1st
District of New Jersey and Robert W.
Edgar of Pennsylvania's 7th District —
both key regions in the study area — have
sent representatives to the committee.
Congressman Florio was instrumental in
securing federal funds for the study and
was present at the first meeting, Decem-
ber 17, 1979, to welcome participants.
A second meeting of the Advisory Com-
mittee was held on February 20, 1980 to
review various types of data collected to
date.
The third meeting has been scheduled for
March 26, 1980. The next issue of this
newsletter will contain highlights of that
meeting.
DELAWARE VALLET RECIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
ISIS I F Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia Pa 19103
NOISE A NEWS
1 A" V M, 1
B-2
-------
B-3
A BULLETIN OF THE PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE STUDY
SECOND ADVISORY MEETING HELD
The Philadelphia International Airport
Noise Study Advisory Committee con-
tinued its work on February 20, 1980 in
Cherry Hill, New Jersey. At the meeting,
the committee learned more about the
Community Response Survey and the noise
modeling currently being conducted by the
FAA. In addition, the committee took its
first look at the list of potential noise
abatement strategies, some of which have
been implemented at other airports.
Ms. Sherrie Aitken of CSR, Incorporated,
the firm which performed the Community
Response Survey for DVRPC, presented
some of the highlights. She explained that
the current data is only preliminary and
will be further broken down by telephone
exchange, distance from the airport, age,
education and length of residence, to
determine if trends and relationships are
evident.
Mr. Steven Starley of EPA displayed a
large map of the noise "footprint" created
by the Integrated Noise Model. Informa-
tion concerning current airport operations
are fed into a computer, he said, pro-
ducing noise impact contours. To predict
how future changes in the operation of the
airport or the use of quieter planes would
affect the surrounding communities, new
data is placed into the computer and new
noise contours are generated. Mr. Starley
explained that background noise will also
be taken into account, as any sort of noise
will seem more severe in a quiet area. He
said that a map of what the aircraft noise
situation will look like in the year 1990
and 2000 should be ready by the next
committee meeting in March.
Mr. Emmett O'Hare of the Air Transport
Association of America spoke about some
of the noise abatement strategies present-
ly in use by the airlines such as modified
take-off, landing and ground operations.
He described fleet modernization as one
of the most successful but costly ap-
proaches. The committee recognized that
the list of potential noise control
measures needs thorough evaluation,
keeping in mind the advantages and disad-
vantages of each measure. Further com-
ments and suggestions will be made at the
next meeting of the Advisory Committee
which will be held March 26, 1980, 7:30
p.m., at the Best Western Airport Inn,
Philadelphia, Pa.
TELEPHONE COMPLAINT UPDATE
By mid-March almost 250 complaints had
been received by the telephone complaint
"hotline."--The tolUfr.ee number has been
available 2^-hours a day since December
8, 1979. In New Jersey complaints contin-
ue to be concentrated in Gloucester City,
Oaklyn and National Park. In Pennsyl-
vania many calls have originated in East-
wick, Southwest Philadelphia and Essing-
ton.
The telephone complaint number, 1-800-
424-51^5, will be discontinued April 3,
1980 when this phase of the noise study is
complete.
DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
-------
B-4
FAA OUTLINES POTENTIAL
NOISE CONTROL ACTIONS
At Philadelphia International Airport, the
area affected bv aircraft noise is located
several miles from the airport under the
approach and departure flight paths. The
following list, developed by the FAA, was
presented to the Advisory Committee on
February 20, 1980. The list includes some
of the noise control strategies which
might be explored as part of the Airport
Noise Study:
o Displaced Threshold — This measure
would involve moving the point of land-
ing further from the end of the runway
to ensure that aircraft are higher when
passing over residential areas.
o Lengthening Runways 17-35 — The
FAA will study the effects of expanding
the crosswind runway, in order to ac-
commodate the landings of 2 and 3
engine air carrier jets approaching from
the south and southwest.
o Preferential Flight Track Use — Some
of the current flight tracks lie along the
Delaware River. The effect of using a
river track, instead of the present
straight-in-approach over Cherry Hill,
for aircraft arriving from the north will
be analyzed.
o Curfew — 8.7% of current airport
operations are between 10:00 p.m. and
7 a.m. If requested by the committee,
the FAA could evaluate changes in
noise impacts resulting from a curfew.
o Power and Flap Management — Ac-
cording to the FAA. procedures have
already been instituted at Philadelphia
Airport to minimize noise.
o Sound Insulation of Buildings — Public
buildings in noiser areas may be eligible
for federal funds for soundproofing.
o Real Property Noise Notice* —
Prospective buyers of homes near air-
ports would be notified of the noise
impacts. Local governments would be
responsible for implementing this
measure.
o Noise Related Landing Fees — This
proposed action would have the airport
charge an extra landing fee for aircraft
exceeding federal standards. However
this strategy has been rendered un-
necessary by the safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979, which was
signed into law February 19, 1980. Tfie
Act requires air carrier aircraft to
comply with federal noise limits by
1985, with some exceptions for 2-engine
aircraft with less than 100 seats.
o Noise Monitoring — Pinpoint the most
severe noise sources in a community.
-------
B-5
NOISElNEWS
MAY, 1980
NO. 3
A BULLETIN OF THE PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE STUDY
FAA NOISE CONTOUR MAPS ILLUSTRATE ALTERNATIVES
IMIWKLD
lQfln
65
Ldn
HZTZ- 2000
65
Ldn
This noise contour map indicates areas that will experience noise levels of 65 Ldn or higher in 1980 and 2000. According to FAA and EPA,
65 Ldn is the sound level at which complaints commonly begin to occur. The map reveals that by 2000 the noise impact will shrink in the
east-west direction. However in the north-south direction the area experiencing 65 Ldn or above will increase in size.
The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) presented the first noise contour
maps to the Advisory Committee on
March 26. The 1980 "annualized average
operations" contour is based on current
flight schedules. The projected contours
for 1990 and 2000 incorporate forecasts of
air traffic growth and the use of quieter
planes.
continued
DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
-------
B-6
NOISE CONTOURS continued
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
The FAA also modelled several potential
aircraft noise abatement strategies.
Some of the results include:
o Use of a flight track along the Dela-
ware River: According to the FAA,
this action does not seem feasible
because it can create air traffic
problems, and it reduces the noise for
a minimal number of people.
o Head to head nighttime operations,
with night flights both arriving and
departing from the West: Again, this
action involves potential air traffic
and economic problems, and it re-
duces by 9% the number of people
affected by aircraft noise.
o Night curfew: The curfew modelled
improves the situation for over 50%
of those affected. However, the
economic impact this measure would
have on the airport makes necessary
the consideration of less stringent
curfews.
The pros and cons of each of the proposed
noise control actions (for a complete list,
see Noise News, April, 1980) will be
evaluated before determining which are
practical for Philadelphia.
The Philadelphia International Airport
Noise Study Advisory Committee held its
third meeting on March 26, at the airport.
The committee was brought up to date on
the analysis of the Community Response
Survey and the progress of the noise
complaint telephone "hotline." In addi-
tion, participants viewed the noise model
contours depicting present and future air-
port operations and those forecasting the
effects of several proposed control strate-
gies. Finally, the committee learned how
aircraft noise impacts are determined
according to already existing noise levels.
Discussion of the potential noise control
actions will continue at the next meeting
of the Advisory Committee which has
been tentative scheduled for May 7, 1980,
at the Best Western Airport Inn, Philadel-
phia.
SURVEY ANALYSIS COMPLETED
The draft final analysis of the Community
Response Survey should be available in
early May and it will be distributed to the
Advisory Committee. Committee mem-
bers should send their written comments
to Noise Study Project Manager Michael
Wolf at DVRPC, 1819 John F. Kennedy
Blvd., Philadelphia, Pa. 19103.
Questions about the Noise Study? Call
Michael Wolf or Michelle Manoff at (215)
L07-3000, Ext. 189 or 198, respectively.
-------
B-7
NOISElNEWS
JUNE, 1980
NO. k
A BULLETIN OF THE PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE STUDY
NOISE MEASURED AT ELEVEN SITES
At the beginning of the Noise Study, in
June, 1979, the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration (FAA) monitored noise at four
sites surrounding the airport. To supple-
ment this information, monitoring at 11
additional sites was conducted last month
by members of the DVRPC and EPA staffs
with equipment borrowed from the FAA.
The 11 locations were chosen based on the
preliminary results of the Community
Response Survey, the sources of the noise
telephone "hotline" complaints, and the
recently developed noise contour maps.
Large waterproof enclosures were placed
in Camden, Haddonfield, Cherry Hill,
West Collingswood, and Thorofare, New
Jersey; Wallingford, Swarthmore, and Es-
sington in Pennsylvania; and the Eastwick
section of Philadelphia. Inside each box
was the machine that actually measured
and recorded the noise, the Community
Noise Analyzer (CNA). A microphone
assembly was attached to each box and
hooked up to the CNA inside. The CNA
monitored noise levels for 72 hours at
each site.
There were some limitations to the latest
monitoring. The noise analyzer measures
all noise in the environment, not just that
caused by aircraft. Therefore, it is
possible that certain high sound level
readings were caused by barking dogs,
motorcycles or children.
When the FAA measured noise levels in
June, 1979, the units were attended by
field personnel who noted the type of
aircraft involved in each event and who
documented the source of noise not re-
lated to airport operations.
Jim Hare, Environmental Specialist with FAA, mans a
noise monitoring station in Essington, Pa. Similar
equipment was recently used at eleven unmanned moni-
toring locations in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. (See
article)
Most of the Ldn's (Ldn = day/night, 2^-
hour average sound level with a 10 db
penalty applied to night noise) that were
recorded fell between 61 and 65 decibels.
Interestingly, the highest average re-
corded in the recent round of measure-
ments was 72 Ldn on May 7, 1980 in West
Deptford, near National Park Borough.
On that day, the CNA recorded a maxi-
mum level (Lmax) of 101 decibels.
In general, Michael Wolf, Noise Study
Project Manager, was pleased with the
results of the monitoring. "We didn't find
anything which widely differed from the
other findings" of the telephone hotline,
the noise contour maps, and the Com-
munity Response Survey. "The data is
within the expected range."
DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
-------
B-8
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
The Noise Study Advisory Committee met
for the fourth time on May 7, at the
airport. At the meeting, participants
heard a presentation by the Deputy Chief
of the Philadelphia Control Tower on
actual airport arrival and departure oper-
ations. Committee members also dis-
cussed the supplemental noise monitoring
conducted in late April and early May.
(See accompanying article).
More importantly, the Advisory Com-
mittee received the Evaluation Matrix
developed to assess the proposed noise
abatement strategies. Rating the noise
control actions and making recommenda-
tions for the final Congressional report
are the most vital tasks of the Advisory
Committee. Due to time constraints, the
committee will be finalizing these recom-
mendations at its last meeting, which will
be held in June.
To prepare for this final and most crucial
meeting, it is requested that Advisory
Committee members:
o Review the criteria used for strategy
evaluation.
o Complete the matrix, analyzing the
proposed noise control actions.
o Consider the need for a weighting
system for the evaluation criteria.
All of the technical documentation neces-
sary for committee members to judge the
noise abatement strategies will be dis-
tributed in advance of the June meeting.
Those with questions should contact Noise
Study Project Manager Michael Wolf at
(215) L07-3000, Ext. 189.
NOISE STUDY MILESTONE SCHEDULE
Early June, 1980: Final analysis of the
Community Response Survey and the
Telephone Complaint Hotline com-
pleted by CSR, Inc. and distributed to
the Advisory Committee.
June 16, 1980: Last meeting of the Ad-
visory Committee to finalize its
recommendations on noise abatement
strategies for the report that will be
submitted to Congress.
July 18, 1980: Draft final report de-
veloped by the FAA and EPA.
July 18 to August 1, 1980: Written com-
ments on the draft final report, for-
warded to DVRPC.
August 1, 1980: Begin 90-day internal
review of the draft final report by
the federal agencies.
November, 1980: Final report submitted
to Congress.
©DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNIH6 COMMISSION
1819 I F Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia Pa 19103
noiseTnews
1 A' 9 A '
-------
B-9
NOISEiNEWS
JULY, 1980
NO. 5
A BULLETIN OF THE PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE STUDY
COMMITTEE EVALUATES ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
HIGH PRIORITY
LOW PRIORITY
NOT RECOMMENDED
Preferential Runway U«e (in eifect)
River Approach
Head-to-Head Night Operations
Power and Flap Management
Use of Runway 35 for Jets Approaching
Complete Night Curfew
(in effect)
from South
Lengthen Runway 17-35 for Use Under
Sound Insulation of Buildings
Noise Distribution
Crosswind Conditions
Real Property Noise Notices
Limited Curfew
Displaced Threshold
Noise Monitoring
Raise Glide Slope Angle
Land Use Controls
Night Operations on River
Side of Runways 9-Right,
27-Left
For a fact sheet containing detailed descriptions of the strategies, call (213) L07-3000, Ext. 198.
The Philadelphia International Airport
Noise Study Advisory Committee held its
final meeting on dune 16. At this
meeting, the committee discussed sixteen
proposed noise abatement strategies and
grouped them into three categories —
"High Priority," "Low Priority," and "Not
Recommended." (See Summary Chart).
The assessment will be included in a
report prepared jointly by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and submitted to Congress in early No-
vember, 1980. Based on this report,
Congress will designate some of the strat-
egies as meriting further study, and even-
tually, implementation.
The Advisory Committee also discussed
the general findings of the study. One
thing everyone agreed on is that aircraft
noise is a significant problem, especially
for certain, smaller neighborhood "hot-
spot" areas such as Tinicum Township and
Gloucester City. "When you live with a
problem daily, constantly, that's a prob-
lem of great magnitude," said Susan
Jacobs, a resident of Tinicum. The extent
of the noise affecting these "hotspots" has
been reflected in all of the study data.
Committee members also expressed reser-
vations about engine retrofitting and sub-
stitution of quieter planes mandated by
the Safety and Noise Abatement Act
proceeding entirely on schedule. Other
noise abatement strategies should be im-
plemented, said the committee; the new
legislation should not be depended upon
entirely.
During the course of the discussion, the
committee voted to consider Noise Dis-
tribution — spreading the noise so that it
is "shared" by areas not now affected —
among the list of abatement strategies.
However, it was placed in the Low Prior-
ity category. According to Fred Martin of
the City of Camden, shifting noise im-
pacts to different people "is not a viable
solution." Barbara Farley of the Eastwick
Project Area Committee explains that
"we went in with a specific objective —
to protect our community. But we be-
came aware that we did not want to foist
Continued
DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
-------
any untenable situation on any other
community.
"The study gave us (the Eastwick PAC) a
broader perspective on airport activities
and planning, and on the noise problem in
general in the region," said Ms. Farley.
A RECAP
The Philadelphia International Airport
Noise Study was funded under Section 8 of
the Quiet Community Act to determine
how local communities are affected by
aircraft noise and to recommend certain
noise abatement strategies, to Congress.
A variety of activities were undertaken to
learn about the extent of the noise prob-
lem in the area:
o In June, 1979, the FA A monitored
noise at four sites surrounding the airport.
To supplement this information, DVRPC
and EPA conducted additional monitoring
at 11 different sites in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania during the spring of 1980.
o In November, DVRPC's consultant,
CSR Inc., made 15,781 calls to obtain
1,727 interviews with local residents con-
cerning noise problems in general and
aircraft noise in particular for the Com-
munity Response Survey.
o Almost 300 aircraft noise complaints
were registered on the toll-free telephone
hotline from December, 1979, to early
April, 1980.
o Through its Integrated Noise Model,
the FAA developed noise contour maps
predicting the aircraft noise impacts in
1980, 1990, and 2000 if some of the
proposed abatement strategies were im-
plemented.
All of this data has been presented to the
Advisory Committee and will be included
in the final report.
Persons not members of the Advisory
Committee who wish to review the report
should call Noisfe Study Project Manager
Michael Wolf at (215) L07-3000, Ext. 189.
NOISE STUDY SCHEDULE
July 18, 1980: Draft final report de-
veloped by the FAA and EPA.
July 18 to August 1, 1980: Written com-
ments on the draft final report
forwarded to DVRPC.
August 1, 1980: Begin 90-day internal
review of the draft final report by
the federal agencies.
November, 1980: Final report submitted
to Congress
TO OUR READERS
As the Noise Study is drawing to a close,
this is the last issue of Noise News. We
would like your reaction to the bulletin.
Was the format appropriate? Have the
articles been informative? Too technical?
Too dull? Please be honest! Your com-
ments will help in the design and planning
of future newsletters and public informa-
tion efforts. Please call or write Michelle
Manoff at DVRPC, 1819 J.F. Kennedy
Blvd., Phila., PA 19103; (215) L07-3000,
Ext. 198.
©
DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
1819 I F Kennedy Boulevard
Philidilphii. Pi 19103
B-10
NOISE 1 NEWS
-------
APPENDIX'C
AIRPORT NOISE COMPLAINT CENTER FORM
-------
APPENDIX C
AIRPORT NOISE COMPLAINT CENTER
AM
DATE: DAY: TIME OF CALL: PM
Good Morning/Aftemoon/Evening, Aircraft Noise Complaint Center. May I help you?
1. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR COMPLAINT:
2. DAY(S) AND TIME(S) OF DAY PROBLEM OCCURRED (SPECIFY PRECISELY):
3. DID THE NOISE OCCUR DURING AN AIRCRAFT LANDING OR TAKEOFF? (CIRCLE ONE
ANSWER)
1. LANDING 4. OTHER (Specify)
2. TAKEOFF
3. BOTH 5. DON'T KNOW
4. COMPLAINANT'S NAME (ASK IF NOT VOLUNTEERED):
In order to determine the areas where aircraft noise problems occur, we
need to know your address.
ADDRESS:
(IF COMPLAINANT REFUSES TO PROVIDE EXACT BLOCK NUMBER, ASK FOR
IT IN HUNDREDS, FOR EXAMPLE, "800 BLOCK OF CHERRY STREET")
TOWN:
UF COMPLAINANT REFUSES TO PROVIDE STREET ADDRESS, ASK FOR NAMES OF
-STREETS-FORMING-NEAREST-INTERSECTION":
The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission currently is conducting a
study to determine the extent of problems related to aircraft noise. Your
complaint will be forwarded immediately to the Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission and, ultimately, to the Philadelphia International
Airport. If you would like information about the study, or if you have
further comments, you may call the Commission at 215-567-3000. We appreciate
your call. Thank you very much.
OPERATOR'S NAME:
AM
TIME ENDING: PM
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
ATTACH TO TELEPHONE SCREENER
I. D. II:
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
CONFIDENTIAL
INTRODUCTION. READ EXACTLY AS WORDED.
Good morning/afternoon/evening. I'm (...) from CSR, Incorporated. We are
conducting an opinion survey for the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Com-
mission on the environment and its impact on people in your community. The
information you give us will be helpful in developing better environmental
planning.
Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary. However, your
cooperation is very important because "your opinion will represent thousands
of other households in the Delaware Valley area.
Your phone number was randomly selected from the exchange in your area,
therefore, we do not have your name and we won't ask for it. You may be
assured that your answers are strictly confidential.
INTERVIEWER ACKNOWLEDGES READING INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE INTRODUCTION EXACTLY AS WRITTEN.
INTERVIF/TER SIGNATURE DATE
D-l
-------
I. D. It:
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
TELEPHONE /
AREA CODE
1. How long have you lived at your present address?
ENTER ACTUAL NUMBER OF YEARS, ROUNDED TO NEAREST YEAR (1/2 YEAH OR MORE
ROUNDED UP).
RECORD YEARS:
LESS THAN 6 MONTHS 95
il
2. How would you rate the area in which you live, that is, within a few
blocks of your home? Would you say it was:
Very good, 5
Good, 4 \2
Fair, 3
Poor, or 2
Very poor? 1
D-2
-------
Now, chinking of Che area you live in, as I read the following list,
please cell me whether any of these are problems in your area? FIRST:
INSERT a-h FOR (...). CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE IN COLUMN A.
FOR EACH "YES" IN COLUMN A, ASK: How serious a problem is (...)? Would
you say it was Extremely serious, Quite serious, Moderately serious, or
Not Very serious? INSERT EACH PROBLEM WITH "YES" ANSWER FOR (...).
CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE IN COLUMN B.
Would you say that
(...) is a problem?
A.
B.
YES
NO
EX-
TREMELY
SERIOUS
QUITE
SERIOUS
MODE-
RATELY
SERIOUS
NOT VERY
SERIOUS
DON'T
KNOW
a. Traffic Congestion?
1
2
6
5
4
3
8
b. Polluted Water?
1
2
6
5
4
3
8
c. Noise?
1
2
6
5
4
3
8
d. Crime?
1
2
6
5
4
3
8
e. Run-Down Areas in Need
of Improvement?
1
2
6
5
4
3
8
f. Unclean Air?
1
2
6
5
4
3
8
g. Parking?
1
2
6
5
4
3
8
h. Inadequate Low-Income
Housing?
• 1
2
6
1 5
4
3
8
A. Are there any (other) important problems facing the residents of your
area today?
j-YES LIST UP TO
I THREE MENTIONS 1
NO.
.SKIP TO Q4 2
1)_
2)_
3)
FIRST MENTION
SECOND MENTION
THIRD MENTION
©
Q3A
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
: ~
59 60
1ST:
2ND:
3RD:
61 62
63 64
D-3
-------
©
Now, in the following questions I will be asking you about the noise in the
area you live; that is, within a few blocks or so of your address.
4. How quiet or noisy do you consider this area to be? Would you say:
CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE.
Very quiet, 4
Quiet, 3
Noisy, or 2
Very noisy? : 1
65
4, ^
5. To be annoyed by noise is to be disturbed, stressed or upset by the
repeated occurrence of noise. Using this definition, how annoyed
would you say you are by noise in your area? Are you: CIRCLE
APPROPRIATE CODE.
Not at all annoyed 1
Slightly annoyed, 2 55
Moderately annoyed, 3 5: | |
Very annoyed, or 4
Extremely annoyed? 5
D-4
-------
G
6.
I'd like to know whether noise interferes with any of the following
activities. Does noise interfere with (...): READ a-e. INSERT FOR
(...). CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH MENTION.
YES NO
a.
Sleeping?
1
2
b.
Talking or Listening to the
Radio, Watching TV, etc.?
1
2
c.
Reading?
1
2
d.
Resting?
1
2
e.
Outdoor activities?
1
2
I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about your health. '
7. Generally speaking, do you think-noise is affecting your physical or
emotional health and well-being?
YES 1
NO 2
MAYBE 3
DON'T KNOW 8
8. Is noise affecting you in any of the following ways? Is noise causing
(...): READ a-e. INSERT FOR (...). CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE.
YES
NO
a.
Headaches?
1
2
b.
Tiredness?
1
2
c.
Irritability?
1
2
d.
Hearing loss or difficulties?
1
2
e.
An existing health problem
to get worse?
1
2
Q6:
a:
c:
d:
e:
72
Q7: Q
Q8:
a:
c:
d:
e:
D-5
-------
Now I'd like to explore some specific noise sources that may or may not
annoy you in the area you are living.
9. As I read the following list of noise sources, tell me how annoyed you
are by each noise source in this area (over the past year). Would you
say you are Not At All annoyed, Slightly annoyed, Moderately annoyed,
Very annoyed, or Extremely annoyed by noise from (...)? READ a-p.
INSERT a-p FOR (...). CIRCLE APPROPRIATE COLUMN.
a. Traffic?
b.
c.
d.
Motorcycles?
NOT AT
ALL
ANNOYED
Trucks?
Buses?
Automobiles?
Emergency Vehicles/
Sirens?
g. Garbage Trucks?
h. Pets/Animals?
Air Conditioners?
J ¦
k.
1.
Jet Airplanes?
Small Airplanes?
Helicopters?
m. Trains?
n. Construction?
Commercial or
Industrial Equipment?
Neighbors(e.g. Noisy
stereo, loud talking)?
SLIGHTLY
ANNOYED
D-6
MODER-
ATELY
ANNOYED
VERY
ANNOYED
©
START CARD 2
EX-
TREMELY
ANNOYED
ID//
1 2
3
4
CARD:
Q9:
a:
b:
c:
d:
e:
r:
i:
j =
k:
1:
m:
n:
o:
p:
0
6
~
7
~
8
~
9
~
10
TI1
~
12
~
13
h: I
14
U
15
~
16
u
17
~
18
i i
19
~
20
~
21
~
\
-------
©
A.. Are there any (other) noise sources that annoy you?
r*ES LIST UP TO
THREE MENTIONS 1 1
NO.
~D.
2).
3)
FIRST MENTION
SECOND MENTION
)A:
3T:
TO: i
ID:
THIRD MENTION
22
~
23
24"
1
25
26
27
28
D-7
-------
10. Do you think your community should have a noise control program to
specifically work on reducing noise levels?
YES SKIP TO Qll 1 3:
NO ASK A 2
A. Why do you feel that there should not be a noise control program
in your community? Would you say:
There is no need for a noise control
program, 1 3A
Nothing can be done about noise, 2
It is not the responsibility
of the community, 3
It is too costly, or 4
-Some other reason? 5,
—> SPECIFY:
11. If there were a noise control program, keeping in mind your present
level of taxes, how much in additional taxes would you be willing to
pay for each member of your household for a noise control program each
year? Would you be willing to pay: CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE.
IF UNSURE ABOUT TYPE OF TAX, SAY: A tax that everyone would be
willing to pay.
25c for each person a year, 1
.1:
50c for each person a year, 2
$1.00 for each person a year, or 3
More than $1.00 for each person a year?. 4
WOULD NOT BE WILLING TO PAY EXTRA
TAXES FOR A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM 0
D-8
-------
Now I'd like Co ask you some questions about aircraft noise in this
area.
12. You may have mentioned this before, but are you annoyed at home by
aircraft noise?
YES ASK A 1
NO.
.SKIP TO Q14 2
A. During which time periods does aircraft noise annoy you? Is it in
the:
Morning? (7AM - NOON)..,
Afternoon? (NOON - 6PM)
Evening? (6PM - 10PM)..
Nighttime? (10PM - 7AM)
you say:
Considerably accustomed, 4
Moderately accustomed, 3
Not very accustomed, or 2
Not at all accustomed? 1
C. To reduce noise from aircraft in your home, have you or any member
of your household taken any of che following actions? Have you:
Used insulation or soundproofing?..
Closed doors or windows?.
Turned-on or turned-up the radio,
TV or stereo to block out noise?.
Worn earplugs?.
Changed location of sleeping
quarters?
Considered moving1
r-Have you taken any other actions?..
'—^SPECIFY:
D-.9
YES
NO
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
noise?
Would
5
YES NO
32
Q12: Q
Q12A,:
M:
A:
E:
N:
Q12B:
33
~
34
~
35
~
36
~
37
~
Q12C:
U:
CL:
TU:
W:
CH:
CO:
HA:
1ST:
38
~
39
~
40
~
41
~
42
~
43
~
44
~
45
2ND:
46
~~
-------
D. Have you ever actually written, telephoned or visited an official
about aircraft noise?
YES.
NO. .
.SKIP TO Q13 1
.ASK E 2
E.
Have you ever felt like doing something about aircraft noise in
this area, for example like contacting a local official or
newspaper?
YES.
NO. .
1
2
13.
As I read the following, please tell me who do you think should be
responsible for reducing aircraft noise in this area? Should: READ
a-e. CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE.
YES
NO
a. The Airplane Manufacturers?
b. The Airlines?
c. The Airports?
d. Government?
— Which level:
[""Federal?
< State?
'-Local?
e.
-Someone else?
—> SPECIF?:
14. Do aircraft regularly fly near your home?
YES
NO
47
Q12D: QH
2 )'
48
QUE: QJ
Q13:
a:
b:
c:
d:
df:
ds:
dl:
e:
1ST:
Q14:
49
~
50
~
51
52
I_1
53
~
54
~
55
| i
~sT
| | 2ND
57 58
~ L
59
~
D-10
-------
15. Please cell me the main intersection near your home?
IF NO MAIN INTERSECTION NEARBY, ASK: What is the nearest main road?
MAIN INTERSECTION:
a )
b )
IF NO MAIN INTERSECTION - MAIN ROAD:
0
SURVEY 60
AREA:
SUB-
1AREA:
A. What street do you live on?
STREET:
61 62
NOISE
ZONE:
63 64
D-ll
-------
Now, Id like Co ask you a few final questions about your background.
16. What was the month and year of your birth?
MONTH: YEAR:
17. What was the highest grade in school you completed and received credit
for? CIRCLE ONE.
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
COLLEGE/OTHER POST HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOLING: 13 14 15 16
POST GRADUATE SCHOOL: 17 18 19 20 OR MORE (21)
©
65 66
Q16: j
67 68
Q17: |
18. Now, thinking of your entire family, all those related to you living in
this household, was the total family income of your family last year,
1978, before taxes, greater than $15,000 or less than $15,000? (Please
include your (and your spouse's) income. Do not include unrelated
people). CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE.
IF UNCERTAIN, ASK: What would be your best- guess?
GREATER THAN $15,000 ASK a F
LESS THAN $15,000 SKIP TO b E
a. Was your total family income last year greater than $25,000 or
less than $25,000? CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE.
GREATER THAN $25,000 SKIP TO Q19 D
LESS THAN $25,000 SKIP TO Q19 C
Was your total family income last year greater than $7,500 or less
than $7,500? CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE. -
GREATER THAN $7,500 B
LESS THAN $7,500 A
D-12
-------
19. In telephoning you we selected your number randomly. I would like to
know if you have more than one telephone number at this residence?
YES.
NO. ,
.ASK a A
.SKIP TO Q20 B
a. Aside from this telephone number that I've reached you on, how many
additional telephone numbers do you have?
ONE C
TWO D
THREE OR MORE E
rz\
20. Finally, my supervisor may wish to verify that I completed this
interview or I may have to call back if I missed any questions. Is
that alright?
YES 1
no...; 2
69
Q20:
I would like to thank you on behalf of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission for taking the trouble to provide us with some very valuable
information.
AM
TIME ENDING: PM
D-13
-------
©
INTERVIEWER: COMPLETE IMMEDIATELY
CI. REFER TO Q18 - HOUSEHOLD INCOME:
SUMMARY TABLE
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
INCOME LETTER NUMERIC
CATEGORY CODE CODE
UNDER $7,500 A 1
$7,500 - $15,000 B 2
$15,000 - $25,000 C 3
GREATER THAN $25,000...D 4
70
a. Q
C2. REFER TO Q19 - NUMBER OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
SUMMARY TABLE
OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS
TOTAL OF
TELEPHONE
NUMBERS (015H-L)
LETTER
CODE
NUMERIC
CODE
ONE
....B
1
TWO
c
2
THREE*
...,D
3
TTOTTB OR MORI?
F.
4
71
C2: Q
D-14
-------
C3. SEX OF RESPONDENT:
MALE...
FEMALE.
72
C3:
C4. SEX OF INTERVIEWER:
MALE...
FEMALE.
1
2
73
C4: Q
C5. LANGUAGE OF INTERVIEW:
ENGLISH...
SPANISH...
-OTHER
¦^SPECIFY:
1
2
3
74
C5:
D-15
END CARD 2
-------
APPENDIX E
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS
-------
EASTWICK
Project Area Committee
7381 ELM WOOD AVENUE
PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19153
(215) 365-8826
REPRESENTING:
Blue Bell Civic Association
Clearview Community Organization
Conservation Area
Eastwick Businessmen's Association
Eastwick Community Organization
Elmwood Park Civic Association
Middle Southwest Community Organization
Penrose Park Residents Association
Towne Gardens Civic Association
Hedgerow Residents' Association
Meadows Community Association
Forrest Creek Community Association
Mr. Michael Wolf
Project Manager
Philadelphia International
Airport Noise S-tudy
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
1819 J.F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 r
June 17, 1980
Dear Mr. Wolf:
As revested at the final meeting of the Airport Noise Study Advisory Committee
on June 16, the delegation from the Eastwick Project Area Committee is hereby
submitting for inclusion in the draft report the following general comments, as
well as minority opinion comrrients on several of the noise abatement alternatives
considered:
1 . "Abatement" versus "Displacement" - v/hile all of the strategies considered
might "abate" noise to some degree or other according to the technical use
of this word, to the laymen/women from Eastwick, the strategies here should
more correctly be described as noise "displacement" alternatives. These
tend to spread noise around, in some locales, thinly, in others, thickly,
with the resulting creation of what we privately have dubbed "the peanut
butter sandwich syndrome". Someone is relieved, but someone else must
suffer a bit more as the eventual outcome.
We mention this concern as an introduction to what we feel, in the long
run, can be the most effective, equitable and universally rewarding noise
abatement strategy, in the strictest definition of the term. This is the
implementation of regulations aimed at controlling aircraft noise at its
source: the aircraft itself. Careful and. constant vigilence on the part
of our members of Congress, our local planning agencies, our community
organizations and individual concerned citizens, however, is imperative.
We are aware of the equally careful and constant pressure exerted by cer-
tain special interest lobbies in rolling back certain of these proposed
controls. Nevertheless, in the end, we feel that the costs in terms of
human health and community social and economic stability underscore the
importance to each of us of remaining constant to a clear course: prod,
promote, and, when necessary, regulate to ensure that the strides made
in the field of aircraft technology be made to serve, rather than victimize,
man.
E-l
-------
2. Comments on Suggested Abatement Strategies-
CASE 1 : RIVER APPROACH /oO
PAC delegation concurs . with priority ranking
given to this alternative "by the majority of the
advisory committee.
CASE 2: HEAD-TO-HEAD NIGHT OPERATIONS
PAC delegation concurs with not recommended ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the
advisory committee.
CaSE 3: FULL NIGHT CURFEtY
PAC delegation concurs with not recommended ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the
advisory committee. We feel strongly about the economic effect.
CASE 4: LENGTHENING 17-35, 'CROSSWIND USE
PAC delegation concurs with not recommended ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the
advisory committee. We also strongly recommend that no
value judgement be noted in the report as to the high
safety ranking which this alternative received. While
all responsible committee members did consider safety as
a necessary component of each possible alternative, we
emphasize that the intent of the study was to focus on
airport noise, not airport safety. Airport safety strate-
gies should, and will, we believe, be adequately addressed
in future studies aimed at that factor. This factor was
eliminated by the committee due'to its failure on the sub-
ject of net (population-based) noise reduction potential.
CASE 5: LENGTHENING 17-35, 2 & 3 ENGINE APPROACH SROM SOUTH
PAC delegation disagrees with the low priority ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the advisory
committee. We view this, as Mr. Korzeniowski pointed out,
as being inconsistent, as far as real-life future expecta-
tions are concerned, with the committee's decision in CASE
4. Both cases presuppose the lengthening of this runway,
and once this situation exists, there will be very real
pressures, we believe, to implement CASE 4, with the liklihood
of further consideration to, if not eventual implementation of,
CASE 5, as well. Therefore, it is our minority opinion that
CASE 5 be ranked as not recommended, as was CASE 4.
CASE 6: DISPLACED THRESHOLD
PAC delegation concurs with the not recommended ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the
advisory committee.
E-2
-------
CASE 7: PREFERENTIAL RUNWAY USE
PAC delegation concurs with the high priority ranking
given to this alternative, in slightly amended form,
by the majority of the advisory committee. As the
current use patterns generally are thought to provide
the most relief possible currently (use of east-west
versus north-south), we emphasize with the other
committee members the efficacy of more stringent ad-
herence by pilots and traffic controllers, whenever
possible, to optimum use, for noise abatement purposes,
of preferential east-west runway use.
CASE 8: POWER AND FLAP MANAGMHJT
PAC delegation concurs with the high priority ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the
advisory committee.. We understand that this strategy
already is in effect, and we emphasize the necessity
for maintaining these procedures.
CASE 9: RAISE GLIDE SLOPE ANGLE (to greater than 3°)
PAC delegation disagrees with the not recommended ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the advisory
committee. Despite the insistence by representatives of
FAA on the committee, we feel that, at some future date,
further investigation into this alternative might be
warranted as a contributing factor to noise reduction.
It was noted at the last committge meeting that, in the
past, FAA had once considered 24 as the maximum safe
glide slope angle. Perhaps with changes in aircraft
design and safety features, a greater than 3 slope
might be deemed safe.
CASE 1 0: SOUND INSULATION OF BUILDINGS
PAC delegation agrees with the high priority ranking
given this alternative by the majority of the
advisory committee. However, it must be pointed out that
one of the Eastwick neighborhoods most impacted at the
present time by aircraft noise would be the very section
of Eastwick with the highest percentage of residents least
likely to afford comprehensive home insulation. Also, there
is a significant number of rental units under the flight
paths of 17-35- This renders a significant percentage of
our population at the mercy of their landlord (the Korman
Corp.) for supplying sound insulation to these units.
Our past experience with this developer indicates that
it is in the habit of supplying the absolute minimum of
insulation allowed under current Philadelphia codes, and
we cannot realistically envision Korman willingly adding
insulation retroactively to its rental units in Eastwick.
E-3
-------
case 11:. real proferty noise notices
PAC delegation strongly disagrees with the high priority-
ranking given to this alternative by the majority of the
advisory committee. While it must be emphasized that this
is not a vote for deceptive real estate sales practices or
suppression of information, we must stress, from an admittedly
parochial concern, that this is viewed by us with trep-
idation. Our neighborhoods have, over the past several years,
been the victims of blockbusting and, more recently, a massive
campaign-of personal, mail and telephone solicitation by
realtors from as far away as West Oak Lane and South Jersey.
Any factor which might tend to further depress the already-
deflated real estate values in our less than five year old
communities would, obviously, not receive broad-based com-
munity support in Eastwick. We object, further, that cur-
rent homeowners be saddled with a "one-time (financial)
hardship" in any attempt to sell their homes under such
regulations. In our minds, a "one-time hardship" is one too
many. We also envision serious problems in the efficient
monitoring and policing of such regulations. If it is to
be done in much the same manner that the Philadelphia Human
Relations Commission and the Philadelphia Board of Realtors
jointly "monitor" and "police" blockbusting and unethical
solicitation, this alternative will be reduced to a sham.
We also suspect that there might be legal problems related with
the above-mentioned "hardship". Does this constitute a partial
confiscation by the regulating levels of government of an
individual's property^ What our fellow committee members
seemingly view as a benign and helpful alternative is viewed
by us as fraught with unanswered questions and with menace
to the stability of our community.
CASE 12: NOISE-RELATED LANDING FEES
Due to the fact that this consideration seems to be adressed
in regulations that are to take effect in 1985» this alter-
native has been eliminated by the advisory committee from
further consideration.
CASE 13: NOISE MONITORING
PAG delegation concurs with the high priority ranking
given to this alternative by the majority-of the advisory
committee.
CASE 14: NOISE DISTRIBUTION
PAC delegation concurs with the low priority ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the advisory
committee.
CASE 15: LIMITED NIGHT CURFEW (PASSENGER CNLY)
PAC delegation disagrees with the low priority ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the advisory
committee. As noted under CASE 3, we are aware of possible
economic disadvantages, but we feel that this alternative
should be a high priority for future in-depth study.
E-4
-------
CASE 16: LAND USE CONTROLS
PAC delegation concurs with the high priority ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the
advisory committee. This will not apply to our area, "but'
is a strategy that might be helpful to currently sparsely-
developed communities in South Jersey.
CASE 17: 9R-27L DEPARTURE AND ARRIVAL AT NIGHT
In addition, we feel it is constructive to add a number of comments regarding the
constraints of this study, our general philosophy as to the noise problem in this
community (present and future) and suggestions for further study not included in
the considered alternatives.
It is our feeling that what noise problem exists in Eastwick is due to traffic on
17-55, not the east-west runways, which, due to their carrying the bulk of this
'traffic, were the primary focus of alternatives suggested as part of this study.
Our community concerns regarding the impact of aircraft noise here must be defined
not only in terms of noise, but also in terms of height of approaching and departing
aircraft as it travels over our area, the present and projected amount of traffic
over our area, the safety aspects of these two features, and, lastly noise, and
HOW THESE FACTORS IN COMBINATION MIGHT TEND TO ACT ON REAL ESTATE VALUES IN EAST-
WICK, especially in our residential communities. It was our understanding that this
topic was outside the realm of this study. However, we strongly emphasize pur feeling
that this factor must be given its due consideration in any further study regarding
possible changes in traffic patterns to, volume of traffic on, or changes in the
capability of, runway 17-35.
It also was stated at the outset of this study that this effort would not and could
not look into the healthrelated effects of noise, including the impact of noise and
vibrations on the health of residents in presently noise-impacted areas. We are
unsure whether or not the funding mechanism was responsible for setting out this
ground rule as being applicable here. We dispute to some degree that such deliberations
did not have a place here. However, we strongly urge that this health-related aspect
of noise and related phenomena be considered as a topic worthy of further consider-
ation, either singly or in combination with studies regarding the implementation of
noise abatement strategies proposed here.
We ask of our ' members of Congress, the appropriate Congressional committees and
federal agencies very,very careful consideration to both the positive and negative
assessments made by members of the advisory committee and evaluation of .all possible
future action in the reflected light of the deliberations made here by this committee.
PAC delegation concurs with the high priority ranking
given to this alternative by the majority of the advisory
committee.
Barbara Farley \J
Eastwick Project Area Committee staff representative to
Philadelphia International Airport Noise Study Advisory Committee
E-5
-------
&tat? of 5faui ilrrarg
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
JOHN FITCH PLAZA. P. O. BOX 2807. TRENTON. N. J. 08625
June 23, 1980
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Penns Towers Building
1819 J.F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
ATTN: Michael Wolf
RE: Philadelphia Airport Study
Minority Report by Edward J. DiPolvere
Chief of the New Jersey Office of Noise Control
for New Jersey Division of Environmental Quality
This is a minority report on the high priority ranking for
sound insulation of buildings as an airport noise abatement strategy.
Most people on the committee want to solve the Philadelphia airport
noise problem. Congress, instead, authorized the study so that
it could learn about the impact of noise on, and possible abatement
strategies for American airports. This solution is extremely
costly; for the approximately 14,000 commercial airports alone,
it could easily cost billions, if not tens of billions, of dollars.
This, for a strategy that does not even meet the evaluation criteria
of the committee itself. "Noise Reduction Potential" should be
evaluated as zero, (0), if it is unlikely to reduce noise in the
"environment". When not modified by other adjectives, the environ-
ment has traditionally been defined as a person's total living
space, his total property, his "castle" if you will. This strategy
does not improve his environment; it instead shields part of his
environment form the rest of his total environment which has not
been made one dB quieter. There is no guarantee that, should this
be done at any particular airport neighborhood, operational or other
changes at future times would not cause a new set of properties to
become impacted and require this treatment.
environmental
planning division
jUN ¦> 5 DECT)
DVRPC
Early in the deliberations, the staff of the Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission suggested that, the "noise impact"
-------
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
ATTN: Michael Wolf
June 23, 1980
Page 2
of the airport was not severe, and I concur with this assessment.
The detailed survey shows while there are pockets or hot spots of
severe airport noise impacts, traffic and roadway noise is the
most pervasive problem in the regional area selected. This is for
a survey near and around an airport; this finding is more striking
when areas that don't include airports are included, as has been
done in a myriad of other studies and surveys throughout the country
and in other countries. Roadway noise i£ the most pervasive noise,
source. It is therefore unconscionable to recommend to congress
that a high priority be give to the insulation strategy that would
cost tens of billions of dollars for a noise problem that is not the
most severe problem, as determined by analysis of this very survey.
The entire Environmental Protection Agency budget for noise
control is $12.8 million. For these funds they:
1. Do research in that ever elusive tie.between health
effects - learning disabilities and environmental noise.
2. Promulgate regulations for various interstate carriers
and many noisy products.
3. Fund technical centers where state and local personnel
can be trained and have their equipment calibrated.
4.. Give assistance grants to state and local governments in
ECHO.
5. Give demonstration grants to state and local governments.
6. Do studies on airport noise.
History throughout the environmental field has shown that money
spent on enforcement practices has had the most beneficial result in
abatement and mitigation of pollutants. Putting a high priority on
a partial fix that doesn't require anyone to do anything about the
problem or source noise, but rather deal with the involuntary re-
ceiver is not proper. It has been acknowledged that in other than
occupational noise, the most effective way of controlling noise is
to deal with it at the source. Next path or operational/administrative
controls work best. Treatment of receiver is virtually never used
as a strategy for environmental noise. We in the regulation and
enforcement business would never attempt to issue ear plugs or
muffs to abate environmental noise. Why punish or in any way,
deprive the receiver of part of his property to solve a problem
created by others. This insulation approach is truly a receiver
control and not a path control. Path controls, (barriers, berms,
deflector, etc.), intercept the noise before it invades a person's
total environment.
In summary, the writer strongly disagrees with the high priority
ranking of sound insulation of buildings as an airport noise abate-
E-8
-------
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
ATTN: Michael Wolf
June 23, 1980
Page 3
ment strategy. Rather, emphasis should be put on source controls,
(quieter craft and quieter engines retrofitted are more viable today
because of their increased fuel efficiency), operational and adminis
trative measures; many of which have been successful at airports
across the country. Even new and innovative operational and adminis
trative measures should be encouraged for existing built-up areas
and land use planning controls for areas not yet built up.
Very truly yours,
Edward J. DiPolvere, Chief
Office of Noise Control
EJDP/jc
-------
MINORITY REPORT
TO THE
PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOISE STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIES
JUNE 30, 1980
E-ll
-------
In reviewing the minutes of the final meeting of the Philadelphia
International Airport Noise Study Advisory Committee which was held on Monday,
June 16, 1980, we would like to submit the following comments:
With respect to the Community Opinion Survey conducted by CSR, Inc., we
must express concern over the aggregation of telephone exchange areas, a strategy
employed by CSR. We do not feel that this method gives an accurate picture of
the intensity of the aircraft noise problem in those particularly troubled
communities in South Jersey (Gloucester City, Audubon, Collingswood, Haddonfield,
etc.). Also, there is some question as to the timing of the survey. Since the
survey was conducted in November when the weather is colder and many windows
are closed, we do not feel that CSR was able to obtain an accurate assessment
of how the problem is perceived in southern New Jersey. In addition, with
respect to the recommendations of the committee as to the noise abatement
strategies which should be employed, many of the members from South Jersey
question the accuracy of these recommendations as they were finally approved
at this meeting.
The meeting of June 16, 1980 began at approximately 3 p.m. and lasted
until approximately 11 p.m. Many of those present and voting were not citizens
or municipal officials living in South Jersey, but rather government employees.
In many cases their votes were the decidirig ones as to how high-a priority
a strategy was given. Also, voting on these strategies was last on the agenda
for this meeting. Therefore, many of the interested South Jersey members who
have attended meetings were not able to stay throughout the entire 8-hour session
and had to leave prior to voting on the strategies. In addition, many members
were mentally fatigued by the time the voting actually took place, thus hindering
a true discussion and evaluation of each. For the most part the strategies that
received high priority by the committee were cosmetic ones which do not have
E-12
-------
-2-
the capability to measureably reduce aircraft noise on those affected communities
in southern New Jersey.
For all these reasons, we as members of the Philadelphia International
Airport Noise Study Advisory Committee from southern New Jersey hereby submit
this minority report for consideration by FAA and EPA in the drafting of their
report to Congress. We would like to recommend the following strategies as
those which are capable of addressing the aircraft noise problem from the
Philadelphia International Airport as it affects southern New Jersey in the
fairest possible manner.
HIGH PRIORITY
15. Limited Curfew *
13. Noise Distribution
1. Modified River Approach
5. Use of Runway 35 for Jets Approaching from the South (south river approach;
lengthening of runway may be necessary)
7. Preferential Runway Use
* Provided that the limited curfew is combined with one or more alternate
strategies of noise abatement or noise distribution.
LOW PRIORITY
(Since these strategies are merely of cosmetic value or are already in existence,
we would like to avoid giving the impression that we feel these strategies are
capable of bringing about significant changes in the environment.)
10. Sound Insulation of Building
13. Noise Monitoring
17. Night Operations on 9-R, 27-L on River Side
. -9.. - -Power— and-F-lap-Management—
11. Real Property Noise Notice
16. Land Use Controls
Any other strategies are not recommended.
E-13
-------
>n Vodges, Haddaaflield, NJ 08033
\XaJs—-
jry Circler, Esq., Colli
Maury Circler, Esq., Collingswood, NJ 08108
\frtftri J. Lisicky, CN
Anton J. Lisicky, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
~).,'!» aCv,
Judy Billingsley, Vporhpes, NJ 08043
/7//
Bernard t. Maarack, Laurel Springs, NJ 08021
V
LZ£L
Jan Ciechanowski, Councilman, Camden, NJ 08104
i/U QLu*l _
Earl E. Van CI eve, Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Collingswood, NJ 08107
ytj- :
JamearR. Mcrlulrin, Councilman, Gloucester City, NJ 08030
E-14
-------
Air Transport Association
dtcl i OF AMERICA
Eastern Regional Office
181 South Franklin Avenue
Room 601
Valley Stream, New York 11581
Phone (212) 656-4777
(516) 791-3444
June 30, 1980
Mr. John Coscia
Director
Environmental Planning Division
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Penn Towers Building
1819 J. F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Dear Mr. Coscia:
The results of the marathon meeting, June 16, 1980,
concerning the Philadelphia Airport Noise Study were rather
encouraging. Many of the items of questionable validity,
and several which would have had serious adverse impact on the
entire Delaware Valley, were dropped. Several of those re-
maining are, in our view, questionable at best, and could be
overall more detrimental than beneficial. They include noise
distribution, and the River Approach. A third item, limited
curfew, stili be ftGcefiJtjsd in any wa# -by the .air. carriers
or, we believe, by the passengers and shivers who depend on
PmladeTpKi'a International" Airport. No curfew can be "designed
which does not have a serious, if not severe, adverse economic
impact on the region.
I believe it is obvious that the airlines want to be
good neighbors, and are extremely interested in noise abatement,
where possible, to reduce community noise impact. Their
efforts will continue in this regard as we evaluate further the
recommended alternatives for implementation, including night
usage of Runway 9R/27L; continuation of the power and flap
management programs; continuation and/or improvement to the
Preferential Runway System.
E-15
-------
-2-
We agree with your study summarization that aircraft
and airport noise is not a great problem, either in extent or
magnitude, but there are several locations that do perceive a
noise problem. Although some of the noise abatement alter-
natives mentioned above may not help in these locations, we
will make every effort to relieve those noise impacted areas.
Sincerely,
7
Emmett N. O'Hare
Deputy Director
E-16
-------
ROBERT W. EDGAR
DISTRICT OFFICES]
204 Long Lane
Ufpct Daj»y, Pennsylvania 19082
(215) FL 2-0790
7th District, Pennsylvania
407 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20315
(202) 225-2011
Congress of tfje Uniteti States
604 AVENUE OF THE STATES
Chester, Pennsylvania 19013
(213) TR 6-8233
3|ouat of ftepregentatibea
aldington, 3B.C. 20515
Upper Darby Office
July 9, 1980
John Coscia, Director
Environmental Planning Division
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Penn Towers Building
1819 J. F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Dear Mr. Coscia:
I am writing in regard to the Executive Summary of the
Fifth Meeting of the Philadelphia International Airport Noise
Study Committee.
As a member of the Committee, I would like to comment on
the fact that the limited curfew noise-abatement strategy has
been assigned a low priority. It is the opinion of both myself
and my constituents from Tinicum that a limited curfew should
be included in the high priority category. In addition to
being one of the more effective abatement strategies, it would
cause little or no economic disruption.
RE:j bm
E-17
-------
TINICUM TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
10 July 1980
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Philadelphia International Airport Noise
Study Advisory Committee
Penn Towers Building
1819 J. F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Gentlemen:
We have completed¦our review of the DVRPC Executive Summary of
noise abatement strategies and our comments are as follows:
LIMITED CURFEW: It is our opinion that the "Economic Impact
Statement" presented to the fjoise Study Advisory Committee indicating
a loss of 2,500 to 3,000 jobsAunrealistic, has not been justified,
and should be considered unacceptable until it is properly verified
and reviewed. Based on a realistic economic impact statement it is
recommended that the FAA reconsider and present a modified night
curfew which would be beneficial to the entire community.
SOUND INSULATION OF BUILDINGS: It is recommended that this
committee request Congress to approve funding from the Airport-
Airways-Trust-Fund to finance costs in affected areas where air-
craft noise levels exceed 75 Ldn. (Based on FAA data presented
to this Committee noise levels above 75 Ldn are unsatisfactory
for a residential area.)
Respectfully,
.¦UrJLJ J ¦
Norbert J. Poloncar
Secretary
Copy to:
Tinicum Township Board of Commissioners
E-19
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19153
July 23, 1980
Jonn J. Coscia, P.E.
Director
Environmental Planning Division
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
1819 J.F. Kennedy Blvd
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Dear John:
We have reviewed the Philadelphia International Airport Noise Study
and can offer no comments contrary to the work and recorrcnendations
of the committee.
We feel that the residents involved showed a level headed, fair
minded approach to the problem. Specifically in protecting their
communities tney did not want to force any untenable situation on
other communities.
Philadelphia Tower will do it's utmost to cooperate with surrounding
CGftimunities and the airport sponsor in controlling noise.
ROBERTO J.
Facility Chy
EpKELMAN, JR.
if
E- 21
-------
ROBERT W. EDGAR
7th District, Pennsylvania
407 Cannon House Offic* Buildou
Washington, d.C. 20319
(202)225-2011
Congress of tfje QHniteb States
$ou0e of &epreacntatibe£S
SBasfjfatBton, ©.C. 20515
Upper Darby. Office
July 24, 1980
DISTRICT OFFICESi
204 LONO LjkNfl
Upper Darby, Pennsylvania 19081
(215) FL 2-0790
604 Avenue op the States
Chester, Pennsylvania 19013
(215) TR 6-8235
John Coscia, Director
Environmental Planning Division
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Penn Towers Building
1819 J. F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Dear Mr. Coscia:
I and the Commissioners of Tinicum Township would like to have
several points added to the Draft Report on the Philadelphia Inter-
national Airport Study.
The specific curfew noise abatement strategy should be categorized
as high priority rather than low priority, as it would not only be
effective but would not be disruptive economically.
Sound insulation of buildings should indeed be a high priority
strategy, and the necessary funding could be drawn from the FAA's
Airport-Airways-Trust Fund. Thus, I request that the FAA recommend
to Congress that Tinicum and other such areas benefit from funding from
the above source. I will contact my colleagues in Congress in regard
to furthering this process.
With kind regards, I am
Cordially,
RE:jbm
E-23
-------
CITY OF CAMDEN
CITY HALL
CAMDEN, N.J. OB1Q1
July 29th, 1980.
Mr. John J. Coscia, P.E.,
Director, Environmental Planning Division,
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission,
1819 J.F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
Dear Mr. Coscia:
We have been involved in the Airport Noise Study since
the beginning. We are pleased to see our comments and sugges-
tions reflected in the draft report. We realize that the study
primarily makes recommendations to Congress and that before any
of the recommendations can be implemented, additional studies
will be required.
The City of Camden takes the position that any future
studies must address the inter-relationship of weather condi-
tions, resident complaints and monitoring. Failure to do so
will not give a valid model of noise problems, nor wil it allow
evaluation of strategies which will only affect operation under
ideal weather conditions.
The City proposes that any noise level of greater than 75db
should constitute a primary standard violation, and only be sanc-
tioned at times of severe operational necessity.
The City is opposed to any "redistribution strategy" which
causes previously unaffected areas to be adversely impacted.
Each of the affected municipalities should be encouraged to
review their land use and zoning-patterns and, where possible,
adopt use patterns more compatible with the airport location.
Although additional work remains to be done, this study re-
presents a good first step in dealing with the airport noise
problem. The ability of government agencies, private industry
and the public in working together in developing this study is
to be commended.
Sincerely
jdf
E-25
-------
President
THOMAS J GIANCRISTOFORO
Essington, Pa.
Commissioners of Tinicum township
MEMpRIAL BUILDING
.' ' M.
Secretary
ANN MARIE WOODALL
Lester, Pa
Vice President
ADAMCERMAN, JR.
Lester, Pa.
\ " .
DELAVlLM$E COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
P.O. ADDRESS
629 N. GOVERNOR PFtttfl? 0LVD-, ESSINGTON, PA. 19029
(215) 521-3530
"C3WN8TON
Treasurer
RICHARD E CODBEY
Essington, Pa
NICKCANZANESE
Essington, Pa
Solicitor
ROBERTF PAPPANO
Chester, Pa
JOSEPH A KELLER
Lester, Pa
Engineer
HERBERT E MacCOMBIE, JR
Broomall, Pa
RALPH L. SLATTEN
Essington, Pa.
July 29, 1980
Mr. John Coscla
Environmental Planning Division
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Penn Towers Building
1819 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Dear Mr. Coscia:
This letter is in response to the draft copy of "REPORT TO CONGRESS: EFFECTS OF AIRPORT
NOISE ON A NEIGHBORING STATE" dated July 1980, and to the work of the Philadelphia Inter-
national Airport Noise Study Advisory Committee.
Although this five-member Board of Commissioners was unable to attend the June 16th,
meeting of the Advisory Committee which was held in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, due to other
important prior committments, Mr. Edward Keyser, Zoning Officer, and Mrs. Susan P. Jacobs,
concerned citizen, were present. We want to go on record as stating that the following
should be given high priority catagorization:
1. Night Curfew
2. Noise distribution
3. Increased use of runway 17-35 k. Lengthening Runway 17-35
5. Airport operations consistent with the agreements of tne 19o0's and 1970's
6. Soundproofing of buildings
The reasons for high priority catagorization are as follows:
1. Night Curfew. This is a most effective noise abatement strategy as indicated
in the "Report to Congress...", notably on pages 105 and 117. A modified night
curfew would entail little economic hardship.
2. Noise distribution. It is our opinion that this option is the fair way to deal
with the problem of noise pollution.
3 & Use of runway 17-35 for jets approaching from the South and lengthening 17-35
for use under crosswind conditions—these two go hand-in-hand. This type of
action would offer the greatest relief to Tinicum as it would reduce the number
of operations which currently overfly Tinicum Township. Although this would
result in increased noise levels over Eastwick, Philadelphia is the owner and
operator of the airport and as such derives the direct economic benefits from
its operation. We, therefore, feel that it is proper for Philadelphia to
assume the greatest share of the burden of airport noise.
"Tinicum—First Settlement in Pennsylvania; Capital of New Sweden 1643-1655"
Et27
-------
Hi4. John Cose la
Page 2.
5. Airport operations consistent with the agreements made in the 1960's and 1970's.
When Philadelphia wanted to expand the parallel east-west runway in Tinicum,
certain agreements were made as to the use of those runways to provide relief
from airport noise for Tinicum Township. Philadelphia has consistently ignored
those agreements with the result being that Tinicum has been subjected to
intolerable amounts of noise from the airport.
6. Soundproofing of homes. This abatement procedure has already received a high
priority rating. Sound insulation would help to shut out some of the most
pervasive problem in Tinicum, airport noise. This is, of course, only a partial
solution in that it offers no relief for those who are out of doors.
We are absolutely opposed to any head-to-head operations over Tinicum Township. We also
feel that real property noise notices should be given low priority or not recommended
ratings because they offer no relief from noise pollution. This is not a noise abatement
strategy but rather a "complaint abatement" strategy.
It is our opinion that the majority of the items currently placed in the high priority
catagory offer no real relief to our Township, which has borne the brunt of airport noise
for the last twenty years. It indicates a lack of awareness of the real situation here
and is a half-hearted approach to resolving the problems of noise pollution in the highest
noise impacted area. As indicated on Page 70 of the draft report, all of Tinicum Township
lies within the 65 LDN contour, except for one section which is in the 75 LDN contour.
It has come to our attention that the manner in which the various items were voted into
catagories deserves some comment. It is our understanding that the assignment of the
priorities to each of the three catagories was determined by a show of hands-one man,
one vote. Unfortunately, only Mr. Keyser and Mrs. Jacobs were able to attend the June 16
meeting, and each could cast but one vote on the various issues acted upon. Therefore,
we do not feel that the voting represents the interests of those areas which have the
greatest noise problem, but rather those which sent the greater number of representatives,
or since the meeting lasted late into the evening, those who were able to stay. There
should have been a weight factor attached to the voting, so that those individuals rep-
resenting people in areas most adversely affected by airport noise could at least equal
the votes of community groups whose noise problems were minimal by comparison.
Under the Quiet Communities Act of 1978, the major emphasis of this study has been on
airport noise. We are also concerned about airport safety, and we favor those procedures
which tend to keep aircraft from flying directly over residential portions of our township.
Yours very sincerely,
Thomas Giancristoforo
President
mrm
E-28
-------
Air Transport Association
OF AMERICA
Eastern Regional OfBo®
181 South Frs&lin Amnm
Room 891
Vaitay Streen. Nsw Ywfe 118S1
PtWOO (212) 063-0777
(516) 791-3444
August 1, 1980
Mr. Steven E. Starley
Airport Program Manager
Office of Noise Abatement £ Control
Environmental Protection Agency
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Building 2 - Crystal Mall
Washington, D. C. 204-60
Dear Mr. Starley:
The airlines serving the Delaware Valley Region, through Philadelphia
International Airport, have a major commitment to achieve noise abatement,
wherever possible, to reduce community noise impacts. I believe this is
obvious from our active participation on this study's Technical Advisory
Committee. These efforts are continuing, as noted by "Currently in
Effect" on two of the three high priority recommendations involving opera-
tions in the study document. The final high priority operational item,
Night Use of Runway 9R/27L, is being considered at this time for earliest
implementation by the users.
As part of our Technical Advisory Committee activities, we have reviewed
the July 1980 draft report to Congress. Several areas require clarification,
change or additional, comment.
The proposed limited Night Curfew was selected by the committee as a low
priority recommendation. Without any explanation it has been elevated for
primary consideration. This is totally inconsistent with the findings of
the committee as the meeting minutes and the committee's vote clearly show.
For example, the second paragraph on page 121 states, "Based upon the
majority and minority reports and the analyses developed by the EPA/FAA
study team, it is still clear that limited curfew and preferential runway
use constitute the primary avenues of noise control open to Philadelphia
International Airport." We submit that it is not clear that the limited
curfew is a primary avenue of noise control. It was not studied or analyzed,
and, in fact, the ccffimittee recommended it as a low priority proposal.
Unless corrected to reflect lack of analysis and the actual positions of
the committee memberships the discussion above of the curfew proposal is
entirely inaccurate.
E- 29
-------
-2-
A similar comment is made in the Executive Summary: "The detailed results
of these analyses are reported at great length herein, but,, in summary,
the most effective options for Philadelphia International Airport consist.
of restricting the numbers of nighttime operations (partial curfew) along
with a preferential runway use program to keep aircraft away from populated
areas." This too is incorrect and misleading and requires correction.
It has been and remains our position that the limited night curfew cannot
be accepted in any way by the air carriers, or, we believe, by the
passengers and shippers who depend on Philadelphia International Airport.
No curfew can be designed which does not have,at least, a serious adverse
economic impact on the region.
Several of the other recommendations listed as low priority: are questionable
at best, and could be, overall, more detrimental than beneficial. These
include Noise Distribution and The' River Approach. Extreme care must be used
•in any further discussion of these proposals to.insure that they are properly
evaluated before implementation is considered. Such a caveat should.be added
in the body of the study report.
We have appreciated the opportunity to participate in the study, but continue
to be deeply concerned over any suggestion that limited curfew can be a
workable proposal for noise abatement at Philadelphia International Airport.
L. Tondel, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen S Hamilton
M. A. Wolf, DVRPC
M. A. Verville, AIA Public Affairs Coordinator (NJ) (EA)
J. B. Reagan, Chairman PHL AAAC (TW)
S. J. Slade, AIA Public Affairs Coordinator (PA)(TO)
J. D. Collier, AIA/DCA
J. V. McGinn, ATA/DCA
Sincerely,
Einmett. N. O'Hare
Deputy Director
cc: E. W. Sellman, Chief Noise Technology Branch .
Office of Environment S Energy, FAA
E-30
-------
COUNCIL
CHARLES C. KEELER
Chairman
FAITH RYAN WHITTLESEY
VICE CHAIRMAN
HAROLD F. HAABESTAD, JR.
FRANK J. LYNCH
DENNIS J. ROCHFORD
COUNTY OF DELAWARE
CDURT H~US E
MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063
A C 21 5-B9I-23Q1
August 1, 1980
Office of the Planning Commission
THOMAS J. O'BRIEN
CHMRMIkN
THOMAS J, JUDGE
VICE CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM H. BATES
SECRETARY
Mr. Steven Starley
1419 Fallsmead Way
Potomac, Md0 20854
REF: Philadelphia International
Airport Noise Study
Dear Mr. Starley:
The Delaware County Planning Department has reviewed
the EPA/FAA report to Congress on the Philadelphia Interna-
tional Airport Noise Study, and we wish to submit the following
coimnents for your consideration. Our comments are divided
into general remarks on the nature of the study and re-
sulting document and specific comments concerning selected
alternatives.
STUDY/DOCUMENT COMMENTS
While this study did not employ an elaborate citizen
participation process, we were pleased to see that the
committee structure did contain a broad cross-section of
interest groups and that it seemed to function well. We
were especially pleased to see that our local municipal
representatives and citizen groups actively participated
since we gained valuable insights from them. In the future,
an attempt should be made to provide a mechanism to allow
this to happen in an on-going manner.
While we feel that the methodology used to develop the
study was basically sound, we would strongly suggest for any
future studies that every attempt be made to provide a time
frame for study such that the telephone hotline complaint
service and the community opinion survey can be conducted
over the summer months when airport noise impacts are most
critical.
E-31
-------
Page 2
Although we are generally satisfied with the content of
the document, we feel that its one major shortcoming is that
it does not identify any future course of action or set out
further steps toward implementation. The last paragraph of
the report alludes to the point that there should be further
action, but it gives no guidance to Congress as to its options.
If the advisory committee is to be continued through further
study and implementation, and we agree that it should, some
funding source and coordinative body must be identified to
support this activity.
SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE COMMENTS
9R-27L Departures and Arrivals at Night
We strongly urge the restriction on use of Runway 9R-27L
from 10 pm to 7 am to keep approaches from the west and de-
partures to the west further from Essington. Since the
airport does not operate near capacity during these hours,
this would seem to be an alternative that could be easily
implemented without creating complicated negative impacts
on existing operating procedures.
Sound Insula&ion of Buildings
We reoommend.that sound insulation of buildings be
actively pursued. We recognize that retrofitting existing
homes with adequate sound insulation will be a difficult and
expensive undertaking. However, we know that even with
improved technological developments leading toward reduced
airplane noise in the coming years, there will still be high
impact areas where jet noise will be a routine problem. We rec-
ommend-that EPA/FAA urge Congress to explore the funding
opportunities and institutional arrangements necessary to
provide-sound proofing to those high "target areas.
Since this is a nationwide problem involving a federally
funded system, we feel that it is appropriate that there be
a federal source of funding to address this problem. One
possible source of such funding might be the Airport-Airways
Trust Fund. Since this broadbased fund derives its revenues
from airport use, directing these funds toward the correction
of problems caused by this use seems reasonable. Therefore,
E-32
-------
sound proofing might be a viable use of these monies. Be-
cause it is difficult to lay the blame for the problem solely
on either the airport or the adjacent municipalities and
their residents, it would seem to be appropriate for both
bodies, to assume some responsibility in combatting the problem.
Perhaps this fund could be used to provide low interest loans
for sound proofing to residents in impact areas. This
would stretch the federal funds and would allow more people
to benefit from their availability.
In conjunction with this, EPA/FAA may want to take a
more active role in working closely with local municipalities
to encourage them to institute land use controls and building
code provisions sensitive to airport impacts.
Noise Monitoring
We also recommend that noise monitoring be further
explored. It is critical that the noise monitoring program
developed be one where the information gathered is acted upon
in an expeditious manner. We are sure that some noise
complaints and airport claims are not entirely valid. This
would iseem to be a good method of pinpointing the source of
those problems that are real and would get the airport and
its neighboring municipalities communicating so that they
could jointly address those problems that are correctable.
In this way, the number of problem events could be minimized.
Limited Curfew
While we recognize the serious economic considerations
involving a full night curfew, a limited curfew suggests the
potential fax striking a better trade-off between these nega-
tive economic impacts and the noise reduction that would
occur ^through implementation of this procedure. Although the
limited curfew was only judged a low priority by the committee,
we suspect that it may have ranked higher had noise contours
for this condition been developed. We feel the case was made
for a further analysis of this procedure and urge that this
be given a high priority for further study.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments.
Very truly yours,
Leon B. Levine, AICP
E-33 Director, DCPD
cc: EPA Boise Office
Michael Wolf
------- |