Overview
Citizens of the neighborhood willingly and with full knowledge bought property near an airport and learned to live with it. It was a small airport within a Town, unlikely to expand. It was between large airports in Dublin and in Roanoke. Rumors of expansion persisted for over 30 years. Lengthening the runway was again denied in public accounts by Mr. Ray Smoot in November, 2000. Mr. Huff, Town Manager, said in the same week that expansion was still in Tech plans.
In 2000 an Airport Authority was proposed for the Virginia Tech Airport. It was to be a legally formed body, approved by the state Legislature. The members would be Virginia Tech, the Town, the Town of Christiansburg, Montgomery County, and a representative elected by the just-listed groups. It was conceived as being similar to Water and Solid Waste Authorities. The University announcement is available.
Citizens within Airport Acres opposed the Authority and gained 120 signatures on petitions that they presented to the Town Council and to Montgomery County Board of Supervisors. Many public
5-minute statements were made by representatives of the neighborhood. The Board of Visitors approved Tech participation in the Authority on November 6, 2000. Letters from Giles and Forkner to Town Council, Mayor Hedgepeth, the Board of Supervisors, and Supervisor John Muffo are available.
Noise Abatement
Noise from the airport is likely to increase with successful promotion of aircraft activity to gain breakeven or a profitable condition for the Authority. A noise abatement program (study, with implementation) has been requested by the neighborhood of various government representatives.
One performance measure for overall FAA system success included in FAA planning documents is to count and report the number of homes and public buildings exposed to greater than a 65 Day-Night Level (DNL) in areas adjacent to airports.The number should be stable or decreasing.
A noise abatement program is likely to be a complex system with many objectives or goals and have more than the following expanded elements :
-
Aircraft
- Promotion of use of quiet craft (high bypass ratios and low velocity jets)
- Limitations on landing of recognizably noisy craft
- Require acoustically treated nacelles and ducts of locally housed and high-use craft
- Require noise suppression for on-board auxiliary power units
- Promote improved rotor and propeller aerodynamics for local craft
- Require noise supression for mechanical components (e.g., helicopter gear boxes)
- Tax rate differentials for craft with high noise production (e.g., encouraging steeper ascent and descent or reduced time for these operations (See US DOT P5630.1 Transportation Noise and its Control)
- Operations
- Restrict operations by type of craft
- Restrict operations by number of operations
- Restrict operations by time of day and special days (e.g., holidays)
- Require power cutback on takeoff or steep climbout depending on situation
- Require steep or multi-segment approach depending on flight conditions
- Require landing far from terminal, then taxi to terminal
- Require warmup tests be conducted far from the terminal within a noise buffered space
Maintenance
- Restrict engine "runups" during ground maintenance operations
- Maintain additional hardware for noise suppression (e.g., treated nacelles or auxiliary power-unit silencers)
- Route Location
- Demark routes on the ground to avoid overflight
- Avoid noise sensitive areas (Margaret Beeks School, etc.)
- Use noise insensitive areas for ascent and descent paths
- Landscape Architecture
- Acknowledge that environmental noise has a significant effect on the quality of life, even when the noise is not severe enough to induce medical of psychological symptoms in the people exposed to it.
- Shield airport surroundings from noise resulting from aircraft ground operations and surface vehicle operations
- Create wide planted strips as near the noise source as possible. A soft "forest" floor reduces the intensity of low frequency sounds. Leaves and stems help reduce noise levels by scattering high frequency sound waves. More than a few rows of trees are needed to substantially reduce noise pollution. They must be deciduous near the noise source, evergreen away from it, and in dense stands 16 feet wide. If wide strips are impossible, then constructed barriers with beautifications can be used to provide noise relief. However, constructed barriers, poorly planned, can increase noise levels. Trees at the crest of earthen barriers may scatter high frequency sounds down into the protected area behind the barrier.
- Integrate development of the Hubbard Street Extension with airport noise abatement . D.I. Cook and D.F. VanHaverbeke (another paper cited later) recommend (J. Soil and Water Cons Nov Dec 1972, p 259-261) planting 20-50 ft wide belts of trees and shrubs with the nearest edge of the belt within 20-50 feet from the center of the nearest traffic lane. Shrubs should be placed closest to the airport with backup rows of taller trees. They recommended evergreens for year around screening. A land form of 6-8 feet height was suggested for auto traffic buffering. It should be planted with dense shrubs in the front border to form a composite structure with a total height of at least 20 feet. A soft undersurface throughout the area was recommended to reduce reflected noise.
- Set in motion a series of tree and shrub replacements (e.g., from a specific nursery) as the plants age, change shape, and their noise-control effects change.
- Acknowledge that perception of noise and the evaluation of noise is psychological and can be influenced just as can the noise sources. Intensive study of research reports is needed for findings are counterintuitive, For example, perceived loudness of sounds tended to increase as the amount of vegetation visible in the sites increased. Perceptions of noise are related to past experience expectations and visual cues. There is an interaction between acoustic and other features of the environment that modifies the effect of different sounds. Noise is unwanted sound and thus it has personal dimensions. There can be group decisions about what is "unwanted".
 |
| From Wisconsin Cons. Bulletin, May-June, 1974 |
Rate citizen perception of noise to establish a base line and evaluate changes in it over time resulting from changes in noise sources and efforts to influence landscape architecture, insulations, etc. Anderson et al. found jets passing overhead had a noise rating of 3.4 (a scale of 1 as most detracting to 8 most enhancing). Jets taxiing and takeoff had a rating of 2.8. Songbirds were rated 6.5. Use recent research on heart stress from noise to establish recommendations.
The cost of lowering noise levels is great, but so too is their threat to public health, welfare, and the quality of life in the neighborhood and Town. Citizens in cooperation with the airport and law enforcement groups need to work to avoid exceeding Aircraft noise standards, both Composite Noise Ratings (CNR) and NEF (Noise Exposure Forecast). Work with the policies and concepts of J.F. Miller ( formerly Director, Division of Environmental Planning, HUD and Clarence F. Nelson, Env. Clearance Officer, HUD, 701 E. Franklin St., Richmond, Va 23219 in the 1970s) seems reasonable.Paradis, R.F. (NTIS AD-A054 182 - Dollars per decibel, a commonsense approach to evaluating noise reduction alternatives, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk) seems a useful guide for cost control.
- Acoustic Insulation
- Modify building codes so that all construction within the high aircraft noise contours must include noise insulation
- Provide barriers in areas for aircraft runups
- Add protection to schools and public buildings
- Develop incentive programs (financial etc.) for home owners to add insulation.
- Provide information to citizens on best current materials and practices for noise insulation
- Land Use Restrictions
- Rezone areas within the noise contours of the airport, giving additional restrictions to the conventional zone designations
- Clarify and publish HUD and other federal and state laws related to loans possibale within noise zones.
- Publish summaries and abstracts of current studies on the effects of noise pollution on relevant human and livestock health.
References
Anderson, L.M., B.E. Mulligan, and L.S. Goodman. 1984. Effects of vegetation on human response to sound, J. Arboriculture 10(2):45-49
Anderson,L.M. , B.E. Mulligan, L.S. Goodman, and H.Z. Regen. Effects of sound on preferences for outdoor settings. Environemnt and Behavior 15(5):539-566.
Cook, D.I. and D.F. VanHaverbeke. 1977. Surban noise control with plant materials and solid barriers, Res. Bul EM 100, Rocky Mt. Forest and Range Exp. Sta., and Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, 74pp.
