The Future Airport Acres Neighborhood
Year 2001

Email from Giles to Neighborhood, Nov 1, 2000 (about 22 addresses available)

I met with Dr. Howard Swingle at the airport last week for about an hour. It was a pleasant conversation in which told him of some of the concerns of the people of the Airport Acres neighborhood and asked about the planned NASA "smart planes" project. He was very informative and I suspect that he would meet with us to repeat or clarify things in this note. I am sending the note to him, partially to be sure I am correct and partially to try to encourage open comminication about problems and imagined problems. Perhaps some of them can be solved or dismissed before they really start.

A project to study whether small private aircraft can be fitted with modern high-technology navigation aids is being coordinated by and funding sought by the University through the efforts of Dr. Swingle. The project is not yet approved or funded. Three sites are being studied for use together - Manassas, Newport News, and Blacksburg. This is a research project. It is likely that standard instruments and new or prototype equipment would be in the same craft and comparisons made. The end results would be small aircarft with greater navigation ability, greater safety (night and bad weather), and more information for the pilots about their exact location to reduce risks and conflicts with other craft. Another potential result would be that small private craft could increase the speed of travel (time now slowing --time to Roanoke, waiting time, flight time, time to unload, etc. --) thus aircraft would become like taxi-service. "Call" on the internet, arrange a local personal pickup, and fly safely to a business or other destination.

My previous impressions and fears were dissolved. The project,not yet approved and very uncertain is not connected with the discussions of the Airport Authority, is a research project, and while there will be extra flights if the project is approved, they will be few and of the types now common at the airport. There will be no need for runway expansion for this project. If commercial activity for small craft results (that for craft carrying fewer than 10 people), that will have to be faced by the airport for emergency services, fire, etc. The activity will strengthen the grounds for the authority in terms of fuel use and sales.

Our conversations went to the problems now faced by the neighborhood. Some might be reduced by construction and plantings associated with the proposed Hubbard Road Extension. Most important, it seems that a noise abatement strategy needs to be pushed for the present airport and for the airport under the Authority that must have far greater activity than at present if it is to breakeven and not continue its $140,000 deficit.

I attended the work session of the Town Council on Monday, Oct 30 12:30 to 1:45 and learned that several members of council expressed concern for the neighborhood (Rordam and Sherman), several expressed awareness that the decision would affect the entire Town (though that was not specific), and Mr. Chandler argued for a business plan "before" we hire a manager and join. Others seemed to be moving ahead as if the manager would prepare the business plan, and carry the legal documents to Richmond to get the Authority approved. (It is now clear to me that some members of Town Council want the Authority and will weight that desire over any "facts" to the contrary. Others seem to be open and want to see all sides of the question. Since Christiansburg and the County have voted to join the Authority, the Town Council is in a squeeze play which some members now recognize -- an Authority over land within their boundary and they do not have a membership???

Having "some say" seems like a a good arguement for joining the Authority but one vote in a block of 4, one of which is the University, suggests not much say. A citizens advisory group was suggested and that might be considered for the future and strongly advocated as part of the legal documents taken to Richmond.(I'll share my attitude about that in private.)

I regret the length of this note. I hope it is helpful.

I am herewith requesting Dr. Swingle to email all of you any comments and clarifications and corections to the above. He has been most cooperative and I am sure will be of help in the future.

Mayor Hedgepeth (and copy to Board of Supervisors, Nov 5, 2000

Dear Mayor Hedgepeth:

Your caution and that of your Council colleagues in entering the Airport Authority pleases me. I support the efforts of Mr. Chandler and others to have a business plan completed before the decision is made to enter the Authority. Such a plan, if it were to show how difficult it is to break even or gain a profit, would certainly deserve a negative vote by the Town and others to form such an authority. Evident difficulty will make it almost impossible to attract a reputable airport manager. There seems to be a widespread assumption that the airport can make money, thus the haste to form the authority. There is evidence from similar general aviation airports how difficult (and often impossible) that this is to achieve. The large current deficit spending, itself, suggests the difficulty.

You know from my letter and 5-minute presentation to Council wha are my grounds for opposing the Town entering the Authority. The Authority and its essential results which will be expanded activity, has put a pall over the neighborhood. The prospect of increased activity now requires property sellers in the neighborhood to tell of the pending changes,one of which is that likely noise level changes alter the conditions for gaining housing loans near the airport.

I shall communicate with Mr. Dan Siegel (dsiegel@sandsanderson.com) about the document that he may be preparing for the state legislature. This work seems premature to having the business plan and presumably having information of a positive financial nature for the Authority. From past experiences, I know that once papers of almost any type are prepared and filed, projects take on a life of their own and turning back or stopping is many time more difficult than going ahead. "Continuing to discuss" allows paper work and progression ... so stopping is almost impossible. Picking up momentum is the desire of some, I recognize.

Since the work of Mr. Siegel will probably be protected from public comment or only brief periods scheduled for such comment, I appeal to you to have him and his company consider including within his document the following:

1. Provisions for a citizen advisory group that may have a representative in all dealings of the Authority, including executive sessions.

2. Provisions for the Town having a majority vote (a count, perhaps 1 per member but 2-3 for the Town) as the entity most negatively affected by the airport development to a stage of break-even financial status.

3. That the legislature commission the VDoA to develop report with budget, for a sound, full-scale noise abatement program for this airport, and that software developed for this purpose be made available for other General Aviation Airports. The report with maps of the airport and noise contour lines (the noise "footprint") should be made available to all citizens on the Internet.

4. That state taxes be reduced by a reasonable amount (determined by the Authority) for all people establishing that they live a majority of the time each day within the high-decibel contour lines and flight path of the airport.

5. That the Town can leave the Authority if clear evidence is available that financial deficits are not likely to be substantially reduced within 3 years and that there is little likelihood that sufficient gains can be made by the end of 5 years to prevent the equivalent of bankruptcy for the Authority.

6. That all participants in the authority participate as financial equals (I hear that the University does not want to charge use fees for visitors - an increase in such fees being cited as one of the few ways that income can be produced (and, possibly, one reason for the current deficit).

7. That all partners share in the redistribution of all assets of the airport at the end of 30 years if the Authority should disband. The Council was told that all would revert to the University (an untenable condition in which the university or collaborator might be suspected of working against the success of the Authority so that land and property can be regained). If this is a 30-year rental of the University (State) property (the area within the airport fence), then it should be called that. Then different use of the airport can be negotiated as a simple long-term lease arrangement for two towns and a county and business partners to see if they can make some money and provide citizen services by collecting money from users. Then they together can pay fees to the university and others for use of the property. They might build hangers with public bond funds, then sell them to the landlord when the lease runs out or when they decide that they cannot afford the effort any longer.

8. Assure taxpayers that within in the legislation for the Authority as presented to legislators, that the services proposed for the expanded airport activity do not now violate any state or federal laws. This provision will supercede any "grandfather" provisions on-going within the present airport, things now violated but tolerated. but then continued within the new, expanded activity of the lower-deficit airport.

9. Similarly, assure taxpayers in the "resolution" for the Authority as presented to legislators, that the services proposed for the expanded airport activity do not significantly detract from the financial successes of the Roanoke airport, heavily subsidized by taxes, and the financial successes of the Dublin airport. The location and expanded activity (essential for financial break-even) assure some losses accruing to these two airports. The legislators having these airports in their areas need to have firm estimates of the impacts to the people in their area from the expanded airport (not the now-trivial effects of its presence).

10. Denote very specifically that lengthening the airport runway is not a part of the authorization of the Authority. That the university "has it in its plan" or that it has had such unjustified development there for many years is not formal, official, or approved, and needs to be kept separate from any formation of an Authority. If perceived as essential, the Authority might later decide about such development, now said by local authorities not to be needed for the aircraft now using or contemplated to use the airport.

I hope that you will relay these issues to your attorney. I share them as a concerned citizen, one who is easily discounted because of living near the airport, but nevertheless one very concerned as and taxpayer and for the quality of life here. I have not yet begun to voice my environmental concerns. I hope that by early correspondence such as this we can avoid difficulties later.

Call anytime 552-8672. Care for a brief stroll around the neighborhood to get a better sense of citizen concerns?

This is a personal letter, not reflecting any organized group. Several of us do, however, get together irregularly to discuss this issue. I hope that you will help clarify it as appropriate for Mr. Siegel and Town Council. I am sure Del. Shuler will want to see which of the above items have been omitted from materials filed by Mr. Siegel.

RH Giles

To Perkins and Muffo, Nov 7, 2000

Now that the Airport Authority seems likely (although I still oppose it), perhaps you will consider:

1 - a visit with me and a few other neighbors for a stroll around the Airport Acres neighborhood (say at lunch or as you leave for the evening. Maximum time will be 30 minutes or your choice. Of course other Supervisors are welcome.)

2 - becoming leaders of a positive project for a state- or federally-sponsored project that would design a specific noise abatement program for this airport. A start before the Authority is formalized might be a good idea.

3 - staying attuned to the Hubbard Road extension (between the airport and Airport Acres neighborhood) soon to be presented in a public hearing by VDoT. Many people here oppose it also. Nevertheless, it might become a beautifully landscaped road for the university, a vital part of the noise abatement program for the airport, a new set of energy conservation applications, and a pleasant road for county residents and university employees entering and leaving the campus.

I hope that I can answer questions that you may have and work together for the good of this Airport Acres neighborhood and the people of the Town and County.

RHGiles

Letter to Town Council from Stephen R. Forkner, P.E. [SMTP:sforkner@swva.net] Tuesday, November 9, 2000

I have several issues that should be addressed by Town Council prior to joining an Airport Authority.

1) NOISE exposure from an airport operation. It is my understanding that the Town of Blacksburg has a noise ordinance that pertains to amplified noise. I consider aviation noise to be amplified noise. One definition of amplified "To make larger or stronger; increase or extend (power, authority, etc.)." Amplified noise is not just through an amplifier on a stereo. Nov 6th at 5:30 am, I was awakened to the amplified noise of a plane taking off. There have been several times on a Saturday morning in which I could not talk to my wife because the Gyrocopter was flying over an "open field" and my wife was only 10 feet away. Also, we've had to tell people who call us that we'll have to call them back due to Gyrocopter amplified noise.

2) What are the effects of aviation noise? Part of the FAA's Charter / Scope is to assure safety and promote civil aviation which includes addressing the problem of aircraft noise annoyance. The FAA did a study in 1985 on airport noise. "Aviation Noise Effects" (www.nonoise.org/library/ane/ane.htm) From this report, the effects of aviation noise are annoyance, speech interference, sleep interference, hearing damage risk, physiological (cardiovascular and circulatory) problems, psychological (intense annoyance) problems, social behavioral problems, real estate values, land use, wildlife, farm animals, etc.

3) Land use Compatibility. The study by the FAA highly recommends that the area around the airport have Land use compatibility plans. The land use compatibility plan depends on the noises levels, or noise contours around the airport as shown below.

Land Use	Below 65	65-70	70-75	75=80	80-85
Residence	Y	N(1)	N(1)	N	N
Schools	Y	N(1)	N(1)	N	N
Offices	Y	Y	NLR25	N	N
Hospitals	Y	Y	NLR25	NLR30	N

(1) If the community determines that residences or schools uses must be included. Local building codes should include noise level reductions NLR of 25 and 30.

I would like to remind Town Council that most of this land is already planned or developed without noise level reductions in the construction.

4) Both the Department of HUD and VA have regulations that prohibit assistance with loans and new construction when within the 75 DNL (Day Night Levels) noise contour and strongly discourage assistance if with in the 65 dBA noise contour.

5) I OVERLAID ON A map of the Town of Blacksburg possible noise contour lines based on a point source being the present airport TERMINAL with no baffling. Areas within the possible 85 dBA contour include Stroubles Mill, Hethwood, Foxridge, VT Campus, Deercroft, Highland Park, the town library, the hospital, Warm Hearth, etc. Margaret Beeks and Kipps Elem. School and the future BMS are possible within the 90 dBA contour (hearing loss starts at prolong exposure to 85 dBA). The closest homes in the Airport Acre's neighborhood would approach the 105 dBA contour.

6) Disclosure at time of property purchase? The present property owners will be required to disclose information to potential buyer about what noise contour line they live within. ALMOST EVERYONE WITHIN THE TOWN OF BLACKSBURG LIES WITHIN THE 65 dBA CONTOUR LINE (based on worst conditions). Also property owners will be required to disclose if they are in the emergency fuel dump zone of an airport. Everyone within the Stroubles Mill, Foxridge, Hethwood, etc. areas would have to disclose that they are within the emergency FUEL DUMP zone. This will without a doubt effect property values for EVERYONE in the Town of Blacksburg.

(There is a difference between DNL and dBA. The DNL level is a weighted average of use so is highly dependant on use and aircraft.)

Whether the Town of Blacksburg is a member of the proposed Airport Authority or not, the Town Council should take strong steps to protect the residents and their property values. This should include that no aircraft be allowed to land or takeoff from the airport which has a noise foot print that would adversely effect any town resident. I suggest that the noise levels should be 65 dBA daytime and 55 dBA night time (not DNL). The noise levels should be at the property line, not inside the home or office. This way we can also enjoy the outdoors.

Stephen R. Forkner
604 Rose Ave
Blacksburg, VA 24060 File: ATT00001.htm

Email Letter to Tom Sherman, Town Council, Nov 10, 2000

Tom:

I'll try to work with you and Council in any way that I can. Please try to understand...

As a child I had a friend whose mother would say "That was bad! Go get me a switch, a good one! I'll teach you a lesson." I still cringe on remembering the dissonance.

I have the same feeling about the authority. I'm being asked by you and the Mayor to work for it while I perceive it is likely to expand airport activity and destroy my "place", the Airport Acres neighborhood of 30 years.

I understand your attitude about "having our say" but (1) I've read for years the literature on public participation in natural resource problem solving, (2) participated in the Town planning commission, (3) served the State Corp Commission legal staff in a powerline location controversy, (4) and chaired a citizens group for years advising the US Forest Service. The evidence is now overpowering for me. Even under the best conditions it only works on small areas on small topics. It is not worth the enormous effort. Its failure has led to reliance on court action.

Locally 120 signatures from the neighborhood, letters, and oral presentations had no noticeable effect on action about the authority. I think this is evidence for what will likely happen in the future when citizns, formally or otherwise, attempt to address a small, diverse voting group, the authority. The authority will hate a citizens' advisory group. It will be deadly, for it will always be negative because, loyal to their neighbors and the Town, it will always be opposing expansion. To the contrary, in a positive mode, it will be advocating "excessively" costly improvements (for safety, noise abatement, emergency preparedness, etc.), and proposing new ordinances.

This all sounds negative,so I'm trying to be positive in requesting work on noise abatement (whether there is an authority or not.) The authority is a ball rolling down hill and impossible to stop now so I'll stop complaining about it. Tech has pulled in the needed players. The Town has to join. It is a good idea for Tech with bad consequences for the town, the reputation of the Authority members, the social well-being of advisors to the authority, and the vitality of a neighborhood of the Town.

The formation of the Authority (the legal dimensions) seems worthy of comment and so I have asked the mayor to share my ideas with your legal council (Mr. Siegel) who is drafting legislation for the authority. Sharing ideas now seems positive to me, i.e., to comment now rather than being negative later and trying to edit a document in some public hearing (about which you now know my attitude), a hearing which probably wont be held because of the unusual nature of the document.

What little I know of political interplay is that there are pros and cons voiced. Many decisions are made in the midst of the stated extremes. I presume that you see my comments being on the negative extreme. This is not a game for me. I do not enjoy writing or speaking about the airport authority but doing so may help you and others achieve a more balanced view than Tech and others suggest and make a more central decision.

To participate positively in the authority is for me a demand "to go get me a good switch" - self destructive.

There are hard decisions ahead. With sympathy...

Bob (R.H. Giles, 504 Rose Ave.)

Letters Relating to Hubbard Road Extension

Letter to Highway Dept 10/13/2000

To: Mr Brugh,Resident Engineer, VDoT and Others Involved in the Proposed Hubbard Road Extension, Blacksburg

I hear that a hearing will soon be scheduled on the Hubbard Road extension, Blacksburg. I oppose the road but I hear that comments on that are no longer appropriate. Given that a road will be built, I hope that you will see that the following comments are entered into that hearing-record or that they are considered before that hearing. If for some legal reason about the timing of my writing that these comments are unacceptable, please let me know so that I can submit them again at the proper time.

I am a citizen of Blacksburg, residing at 504 Rose Ave within the neighborhood called Airport Acres directly affected by the road. Most public participation hearings are stressful and often the full message of each participant is not presented, heard, or recorded. I request that all of the following suggestions (perhaps working with the Town engineers) be included in your work orders for the road and roadway. I shall welcome comments about why some are unacceptable. These are suggested to reduce the great, negative effects of the extension on the neighborhood. The neighborhood and your proposed road are is now under the new harmful influences of proposed expanded Virginia Tech airport activity.

The suggestions for the Road extension and its right of way are:

1. Generally, have the centerline as far from the Airport Acres neighborhood as possible and as close to the airport runway as possible.

2. Establish a low speed limit.

3. Prevent use of the road by trucks

4. Establish a park-and-bike area for university students and employees, at least parking slots along the right of way for hikers.

5. Have electronic speed signs that can be changed for events and road safety

6. Improve the sharp turn at the southern end of Airport Road at the airport fence (at least banked and curbed to reduce road noise)

7. Have portions of the roadway below grade to provide earthen buffers to road noise

8. Have tall 45-degree curbs to deflect the road noise (if recent studies now state these to be ineffective, then use the preferred noise abatement alternative). (In the neighborhood, road noise seems trivial but here noise is a cumulative problem, interspersed with the atrocious uncontrolled airport noises)

9. Have an earthen sound barrier to protect the Airport Acres neighborhood from road noise

10. Plant advanced-age shrubs in multiple rows to provide a visual barrier from the road and the Airport Acres neighborhood. We are aware that there will be little impairment of the road noises.

11. Have a marked bike lane along the road with grassed shoulder next to Airport Acres

12. Provide bikeway connections to the Airport Acres neighborhood and other key points

13. Have access to the Huckleberry Trail

14. Have easy access to hikers and bikers going to and from the University and neighborhood along the roadway

15. Have paved turnouts for airplane watching

16. Have low-height (parkway) road-directed lighting (not tall pole lights)

17. Place at least 2 lighted emergency phones along the road

18. Create pre-formed access to the planned fire station to reduce costs and delays when it is built. This should include wiring and warning signs and lights and stop lights protecting truck exits from the building

19. Create many runways, ramps, gates and entrances from the road to the airport for emergency vehicles needed to respond to accidents in the expanded aircraft activity zone

20. Provide garden spots along the road, some fenced vegetable gardens available for community groups and people in the neighborhood

21. Develop in the right of way a leaf mulch composting area. (See Dr. Larry Bechtel and others in the University). This area can reduce haulage time and costs to the Town and may result in a product that can be used to enhance the proposed park-like quality of the road extension and the neighborhood.

22. Plant a variety of appropriate-for-the-climate-and-soil trees and flowering shrubs to achieve a lane of great tree and shrub diversity, a linear arboretum

23. Demonstrate efficient engineered structural provisions for snow removal, a procedure that is cost effective and does not damage the structures of the road, edge plantings, lights, signs, etc. It must provide for melt water runoff and control of contained salts and toxins.

24. Provide superior storm water control (both quantity and quality - salts, mercury, road toxins) for waters from the road surface to protect the riparian area toward and within the Roanoke River

25. Create a well-regulated system for traffic control

1. That speeds traffic to the university in the morning (and athletic events and graduation)
2. That speeds traffic from the central campus in the evenings and special events
3. That has multi-lane directional traffic control with lane closures to expedite the timely flow of peak traffic situations (e.g., athletic events)
4. That has automatic radio-controlled stoplights, speed-sign control, and gate opening for fire and emergency vehicles from the Town and Airport
5. That has superior stoplight controls where the extension joins the major university grounds
6. That has superior signing at the university junction

26. Protect the existing road-endings (e.g., DeHart, Rose, etc.) near the proposed extension.

27. Expand park and small play areas in the right of way zone for the neighborhood and university students (e.g., small soccer practice areas; lighted and flooded ice-skating and warm-weather skating areas; new-sport areas)

I have discussed the following issues with only some of my neighbors but I believe that you will find that some of them have similar views. This, however is a letter from a single citizen. If necessary, I'll translate these suggestions into "issues" or into "goals/objectives" that are now included within the draft Plan Supplement (now being developed for the Airport Acres neighborhood) to the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Blacksburg.

Sincerely yours,
Bob Giles (540-552-8672)