News

Rep. Jackie Speier looks to lower airplane noise with 5 bills

Congresswoman proposes legislation to allow airports to impose curfews, include noise-related health impacts in evaluation criteria for new flights

Responding to growing concerns about airplane noise, U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier has proposed a series of bills that would allow airports to restrict flight times, require the Federal Aviation Administration to give greater primacy to noise impacts when developing flight routes and procedures and allow local communities to have a significant say in developing flight plans.

The bills, which are co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jimmy Panetta, were introduced last month to address the rapid spikes in complaints about airplane noise throughout the region. The problem became acute in 2014, when the FAA rolled out its NextGen program, which created new routes and concentrated many flights in what some have referred to as aerial "super highways." Residents who live under those route paths and waypoints, including those in Palo Alto, Woodside and Portola Valley, have since reported a significant rise in airplane noise.

"The nonstop noise from flights is seriously affecting residents' sleep, mental health, and overall quality of life," Speier said in a statement. "There is a certain expectation for noise when living near an airport, but this crosses a line. Residents who are at their wits' end have used every available public channel to address this issue to no avail. Our legislation would create new pathways for change and improve overalls responsiveness by the FAA — a public agency that has a responsibility to be accountable to the people."

One of the new bills, known as the Restore Everyone's Sleep Tonight Act, would allow airports to impose access restrictions for certain hours and to assess penalties against air carriers that fail to meet the curfew. Another, called the Fairness in Airspace Includes Residents Act, would include health impacts as a priority in developing flight plans. While the safety of the aircraft would remain the primary issue, the act would establish two co-equal secondary priorities: the efficient use of airspace, and "the minimization of the impact of aviation noise, and other health impacts, on residents and communities, and other impacts of the use of airspace on the environment."

Three other bills aim to make it easier for legislators and residents to get information from the FAA and to provide feedback on new policies. The All Participating in Process Reaching Informed Solutions for Everyone Act directs the FAA administrator to ensure that aviation roundtables be allowed to appoint a representative to working groups involved in NextGen. These representatives, according to the bill, would be able to participate "on the same terms and conditions as a representative of the industry, an airport, or a participating proponent of a procedure."

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

The Responsive Employees Support Productive Educated Congressional Talk Act would require FAA staff to respond to members of Congress regarding flight procedures affecting their district within 90 days. The Notified Officials to Inform Fully Impel Educated Decisions Act would require the FAA to notify local governments about new or modified flight paths.

While the issue of airplane noise has been on Palo Alto's radar for years, the city is one of several in the region that has struggled to make headway with the FAA on the topic. In June, the council considered suing the FAA over its flight plans. But despite pleas from dozens of residents, some of whom argued that the city has become a "trash heap" and a "dumping ground" for FAA's noise pollution, the council ultimately opted not to move ahead with the lawsuit. Instead, much like in April 2018, when it had similarly considered litigation, the council agreed to pursue regional partnerships on the issue and to continue its lobbying efforts.

Mountain View is one of a dozen cities that are participating in the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Community Roundtable, an organization that aims to foster "collaboration and resolution" on aircraft noise. Other cities involved in the roundtable, which is open to any city in the two counties, are Capitola, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Saratoga and Sunnyvale.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Rep. Jackie Speier looks to lower airplane noise with 5 bills

Congresswoman proposes legislation to allow airports to impose curfews, include noise-related health impacts in evaluation criteria for new flights

by Gennady Sheyner and Bay City News Service /

Uploaded: Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 9:18 am

Responding to growing concerns about airplane noise, U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier has proposed a series of bills that would allow airports to restrict flight times, require the Federal Aviation Administration to give greater primacy to noise impacts when developing flight routes and procedures and allow local communities to have a significant say in developing flight plans.

The bills, which are co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jimmy Panetta, were introduced last month to address the rapid spikes in complaints about airplane noise throughout the region. The problem became acute in 2014, when the FAA rolled out its NextGen program, which created new routes and concentrated many flights in what some have referred to as aerial "super highways." Residents who live under those route paths and waypoints, including those in Palo Alto, Woodside and Portola Valley, have since reported a significant rise in airplane noise.

"The nonstop noise from flights is seriously affecting residents' sleep, mental health, and overall quality of life," Speier said in a statement. "There is a certain expectation for noise when living near an airport, but this crosses a line. Residents who are at their wits' end have used every available public channel to address this issue to no avail. Our legislation would create new pathways for change and improve overalls responsiveness by the FAA — a public agency that has a responsibility to be accountable to the people."

One of the new bills, known as the Restore Everyone's Sleep Tonight Act, would allow airports to impose access restrictions for certain hours and to assess penalties against air carriers that fail to meet the curfew. Another, called the Fairness in Airspace Includes Residents Act, would include health impacts as a priority in developing flight plans. While the safety of the aircraft would remain the primary issue, the act would establish two co-equal secondary priorities: the efficient use of airspace, and "the minimization of the impact of aviation noise, and other health impacts, on residents and communities, and other impacts of the use of airspace on the environment."

Three other bills aim to make it easier for legislators and residents to get information from the FAA and to provide feedback on new policies. The All Participating in Process Reaching Informed Solutions for Everyone Act directs the FAA administrator to ensure that aviation roundtables be allowed to appoint a representative to working groups involved in NextGen. These representatives, according to the bill, would be able to participate "on the same terms and conditions as a representative of the industry, an airport, or a participating proponent of a procedure."

The Responsive Employees Support Productive Educated Congressional Talk Act would require FAA staff to respond to members of Congress regarding flight procedures affecting their district within 90 days. The Notified Officials to Inform Fully Impel Educated Decisions Act would require the FAA to notify local governments about new or modified flight paths.

While the issue of airplane noise has been on Palo Alto's radar for years, the city is one of several in the region that has struggled to make headway with the FAA on the topic. In June, the council considered suing the FAA over its flight plans. But despite pleas from dozens of residents, some of whom argued that the city has become a "trash heap" and a "dumping ground" for FAA's noise pollution, the council ultimately opted not to move ahead with the lawsuit. Instead, much like in April 2018, when it had similarly considered litigation, the council agreed to pursue regional partnerships on the issue and to continue its lobbying efforts.

Mountain View is one of a dozen cities that are participating in the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Community Roundtable, an organization that aims to foster "collaboration and resolution" on aircraft noise. Other cities involved in the roundtable, which is open to any city in the two counties, are Capitola, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Saratoga and Sunnyvale.

Comments

MV resident
Old Mountain View
on Dec 28, 2019 at 11:06 pm
MV resident, Old Mountain View
on Dec 28, 2019 at 11:06 pm

I'm cautiously optimistic. I'll be watching this closely.


Robyn
another community
on Dec 30, 2019 at 2:22 pm
Robyn, another community
on Dec 30, 2019 at 2:22 pm

Is there any mention of safety?
People who move into property in close proximity to an airport and flight paths should expect the foreseeable/fore"hear"able sound that comes with engine power.
There was study several years ago for LAX that produced fried eggs and footprints for a visual depiction of aircraft noise near landing spots.
This is simply activity for the bureaucrats and will produce nothing but wasted air.
How much attention is paid to the noise produced by trains all day and all night long? Instead of noise suppression walls, wire fences appeared recently along the local tracks.


@Robyn
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2019 at 2:45 pm
@Robyn, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2019 at 2:45 pm

“ Is there any mention of safety?”
Why comment on an article you clearly have not read? Of course it is mentioned and under the proposed legislation would remain the top priority.

“ People who move into property in close proximity to an airport and flight paths should expect the foreseeable/fore"hear"able sound that comes with engine power.”

What is “close proximity”? I moved five miles away from Moffet Airfield, but I was OK with the flight paths at the time. With “NextGen”, they changed the flight paths so that if there is any sort of weather, most traffic into SJC is routed over my house! They also lowered the altitude of the jets, so not only are they coming every 2-3 minutes, they are much, much louder.


Robyn
another community
on Dec 30, 2019 at 3:17 pm
Robyn, another community
on Dec 30, 2019 at 3:17 pm

They say so but the bulk of the article deals with other topics.
Safety controls the routes you mention, ie. "any sort of weather", and lower altitudes may have to do with aircraft separation, which is a safety issue.
The fact that people view Palo Alto as a trash heap has more to do with the increased population than aircraft traffic.
It will be interesting to hear the noise complaints from the residents in the new tall buildings along the approach pattern to San Jose.


@Robyn
Rengstorff Park
on Dec 30, 2019 at 10:21 pm
@Robyn, Rengstorff Park
on Dec 30, 2019 at 10:21 pm

“People who move into property in close proximity to... flight paths“

People did not move into property in proximity to flight paths. The fight paths moved into proximity of the property.

NextGen had nothing to do with enhancing the safety of flight paths. It was done to improve the fuel efficiency of flight paths, and done without any regard to the impact to communities around the new flight paths. Cities have successfully sued the FAA and gotten them to revert to the pre-nextgen paths.

“Safety controls the routes you mention, ie. "any sort of weather", and lower altitudes may have to do with aircraft separation..”
Nope. Safety does not. Fuel economy does. There is no need to speculate or try to justify the current routes, as it’s well documented why the FAA did what it did (and what it failed to take into account). The pre-nextgen routes were perfectly safe without generating the noise issues we currently have.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.